The final position is this: Tories have a comfortable majority in Parliament plus apparently they have the backing of their lackeys, the DUP.
So they can pass whatever deal they come back with. They cannot blame others for bringing back a bad deal and then expect them to support it. You have enough votes !
Leavers are forever telling us that there was no Leave manifesto (note: there was) so it's up to the government to deliver Brexit. Likewise, it is up to the opposition, or any political party, to put forward their version of Brexit.
There can be no "but that's not what the voters meant" from either side.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Mr. Surbiton, Starmer wants the Moon on a stick. Labour seem to have flipped from between being right behind the Government to wanting to frustrate the result of the referendum.
Bollocks.
Labour stood by the A50 trigger because that was the instruction from the people, albeit barely 51.8 - 48.2. However, the people voted for nothing else and therefore Labour have no further "instructions" from the people.
Labour must follow what it's own voters want - which to stay in the single market and the customs union, ensure workers rights are not watered down.
Totally agree Sir Keir Starmer looks PM material .He has the gravitas Labour need .
No, at best he is a poor man's Kinnock and that is being generous! He has also just thrown back the votes of millions of Labour Leave voters in their faces
He is not Kinnock who could speak with passion and move the faithfull .He looks a serious manager in turbulent times and could reassure people with an open mind to consider Labour.
No, you are right, that was unfair on Kinnock who as far as I know never said 2+2=5 as Starmer effectively has today
The PM’s foray northwards is for show but it is not trivial. It’s all part of Theresa May’s resolve to be infuriatingly reasonable towards the Scottish Nationalists. Grievances are the carbohydrates of nationalism; eliminate them and the body grinds to a halt.
Mrs May will meet Nicola Sturgeon, brief her on the UK Government’s next moves in the Brexit process, be updated on the latest complaint from Bute House (‘And how come they’ve never made Irn-Bru tablet on the Bake Off?’), and smile politely, even when she’s served lukewarm tea in a chipped mug and a lonely finger of Tesco’s extra value shortbread.
Mrs May will go through this risible ritual, returning girn with grace and provocation with resolve, in the knowledge that the slightest slip will be seized for kindling on the SNP’s eternal bonfire of petulance.
Oh dear another bitter twisted male version of Carlotta spouting drivel, pass the sick bucket.
I fear Daisley writes with a fountain pen and hemlock ink !
Writes very poorly as well Calum. Would not be so bad if some sense to it but that vapid mince , making out the "too wee too poor" mantra with chipped cup/extra value shortbread is pretty pathetic even for a cretin like him. Not funny and manages to insult just about everybody.
The PM’s foray northwards is for show but it is not trivial. It’s all part of Theresa May’s resolve to be infuriatingly reasonable towards the Scottish Nationalists. Grievances are the carbohydrates of nationalism; eliminate them and the body grinds to a halt.
Mrs May will meet Nicola Sturgeon, brief her on the UK Government’s next moves in the Brexit process, be updated on the latest complaint from Bute House (‘And how come they’ve never made Irn-Bru tablet on the Bake Off?’), and smile politely, even when she’s served lukewarm tea in a chipped mug and a lonely finger of Tesco’s extra value shortbread.
Mrs May will go through this risible ritual, returning girn with grace and provocation with resolve, in the knowledge that the slightest slip will be seized for kindling on the SNP’s eternal bonfire of petulance.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
And if anyone, Leave or Remain, was unaware that the EU was and is a political project, should not have been entitled to vote.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
So has Western civilisation ended yet? Or do we have to wait until A50 has been triggered?
The PM’s foray northwards is for show but it is not trivial. It’s all part of Theresa May’s resolve to be infuriatingly reasonable towards the Scottish Nationalists. Grievances are the carbohydrates of nationalism; eliminate them and the body grinds to a halt.
Mrs May will meet Nicola Sturgeon, brief her on the UK Government’s next moves in the Brexit process, be updated on the latest complaint from Bute House (‘And how come they’ve never made Irn-Bru tablet on the Bake Off?’), and smile politely, even when she’s served lukewarm tea in a chipped mug and a lonely finger of Tesco’s extra value shortbread.
Mrs May will go through this risible ritual, returning girn with grace and provocation with resolve, in the knowledge that the slightest slip will be seized for kindling on the SNP’s eternal bonfire of petulance.
Oh dear another bitter twisted male version of Carlotta spouting drivel, pass the sick bucket.
