The Guardian is only a one because it seeks out and features views from both sides of the political spectrum. Their main articles do have a leftward slant probably a 2, but they do have some balance in there. And that’s clear to anyone who’s actually read more than one article on The Guardian.

 

You have to be very firmly up the mails arse to even think that it’s comparable to The Guardian in terms of bias

Because you are unbelievable. You seem utterly devoid of reality.

 

I have a far better grasp of reality than you do, since I recognise that Leave won the referendum - a fact that you are mired in total denial about.

It won 51%, 37% of the elctorate, and did not win in 2/4s of the nation or Gibraltar. That is a divided result. The people most certainly have not spoken. That is propaganda.

 

The Guardian is balanced with opinion piecew frm both sides, and not dynamic headlines looking to get your worked.up.

 

This is reality.

you are unbelievable.

 

 

:D

It won 51%, 37% of the elctorate, and did not win in 2/4s of the nation or Gibraltar. That is a divided result. The people most certainly have not spoken. That is propaganda.

 

Nonsense - everyone knew perfectly well that the result was to be decided on a simple majority - there was no requirement for it to be approved separately by each country, or for it to be approved by a minimum % of the total electorate.

 

After all, how long has it been since any of our elected governments has had the support of as much as 37% of the electorate! :P

 

Perhaps the real question is *why* Brexit so utterly terrifies you?

I think we can all agree here on one thing: Cameron's referendum was a complete shit show used to try and control divisions within the Conservative party and tackle the surge of UKIP. That it spectacularly backfired is both hilarious but also terrifying. A complete failure of governance. There was no strategy, the team Number 10 were so arrogant and complacent in assuming a narrow victory that no contingency plan was made in the event of a 'Leave' majority being recorded.

 

Without doubt one of the biggest fails of governance of the 21st Century, and Cameron and the Conservatives will be remembered for it, for a long, long time.

I think we can all agree here on one thing: Cameron's referendum was a complete shit show used to try and control divisions within the Conservative party and tackle the surge of UKIP. That it spectacularly backfired is both hilarious but also terrifying. A complete failure of governance. There was no strategy, the team Number 10 were so arrogant and complacent in assuming a narrow victory that no contingency plan was made in the event of a 'Leave' majority being recorded.

 

Without doubt one of the biggest fails of governance of the 21st Century, and Cameron and the Conservatives will be remembered for it, for a long, long time.

 

Unwise, but given Tory splits & the rise of UKIP, pretty inevitable.

Taking the topic in a different direction (I hope)... ;)

 

What if Cameron had not called a referendum when he did - how would you have seen the political situation developing iro the EU?

Increased support as the older generations died off.

 

Maybe a two speed Euro eventually.

 

That's about it.

 

Also, Mad May's election catasteophe just a year later shows how arrogant and leaderless they really are.

Nonsense - everyone knew perfectly well that the result was to be decided on a simple majority - there was no requirement for it to be approved separately by each country, or for it to be approved by a minimum % of the total electorate.

 

After all, how long has it been since any of our elected governments has had the support of as much as 37% of the electorate! :P

 

Perhaps the real question is *why* Brexit so utterly terrifies you?

Thus support failed by the governing party is a totally false comparison as there are more than two options on offer.

 

As has been pointed out umpteen times, the reason for there being no threshold is that IT WAS AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM. It doesn't matter what the government leaflet said. The important thing is that there was nothing in the legislation to oblige the government to do anything after the vote.

Taking the topic in a different direction (I hope)... ;)

 

What if Cameron had not called a referendum when he did - how would you have seen the political situation developing iro the EU?

Part of Cameron's idiocy (as if the whole idea of the referendum wasn't stupid enough in the first place) was his mad rush to have the vote as soon as possible. That meant that the time available to negotiate any sort of new deal was laughably short. With the right PR exercise, a longer negotiating period could have been used to convince people that there had been some meaningful change. As it was, the changes were about as meaningful as an agreement to use a different type of pen to sign future treaties.

I found it fairly apt myself - having judges overrule decisions made my a few hundred MP's is one thing, but to ignore that expressed wishes of a significant proportion of the population is quite another, IMO!

Yet invoking the Nazis *isn't* inflammatory?? :wacko:

1. The Judges weren't overturning the decision of a referendum - they were overturning the illegal power-grab by T.May in thinking she could ignore taking all new laws through Parliament for vote. The Judges, The Supreme Court all stressed that Parliament needed to vote on it under UK law. This is the law that all Leavers were SO desperate to "Take back" - and then having it taken back, threw it immediately out the window and all but called for executing those professionals chosen to weigh up what is or isn't the law of the land.

 

The vote was had, the motion was carried. What part of that is not democracy under UK law? Feel free to explain how Mad May could interpret 17 million differing opinions on why they wished to leave the EU as permission to not only interpret that to mean whatever she wanted it to mean, but also to have the power to ignore Parliament?

 

The Mail and the Rags were bullying shit-stirring mouth-frothers, and anyone who can't grasp the concept of democracy and law is clearly not going to applying to MENSA any time soon. Or is trying to destroy democracy for their own agenda.

 

2. In what context?

OK, I'm going to mention a friend who I was having dinner with last night. A lovely popular Argentian/Spanish-passport holding bloke working in a Chain restaurant in Canary Wharf which has just folded. Over the last few months customers declined (a big banking area) and as people left (mostly immigrants work in catering in London, as anyone who's been out for a meal knows pretty well) they couldn't replace them. No applicants. Nobody abroad wants to come over with all the uncertainty and being made to feel unwelcome. So they closed down the place and my friend is looking for a job elsewhere.