I fear Daisley writes with a fountain pen and hemlock ink !
But he does write very well.....even if the content is not to your taste....
LOL, who would have thought you would love a Scotland hating balloon whose writing is drivel and driven by self loathing. My grandson could write better at 6 years old.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Leavers are forever telling us that there was no Leave manifesto (note: there was) so it's up to the government to deliver Brexit. Likewise, it is up to the opposition, or any political party, to put forward their version of Brexit.
There can be no "but that's not what the voters meant" from either side.
Because the "six tests" essentially leaves Labour in the position where they are nominally supporting Brexit or rather "respecting" the referendum result while setting up a position that can never be achieved which actually leaves them trying to block Brexit.
So they are neither completely in favour or completely against... And it tells us the still haven't reconciled the gulf between their supporters in Sunderland (Leave) and London (Remain)
Leavers are forever telling us that there was no Leave manifesto (note: there was) so it's up to the government to deliver Brexit. Likewise, it is up to the opposition, or any political party, to put forward their version of Brexit.
There can be no "but that's not what the voters meant" from either side.
That's true, but it is true there was no leave manifesto...that was committed to by those who would need to implement it. Vote leave or anyone else put out many an idea, some popular, others less so, and it makes sense for the government to assume much of that will be popular, but Leave included people from many parties, the government only one, of course the Leave plan was not a manifesto for a single party to follow, though obviously they are guided by it.
As for wobbling over the tests, that too is legitimate - from the beginning hardcore leavers and remainers have been setting impossible demands or claiming anything other than their preferred version would be a betrayal of the vote or not endorsed by the vote, this is just a continuation of that.
The final position is this: Tories have a comfortable majority in Parliament plus apparently they have the backing of their lackeys, the DUP.
So they can pass whatever deal they come back with. They cannot blame others for bringing back a bad deal and then expect them to support it. You have enough votes !
Absolutely they keep telling us they are united like Chelsea running away with the premiership.Maybe they are Spurs who win nothing and tire at the money end of the season.
Just as Trump is blaming Democrats in congress when he can't persuade Republicans to back his proposals, some Tory PBers are already blaming Labour in anticipation of May not being able to win a vote in the Commons on her Brexit deal.
No. If May loses the vote, it will be due to sufficient Tories failing to back her deal.
This is true. But they will back it, just as they backed the 'clean' A50 legislation. On a subject of that importance, it'd be a whip-losing event to vote against their own government.
The way you write that, there are shades of the Supreme Soviet rubberstamping the Politburo's dictats
Or do you mean that Tories like being whipped? Oooo-err...
Once the deal's been made, there'll be no option for Tory MPs but to back it. The only option once negotiations have concluded would be to reject it, which were it done would probably bring down the government. The pressure on the government from the back-benchers will come *during* negotiations, when the deal is still being put together.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
The Turks on their way was not a lie. Their membership was most certainly in the short term and they were about to get full access to schenghan area, without the need for visas. It's only *since* the referendum that Turkey's membership fell completely off the horizon.
Leavers are forever telling us that there was no Leave manifesto (note: there was) so it's up to the government to deliver Brexit. Likewise, it is up to the opposition, or any political party, to put forward their version of Brexit.
There can be no "but that's not what the voters meant" from either side.
Because the "six tests" essentially leaves Labour in the position where they are nominally supporting Brexit or rather "respecting" the referendum result while setting up a position that can never be achieved which actually leaves them trying to block Brexit.
So they are neither completely in favour or completely against... And it tells us the still haven't reconciled the gulf between their supporters in Sunderland (Leave) and London (Remain)
No one ever said what Brexit was supposed to mean, according to Leavers. Well of course I could point to their official manifesto (the official leave manifesto produced by the official Leave movement) but I know that in particular PB Leavers hold no truck with that worthless piece of paper from that now defunct organisation.
Why not, then, ask for exactly what we had, except no longer in Europe? Seems perfectly logical to me.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Incidentally, does Carlotta have an update for us on the negotiations for a bold trade deal with Trump? It must be such a bore for May to have to deal with the Union when she should be off leading the world with her Ronnie...
Just as Trump is blaming Democrats in congress when he can't persuade Republicans to back his proposals, some Tory PBers are already blaming Labour in anticipation of May not being able to win a vote in the Commons on her Brexit deal.
No. If May loses the vote, it will be due to sufficient Tories failing to back her deal.
This is true. But they will back it, just as they backed the 'clean' A50 legislation. On a subject of that importance, it'd be a whip-losing event to vote against their own government.
The way you write that, there are shades of the Supreme Soviet rubberstamping the Politburo's dictats
Or do you mean that Tories like being whipped? Oooo-err...
More importabtly they will back it as will maybe 6/7 Labour MPs, UUP, DUP and 1 independent!
Incidentally, does Carlotta have an update for us on the negotiations for a bold trade deal with Trump? It must be such a bore for May to have to deal with the Union when she should be off leading the world with her Ronnie...
Given Trump's present domestic legislation problems at least a trade deal with the UK is something he and Congress agree on
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
So has Western civilisation ended yet? Or do we have to wait until A50 has been triggered?
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
Interesting that the Treasury report did not predict the swift response from the BoE. I wonder what else they failed to predict.
As for that £350mn/week, I guarantee that spending will have increased by that much at some point in the future
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Does anybody know what 'most Rs and Ls actually blieved'?
My impression was that both camps were highly heterogeneous. Ls may have been rather more so, if only because they were voting for something different to what we already had, but everybody seemed to have their own idea of what leaving or remaining entailed, and priorities varied enormously.
How do you estimate the size of a lie? Even the attempt takes you into difficult territory. For example, Remainers were on the whole coy about a Federal future. Is that more or less dishonest than the palpable nonsense pasted by Leave on the side of a bus?
Incidentally, does Carlotta have an update for us on the negotiations for a bold trade deal with Trump? It must be such a bore for May to have to deal with the Union when she should be off leading the world with her Ronnie...
I am sure it will be ready for signing soon, fast track, head of the queue and very special relationship will ensure that.
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
The Turks on their way was not a lie. Their membership was most certainly in the short term and they were about to get full access to schenghan area, without the need for visas. It's only *since* the referendum that Turkey's membership fell completely off the horizon.
No, that's rubbish. At the time of the EURef vote, the Turks had concluded 1 chapter out of 35 in their accession negotiations, more than 13 years after the EU decided to open negotiations. The idea that the Turks were at all close to membership is laughable. Furthermore, after some progress earlier in the century, they were getting further away again by 2016. Certainly, that process has accelerated after the Brexit vote but it started well beforehand.
As far as access goes, the right to travel is not the same as the right to reside or the right to work.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Does anybody know what 'most Rs and Ls actually blieved'?
My impression was that both camps were highly heterogeneous. Ls may have been rather more so, if only because they were voting for something different to what we already had, but everybody seemed to have their own idea of what leaving or remaining entailed, and priorities varied enormously.
How do you estimate the size of a lie? Even the attempt takes you into difficult territory. For example, Remainers were on the whole coy about a Federal future. Is that more or less dishonest than the palpable nonsense pasted by Leave on the side of a bus?
Neither side had much to be proud of.
Pretending that Dave's deal exempted us from ever-closed union was a barefaced lie, in a different league to using a gross rather than a net figure.
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance.
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
I just heard on the news James Dyson waxing lyrical about our prospects now we are exiting Europe. From memory I remembered that he'd fired a lot of staff and moved to the far east so I looked him up. This from Wikipedia; (not one to be stuck in the trenches with I'd say)
An editorial published by The Times responded: "Mr Dyson, a manufacturing version of Sir Richard Branson, likes complaining. Yesterday he was complaining that Britain's failure to join the Euro and the resultant strong Pound will force him to move abroad. Last week he blamed the price of land and planning delays in Wiltshire, but never mind. So where will he go? To Portugal, Italy or to an EU candidate such as Poland? No, Mr Dyson threatens to go to the Far East. Like so many entrepreneurs, he wants a cheap currency and low interest rates, but also low inflation, low wages, a flexible labour market and low regulation. He will not find them in the eurozone."[26] Lord Tebbit, a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, also questioned Dyson's motives and said: "[W]hat still puzzles me is why such a euro-enthusiast as [Mr] Dyson does not intend to establish his new factory in Europe if he can't have it in Britain."[27]
In 2014, Dyson said he would now be voting to leave the European Union to avoid being "dominated and bullied by the Germans".[28] In November 2015, Dyson lost his case against EU energy labelling laws in the European Court of Justice.[29] Dyson was one of the most prominent UK business leaders to publicly support Brexit before the referendum in June 2016.[30] Since the EU referendum, Dyson has stated that Britain should leave the EU Single Market and that this would "liberate" the UK economy.[31]
Another of the 'we must reconnect to the Commonwealth' Anglospherists. Also a patriot, according to himself.