 

My point to our mutual friend who voted Leave was to claim "there's almost full employment" as it that's a fabulous thing which is entirely down to the economy being marvellous following Brexit vote, was that a) we haven't left b) people are leaving the country and jobs are leaving the country c) less people in work and businesses like this one closing down mean that there will be less tax on wages and business rates going into the government coffers, and d) if businesses need to pay much more to attract staff then those costs get passed on to the customer to avoid going our of business: so that means inflation generally, assuming people have the money and will to pay for the goods/services (which they may not if like me they haven't had a raise of any significance in a decade).

 

There is going to be more of this sort of story once Brexit kicks in properly.

 

Anyone who voted Brexit, feel free to offer the wisdom of your experience is offering us anecdotal tales to the contrary to show us it's going to be a roaring success. We're waiting....

Increased support as the older generations died off.

Maybe a two speed Euro eventually.

That's about it.

Also, Mad May's election catasteophe just a year later shows how arrogant and leaderless they really are.

 

Without the referendum, the 4th one of the above would never have happened, so it can be ignored, so back to the first three...

 

You seem to regard it as a given that support for the EU will increase over time, despite the fact the opposite has actually happened. Two points - we don't know the rate at which europhiles turn into eurosceptics as they get older i.e. the rate might even be greater than that at which new young europhiles appear. :unsure: The second point - the EU might itself do something that turns more people against it - it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Thus support failed by the governing party is a totally false comparison as there are more than two options on offer.

 

As has been pointed out umpteen times, the reason for there being no threshold is that IT WAS AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM. It doesn't matter what the government leaflet said. The important thing is that there was nothing in the legislation to oblige the government to do anything after the vote.

 

Other than their fear of the consequences of ignoring a democratic vote, you mean?

 

Part of Cameron's idiocy (as if the whole idea of the referendum wasn't stupid enough in the first place) was his mad rush to have the vote as soon as possible. That meant that the time available to negotiate any sort of new deal was laughably short. With the right PR exercise, a longer negotiating period could have been used to convince people that there had been some meaningful change. As it was, the changes were about as meaningful as an agreement to use a different type of pen to sign future treaties.

 

There's no guarantee that a longer period would have provided more meaningful concessions, or that they would have made any difference to Eurosceptics - certainly not to me, for whom the very institution of the EU is the problem, rather than any individual action it might take.

[Yet invoking the Nazis *isn't* inflammatory??]

 

2. In what context?

 

In the context of complaining about newspapers sensationalizing stories. Surely it's hypocritical to do that, while using the same tactic in turn?

OK, I'm going to mention a friend who I was having dinner with last night. A lovely popular Argentian/Spanish-passport holding bloke working in a Chain restaurant in Canary Wharf which has just folded. Over the last few months customers declined (a big banking area) and as people left (mostly immigrants work in catering in London, as anyone who's been out for a meal knows pretty well) they couldn't replace them. No applicants. Nobody abroad wants to come over with all the uncertainty and being made to feel unwelcome. So they closed down the place and my friend is looking for a job elsewhere.

 

My point to our mutual friend who voted Leave was to claim "there's almost full employment" as it that's a fabulous thing which is entirely down to the economy being marvellous following Brexit vote, was that a) we haven't left b) people are leaving the country and jobs are leaving the country c) less people in work and businesses like this one closing down mean that there will be less tax on wages and business rates going into the government coffers, and d) if businesses need to pay much more to attract staff then those costs get passed on to the customer to avoid going our of business: so that means inflation generally, assuming people have the money and will to pay for the goods/services (which they may not if like me they haven't had a raise of any significance in a decade).

 

There is going to be more of this sort of story once Brexit kicks in properly.

 

Anyone who voted Brexit, feel free to offer the wisdom of your experience is offering us anecdotal tales to the contrary to show us it's going to be a roaring success. We're waiting....

 

I could come back with a comment like 'you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs', but I guess that would go down like a lead balloon, so I won't. :teresa:

Edited October 9, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Taking the topic in a different direction (I hope)... ;)

 

What if Cameron had not called a referendum when he did - how would you have seen the political situation developing iro the EU?

 

Here's my take on it :

 

If there had been no referendum, I could imagine Tory eurosceptisim increasing to the point at which it would split the party - with many Eurosceptics jumping ship to UKIP, maybe taking some Labour eurosceptics with them. Even if the Tories could have avoided that, the main parties would have continued to hemorrhage support to UKIP, to the point at which they became a serious force in British politics. You only have to look at the last set of Euro-elections to see the potential...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parl...United_Kingdom)

In the context of complaining about newspapers sensationalizing stories. Surely it's hypocritical to do that, while using the same tactic in turn?

 

No, I meant give an example of this in relation to the quoted Nazis. I havent read any such articles and would be interested to see it.

I could come back with a comment like 'you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs', but I guess that would go down like a lead balloon, so I won't. :teresa:

 

Pretty much sums up the "caring", short-sighted and economically suicidal view of Brexiteers, so thanks for the quote, I'll be making sure I use it in the future :teresa:

Pretty much sums up the "caring", short-sighted and economically suicidal view of Brexiteers, so thanks for the quote, I'll be making sure I use it in the future :teresa:

 

That exactly the opposite view that we Brexits have of ourselves - we believe we are guarding our economic independence - a decidedly long-term view.