For humour value, I thought I'd look up Dyson Ltd's annual accounts (available here). In 2014, the company made profits of £103m, and actually received a tax refund of £0.5m, to take prost-tax profits to to £103.5m. In 2015, tax of £1.6m was charged on pre-tax profits of £22.6m. So, over the last two years, Dyson Ltd has paid £1.1m in taxes on profits of £126m.
Very misleading. If you'd looked at the parent company, Holkham Group Limited, you'd see they made just over £300m pre-tax profit and paid just under £50m of tax in each of the last 2 years. Shame on you for looking at an intermediate group company and trying to make a political point out of it!
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
Due to land either April 2019 or April 2020 at the latest, depending on the deal we do.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Does anybody know what 'most Rs and Ls actually blieved'?
My impression was that both camps were highly heterogeneous. Ls may have been rather more so, if only because they were voting for something different to what we already had, but everybody seemed to have their own idea of what leaving or remaining entailed, and priorities varied enormously.
How do you estimate the size of a lie? Even the attempt takes you into difficult territory. For example, Remainers were on the whole coy about a Federal future. Is that more or less dishonest than the palpable nonsense pasted by Leave on the side of a bus?
Neither side had much to be proud of.
Pretending that Dave's deal exempted us from ever-closed union was a barefaced lie, in a different league to using a gross rather than a net figure.
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
The Leavers chose to get out of the EU on lies. They cannot blame others for reminding them what lies they spoke to get their votes.
Liars should be constantly reminded that is what they are - LIARS.
Q. When do you know when a politician is lying?
A. When they open their mouth.
Both sides lied, David.
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance.
Cameron talked about throwing Europe into conflict. This against a backdrop of Remain saying the the EU has been instrumental in maintaining post WW2 peace.
Cameron tried to say it on 8th May when he put out advance copies of his speech for the following day and was greeted by such ridicule in the press that he dropped it from the speech.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
"The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance."
The leader writers (including the Mirror) had a field day, but Cameron did ask if we wanted to risk Europe descending into another conflict. And Osborne probably did mention the wardrobe monster coming to get the children.
This all the sort of shite you'd expect though.
Leave won. And when that one great scorer comes to write against your name in Hansard, he writes in block capitals that you won.
Mr. Surbiton, Starmer wants the Moon on a stick. Labour seem to have flipped from between being right behind the Government to wanting to frustrate the result of the referendum.
Bollocks.
Labour stood by the A50 trigger because that was the instruction from the people, albeit barely 51.8 - 48.2. However, the people voted for nothing else and therefore Labour have no further "instructions" from the people.
Labour must follow what it's own voters want - which to stay in the single market and the customs union, ensure workers rights are not watered down.
Totally agree Sir Keir Starmer looks PM material .He has the gravitas Labour need .
No, at best he is a poor man's Kinnock and that is being generous! He has also just thrown back the votes of millions of Labour Leave voters in their faces
He is not Kinnock who could speak with passion and move the faithfull .He looks a serious manager in turbulent times and could reassure people with an open mind to consider Labour.
No, you are right, that was unfair on Kinnock who as far as I know never said 2+2=5 as Starmer effectively has today
I think Kinnock did over the years with his thoughts on the ERM and single currency.
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
It's money over which we Lose Control (TM).
No it's not. It never leaves these shores; we can spend it on what we like; and we can veto any new budget that reduces it.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
An honest campaign might have looked something like this:
REMAINERS - Yes, the EU is a political as well as economic project. One day we hope to see Europe united as a Federal State, with a single Government, currency and economic and political stance which is uniquely european and different from the USA, Russia, China, and Asia. This will involve the member States giving up a good deal of their historic independence and sovereignity but we hope the rewards in terms of prosperity, peace, security and influence in the world will justify the sacrifice. We cannot guarantee it will, but it is a hope and a goal.
LEAVERS - We don't believe the EU project will succeed and suspect it is impossible for it to do so. We do not wish to give up our historic sovereignity and independence for an ambition which is unlikely to be realised, and even if it is, we feel that the sacrifice would not be worth the gain. We appreciate that exiting the EU is bound to incur economic cost, but believe it will be tolerable and in any case would be worth it to preserve our national independence.
Had either side put it thus, they would now have the moral high ground, but they would almost certaainly have won fewer votes. Voters do not, on the whole, like to be told unpalatable truths.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance.
they are using UK government ESTIMATES, there are no actual statistics that split the revenues, ie they are just made up and could be miles out especially given the UK will always try to show themselves in a good light at the expense of Scotland.
All Statistics use estimates - even the Vicar of Bath approves of GERS:
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
It's money over which we Lose Control (TM).
No it's not. It never leaves these shores; we can spend it on what we like; and we can veto any new budget that reduces it.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
Cameron tried to say it on 8th May when he put out advance copies of his speech for the following day and was greeted by such ridicule in the press that he dropped it from the speech.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
You're not still sticking to that old tale? There was no 'ghost speech' which was withdrawn. It was just Boris making it up.
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
It's money over which we Lose Control (TM).
No it's not. It never leaves these shores; we can spend it on what we like; and we can veto any new budget that reduces it.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
The rebate has to be unanimously re-agreed every seven years.
Even if including the rebate is wrong, it makes the £350m a small exaggeration, next to outright falsehood after outright falsehood from Remain.
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
I'm now told that the aforesaid Daisley was indeed a Tory press officer - for Annabelle Goldie!
He must feel a bit awkward when his southron hack colleagues start making jokes about West of Scotland diet, health and life expectancy.
twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
Was it really necessary to post that?
I should have remembered that PB is far too discriminating to resort to that sort of thing, no 'Fat Eck' from you delicate, wee flowers.
Though I do recall several members of the PB Yoon community being very unkind after a televised interview with the much more svelte James Kelly. In fact I think one of your number even used the very phrase 'who ate all the pies'.
I'm now told that the aforesaid Daisley was indeed a Tory press officer - for Annabelle Goldie!
He must feel a bit awkward when his southron hack colleagues start making jokes about West of Scotland diet, health and life expectancy.
twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
Was it really necessary to post that?
I should have remembered that PB is far too discriminating to resort to that sort of thing, no 'Fat Eck' for you delicate souls.
Though I do remember several members of the PB Yoon community being very unkind after a televised interview with the much more svelte James Kelly. In fact I think one of your number even used the very phrase 'who ate all the pies'.
I recall asking similar questions of people mocking Salmond. It's just not necessary, or at all relevant!
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
LOL, first one comes along , we cannot even organise a referendum but Rob thinks we have powers, get those road signs changed , that will change things big time.
I'm now told that the aforesaid Daisley was indeed a Tory press officer - for Annabelle Goldie!
He must feel a bit awkward when his southron hack colleagues start making jokes about West of Scotland diet, health and life expectancy.
twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
Was it really necessary to post that?
I should have remembered that PB is far too discriminating to resort to that sort of thing, no 'Fat Eck' from you delicate, wee flowers.
Though I do remember several members of the PB Yoon community being very unkind after a televised interview with the much more svelte James Kelly. In fact I think one of your number even used the very phrase 'who ate all the pies'.
Most of the demigods will not have glanced away from the mirror yet , take time to get replies in.
I'm now told that the aforesaid Daisley was indeed a Tory press officer - for Annabelle Goldie!
He must feel a bit awkward when his southron hack colleagues start making jokes about West of Scotland diet, health and life expectancy.
twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
Was it really necessary to post that?
I should have remembered that PB is far too discriminating to resort to that sort of thing, no 'Fat Eck' for you delicate souls.
Though I do remember several members of the PB Yoon community being very unkind after a televised interview with the much more svelte James Kelly. In fact I think one of your number even used the very phrase 'who ate all the pies'.
I recall asking similar questions of people mocking Salmond. It's just not necessary, or at all relevant!
Well, just you concentrate on keeping your output fabulous as a shining example to the rest of us.
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
LOL, first one comes along , we cannot even organise a referendum but Rob thinks we have powers, get those road signs changed , that will change things big time.
There are obviously powers that haven't been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As a LEAVE-voting LD supporter, I find life perplexing at the best of times. Absolutes are so much easier - "if we LEAVE, it will be the end of life as we know it" all the way to "a glorious utopia called Global Britain of unending prosperity, jobs and influence in the world beckons if we back the Prime Minister".
Fifty Shades of Piffle, as it might also be termed.
I am now told that IF I dare to vote against the wonderful Treaty negotiated by those three political titans, Johnson, Fox and Davis, I will be consigning the United Kingdom to the outer darkness (and by the way, the Scots, Welsh, Irish and London will all break away).
There's nothing wrong with scrutiny unless you have something to hide and nothing wrong with a referendum as long as you get the right answer.
Anyone who has followed politics for any length of time will also know things are rarely as they seem. To oppose the deal in 2019 doesn't necessarily mean WTO rules and outer darkness - a more pragmatic approach might argue it requires a second re-negotiation.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
It's money over which we Lose Control (TM).
No it's not. It never leaves these shores; we can spend it on what we like; and we can veto any new budget that reduces it.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
The rebate has to be unanimously re-agreed every seven years.
Even if including the rebate is wrong, it makes the £350m a small exaggeration, next to outright falsehood after outright falsehood from Remain.
The actual number that should have been used was around £288 million a week. I have no idea why Vote Leave decided to go with the £350 million figure. The correct figure was still eye wateringly large and would have had the same effect without the ability of the Remain side to legitimately challenge it.
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
Rob, unfortunately I have to go but would love to know even one relevant power that could be used to change Scotland for the better, that the SNP have not used. Nothing that can actually make any difference has been devolved as they do not want the SNP to be able to improve things.
PS: Not having a go at you Rob but nothing of any importance whatsoever is devolved, all teh key levers of power are maintained at Westminster.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
You think WW3 and the immediately catastrophic recession were mere fibs?
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Nobody said that we would get WW3 if we left. The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner. So, where is the £350million/week?
As Remainers like to point out when it suits them, we haven't left the EU yet. We'll get the £350m/week when we do. A few posters early in the campaign suggested all of it might go to the NHS, it was made clear later on that the suggestion was £100m/week.
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
Dear oh dear... Do we have to explain how the rebate works again?
It's money over which we Lose Control (TM).
No it's not. It never leaves these shores; we can spend it on what we like; and we can veto any new budget that reduces it.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
The rebate has to be unanimously re-agreed every seven years.
Even if including the rebate is wrong, it makes the £350m a small exaggeration, next to outright falsehood after outright falsehood from Remain.
The actual number that should have been used was around £288 million a week. I have no idea why Vote Leave decided to go with the £350 million figure. The correct figure was still eye wateringly large and would have had the same effect without the ability of the Remain side to legitimately challenge it.
Maybe because they knew how much of a storm it would cause with the Remain side constantly saying "no it isn't X, it's Y", reinforcing the point further.
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
Rob, unfortunately I have to go but would love to know even one relevant power that could be used to change Scotland for the better, that the SNP have not used. Nothing that can actually make any difference has been devolved as they do not want the SNP to be able to improve things.
So you are saying the SNP has done nothing good for Scotland while in government?
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
LOL, first one comes along , we cannot even organise a referendum but Rob thinks we have powers, get those road signs changed , that will change things big time.
Don't you think Nicola should be setting out some post Brexit devolutionary expectations for Scotland, Malc ? Likewise the Welsh and NI assemblies.
Top of my head:
1 Guarantee EU budget funding until the end of the cycle, March 2020. 2 Per capita share of the £350m a week as a direct allocation to Scottish administration to be spent on Scotland's priorities from 2020 (possibly 2019) 3 Per capita share of any WTO tariff income received by UK if that is Brexit result 4 Fisheries management and redevelopment
Hmmm, I wouldn't call Holyrood powerless, it is just that the SNP don't seem to want to use any of the powers.
Rob, unfortunately I have to go but would love to know even one relevant power that could be used to change Scotland for the better, that the SNP have not used. Nothing that can actually make any difference has been devolved as they do not want the SNP to be able to improve things.
PS: Not having a go at you Rob but nothing of any importance whatsoever is devolved, all teh key levers of power are maintained at Westminster.
Cameron tried to say it on 8th May when he put out advance copies of his speech for the following day and was greeted by such ridicule in the press that he dropped it from the speech.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
You're not still sticking to that old tale? There was no 'ghost speech' which was withdrawn. It was just Boris making it up.
Nope the Telegraph, The Mirror, Sky News and many other sources all quoted it. The Guardian ran an article entitled "Is David Cameron right that leaving EU could increase the risk of war?"
So do stop lying Stark. You already look foolish for your blind Europhilia. Don't add revisionism to your tally of idiocies.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
The big problem with May having the power to block Indyref2 - is that Holyrood's inability to call it themselves, just highlights how powerless Holyrood is. This is against the direction of travel as per the recent Scottish Attitudes Survey - see table below:
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
You really, really, really have to be desperate to accuse someone of lying in a speech he didn't make, especially when even if he had made it, it couldn't possbly be a lie since what he was being wrongly accused of was a statement of opinion about the distant future (and not a very controversial one at that).
The propensity of the Leave side to throw around completely unfounded accusations of lying was one of the most unpleasant but also most revealing features of the campaign. What is even more revealing is that they still are obsessed with repeating these accusations, even after winning. I wonder why?
The trouble is that those statements don't really reflect what most Remainers or Leavers actually believed. The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
Do you not understand how to use google? I don't want to go on at you, but you have a silly little avatar designed to suggest that you diligently search after truth, whereas you can't in reality be arsed to conduct the, literally, 30 seconds worth of investigation which would show you that Gove said that staying in the EU would open our borders to 88 million people, being the citizens of Turkey and four other countries. Does that really appear to you to be equivalent to saying that 88 million Turks are coming here? Or is it something you would like to be true, so you'll say it is true, cos that's what logical searchers after truth do with facts?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
Was it only Gove and Cameron who were making statements for their respective sides? I was under the impression that most of the Tory top brass was at it - even Mrs may.
Well, you tell me. Again, I expect a judicious use of Google or your other search engine of choice will help you here. I have not been able to find anyone saying something so stratospherically silly as 88 million Turks were coming here, but anything's possible.
What do those footsteps represent?
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
Comments
So they can pass whatever deal they come back with. They cannot blame others for bringing back a bad deal and then expect them to support it. You have enough votes !
Leavers are forever telling us that there was no Leave manifesto (note: there was) so it's up to the government to deliver Brexit. Likewise, it is up to the opposition, or any political party, to put forward their version of Brexit.
There can be no "but that's not what the voters meant" from either side.
"Clearly, he scares you. You don't look at Corbyn in the same way."
On the contrary. Corbyn scares me because he's a handkerchief on head, pencil up nose, loon.
Starmer is a politician and will flip-flop happily. In two years time, he'll deny all knowledge of these six tests.
Kinnock I voted for, but that was before he went EU doolally.
The two biggest lies by a massive margin were the £350million/week to the NHS and the 88 million Turks coming here. I can see why Leavers are keen to point out that both sides lied because it makes both sides appear equally bad.
So they are neither completely in favour or completely against... And it tells us the still haven't reconciled the gulf between their supporters in Sunderland (Leave) and London (Remain)
As for wobbling over the tests, that too is legitimate - from the beginning hardcore leavers and remainers have been setting impossible demands or claiming anything other than their preferred version would be a betrayal of the vote or not endorsed by the vote, this is just a continuation of that.
i.e. when England decides narrowly on BREXIT then Scotland finds that unstoppable.
Why not, then, ask for exactly what we had, except no longer in Europe? Seems perfectly logical to me.
The only thing we know for certain at the nine month stage is that Leave were far closer to getting it right than Remain.
The benefit of the nine month cooling period has also been evident. Most have regained their calm and most are seeking sensible and constructive solutions.
Daisley on Kaufman:
If Kaufman condemned Palestinian violence with the crisp impatience of a man keen to reach the comma,
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/gerald-kaufman-labour-hero-jewish-villain/
"Loss of access to the single market and the customs union will condemn the UK manufacturing sector to a painful and costly Brexit, industry body EEF has warned."
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/uk-manufacturers-condemn-no-deal-brexit-mantra/?cmpid=tenews_3240327
The recession has been postponed by swift action of the Bank of England and the pound losing value, but inflation is just around the corner.
So, where is the £350million/week?
As for that £350mn/week, I guarantee that spending will have increased by that much at some point in the future
My impression was that both camps were highly heterogeneous. Ls may have been rather more so, if only because they were voting for something different to what we already had, but everybody seemed to have their own idea of what leaving or remaining entailed, and priorities varied enormously.
How do you estimate the size of a lie? Even the attempt takes you into difficult territory. For example, Remainers were on the whole coy about a Federal future. Is that more or less dishonest than the palpable nonsense pasted by Leave on the side of a bus?
Neither side had much to be proud of.
https://twitter.com/shuggie116/status/838873420066586626
I think you understand all this perfectly well and are pretending not to.
As far as access goes, the right to travel is not the same as the right to reside or the right to work.
https://order-order.com/2017/03/27/dan-jarvis-confuses-debt-deficit/
Having to be corrected by Lucy Powell!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-could-trigger-world-war-7928607
As for the other, Cameron 9th May 2016.
Edit: Ah, I seed TUD's reply. I should always be suspicious if it is an image of the tweet, rather than a link.
Both sides lied in the referendum campaign - the biggest lie of all being Cameron's non- renegotiation and the claim that there would be no further integration if we voted to Remain. Of course you ignore those lies because it doesn't suit your narrative.
And the idea that an immediate recession and the emergency budget were only prevented by a bit of tinkering by the BOE is ludicrous. Just like most other Remaniac claims.
"The WW3 thing was a total fabrication by Leave - Dave never made any such utterance."
The leader writers (including the Mirror) had a field day, but Cameron did ask if we wanted to risk Europe descending into another conflict. And Osborne probably did mention the wardrobe monster coming to get the children.
This all the sort of shite you'd expect though.
Leave won. And when that one great scorer comes to write against your name in Hansard, he writes in block capitals that you won.
Can Parliament read. A few can't.
You may not have felt like you were in control but that's another matter. (I believe the technical alt-right term for those who feel put upon by outside forces is cucks.)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8kKihpsKiJtSkp0aTAzNUxfb0k/view?usp=sharing
Even if including the rebate is wrong, it makes the £350m a small exaggeration, next to outright falsehood after outright falsehood from Remain.
Though I do recall several members of the PB Yoon community being very unkind after a televised interview with the much more svelte James Kelly. In fact I think one of your number even used the very phrase 'who ate all the pies'.
As a LEAVE-voting LD supporter, I find life perplexing at the best of times. Absolutes are so much easier - "if we LEAVE, it will be the end of life as we know it" all the way to "a glorious utopia called Global Britain of unending prosperity, jobs and influence in the world beckons if we back the Prime Minister".
Fifty Shades of Piffle, as it might also be termed.
I am now told that IF I dare to vote against the wonderful Treaty negotiated by those three political titans, Johnson, Fox and Davis, I will be consigning the United Kingdom to the outer darkness (and by the way, the Scots, Welsh, Irish and London will all break away).
There's nothing wrong with scrutiny unless you have something to hide and nothing wrong with a referendum as long as you get the right answer.
Anyone who has followed politics for any length of time will also know things are rarely as they seem. To oppose the deal in 2019 doesn't necessarily mean WTO rules and outer darkness - a more pragmatic approach might argue it requires a second re-negotiation.
PS: Not having a go at you Rob but nothing of any importance whatsoever is devolved, all teh key levers of power are maintained at Westminster.
Top of my head:
1 Guarantee EU budget funding until the end of the cycle, March 2020.
2 Per capita share of the £350m a week as a direct allocation to Scottish administration to be spent on Scotland's priorities from 2020 (possibly 2019)
3 Per capita share of any WTO tariff income received by UK if that is Brexit result
4 Fisheries management and redevelopment
https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/846344820746543104
So do stop lying Stark. You already look foolish for your blind Europhilia. Don't add revisionism to your tally of idiocies.
I know I'm biased against Brexit, but seriously, does anyone not think she's pogoing the shark with this ludicrous rhetoric?
Cameron also did say, in substance, that Brexit heightens the risk of major intra-European conflict, which it seems to me cashes out as a ww3 warning, as that's how it started the last 2 times. Again, google it, if you know how to. It is apart from anything else bloody bad manners to post palpably untrue statements here.
SLAB in disarray - just watching Kezia channelling Keir !!
https://twitter.com/mattmoorek/status/846340119225417728
The SNP succeeded in silencing Daisley at STV - it must rankle that someone has the guts to stand up to their bullying...
The propensity of the Leave side to throw around completely unfounded accusations of lying was one of the most unpleasant but also most revealing features of the campaign. What is even more revealing is that they still are obsessed with repeating these accusations, even after winning. I wonder why?
Perhaps you'd like to defend this one? Apparently Britain's border is with any country that adjoins another country that has a visa waiver programme, not with the UK, but with the Schengen zone.
CarlottaVance Posts: 20,303
March 2015 edited March 2015
Alanbrooke said:
» show previous quotes
Haven't read the National for a while Mr C. If it's had a revamp I'll give it another look.
You're in for a treat! Comical (who ate all the pies?) James, LOTP, has an article suggesting SNP support is understated.....