When you start showing my views some respect, then you might get a more positive response from me.

 

I don't mind you *disagreeing* with my decision to vote for Brexit - but when you insinuate that I only did so because of media lies, I simply cannot let that go. You mistake my lack of eloquence in explaining my position, for lack of support for, or commitment to it.

 

What my position ultimately boils down to is - I simply do not trust the EU.

 

Regards.

I have never said your opinions are due to media lies.

 

I have called the electorate gullible. I have said you need to read wider in your sources. I don't respect your view in this ongoing tedious EU subject because you have nothing to back it up with other than your final sentence above and you would rather stick your head in the sand to reality rather than see things as they are so convinced are you that the EU is some sort of invasion of snowflakes with agendas. I agree the EU isn't perfect, but then the UK is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (not least the politicians - which we do agree on)

 

 

I have never said your opinions are due to media lies.

 

OK, noted - but not everyone here is innocent of that.

 

I have called the electorate gullible. I have said you need to read wider in your sources. I don't respect your view in this ongoing tedious EU subject because you have nothing to back it up with other than your final sentence above and you would rather stick your head in the sand to reality rather than see things as they are so convinced are you that the EU is some sort of invasion of snowflakes with agendas. I agree the EU isn't perfect, but then the UK is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (not least the politicians - which we do agree on)

 

The electorate may indeed be gullible, but there's no reason to think that that only applies in the direction of Brexit.

 

My view of the EU is just the opposite of 'snowflakes with agendas'. At the end of the day though, I'd rather have our economy run by someone whose first priority is the UK, rather than a body whose loyalty is split 28 different ways.

Edited March 15, 20187 yr by vidcapper

OK, noted - but not everyone here is innocent of that.

The electorate may indeed be gullible, but there's no reason to think that that only applies in the direction of Brexit.

 

My view of the EU is just the opposite of 'snowflakes with agendas'. At the end of the day though, I'd rather have our economy run by someone whose first priority is the UK, rather than a body whose loyalty is split 28 different ways.

 

No. people are gullible in all sorts of areas.

 

The Uk is run very badly. We will be worse off. The EU is largely sensible. That's why I don't trust our future in the hands of the lies of Corbyn and Rees-Moog, Mcdonut or Johnson. Or May. They need reigning in, even if only a very slight way...

No. people are gullible in all sorts of areas.

 

The Uk is run very badly. We will be worse off. The EU is largely sensible. That's why I don't trust our future in the hands of the lies of Corbyn and Rees-Moog, Mcdonut or Johnson. Or May. They need reigning in, even if only a very slight way...

 

But at least if *our* politicians screw up, we can vote them out - that fact is what reigns them in.

But at least if *our* politicians screw up, we can vote them out - that fact is what reigns them in.

 

Wevote in MEPs and have a veto AND have an opt-out.

Wevote in MEPs and have a veto AND have an opt-out.

 

drum rolls, cymbals crash, triangle.

 

 

 

But at least if *our* politicians screw up, we can vote them out - that fact is what reigns them in.

 

nothing reigns them in because we only have a choice of 2 and they both know it.

 

PS How's that Project Fear propaganda coming along: Daily Express 2016: Desperate Dave warns of Russian threat if we leave the EU.

 

Far be it from me to say twatty Cameron was right but.....we havent even left yet and they still own us.

nothing reigns them in because we only have a choice of 2 and they both know it.

 

PS How's that Project Fear propaganda coming along: Daily Express 2016: Desperate Dave warns of Russian threat if we leave the EU.

 

Far be it from me to say twatty Cameron was right but.....we havent even left yet and they still own us.

:rofl:

Desperate Dave should never have put it up to a referendum, and when he did he should have accepted the triple locks presented by Sturgeon.

 

The fact that he was harping on about ANOTHER special deal for the UK, or otherwise he'd vote to Leave, also didn't help. He was adding to the Murdoch propaganda that the EU didn't work before even starting the referendum.

Cameron rejected any sort of threshold because it was an advisory referendum. Therefore, no thresholds were necessary. That, of course, was one of many cock ups by the plastic-faced idiot.

 

He announvced the idea of a referendum without attempting to gain the support of any of the Tory press for the Remain campaign. Therefore, the only right-wing daily to support Remain was the Times which didn't extend its support to screaming headlines.

 

He claimed that he could negotiate significant changes in the UK's terms of membership in a matter of weeks. As any new deal would have to be ratified by the other 27 members, that was always a ridiculous claim.

 

He made no attempt to run a multi-party campaign. Therefore, people could be excused for thinking it was largely a dispute within one party rather than an issue of major importance for the country's future.

 

He announced before the 2015 election that it would be his last as leader. That meant that Leave-supporting Tories and the right-wing press could describe him as a liar knowing that those words wouldn't be quoted back at them at the next election.

 

He failed to make a positive case for voting Remain. That was hardly surprising as Tories rarely run a positive campaign. It might not have mattered so much if he had made more of an effort to run a multi-party campaign.

 

He spoke in favour of allowing Britons living elsewhere in the EU to have a vote but failed even to attempt to implement that in time for the referendum. He also failed to allow non-British EU citizens living in the UK to vote.

 

If anyone wants to write a book on how to lose a referendum, they need look no further than Cameron's catastrophe.

Wevote in MEPs and have a veto AND have an opt-out.

 

But our MEP's form only a small proportion of the EU parliament, so they have as little influence as the SNP do in the HoC.

 

 

nothing reigns them in because we only have a choice of 2 and they both know it.

 

PS How's that Project Fear propaganda coming along: Daily Express 2016: Desperate Dave warns of Russian threat if we leave the EU.

 

Far be it from me to say twatty Cameron was right but.....we havent even left yet and they still own us.

 

!I cannot believe you trying to link the recent poisonings to Brexit. :o

 

Desperate Dave should never have put it up to a referendum, and when he did he should have accepted the triple locks presented by Sturgeon.

 

Perhaps you could then explain how a vote for Brexit, rejected on a technicality, would have *reduced* Euroscepticism?

Cameron rejected any sort of threshold because it was an advisory referendum. Therefore, no thresholds were necessary. That, of course, was one of many cock ups by the plastic-faced idiot.

 

I've commented on the ill-advised dangers of thresholds, elsewhere.

 

He announvced the idea of a referendum without attempting to gain the support of any of the Tory press for the Remain campaign. Therefore, the only right-wing daily to support Remain was the Times which didn't extend its support to screaming headlines.

Assuming they *would* have supported him, if asked. :unsure:

 

He claimed that he could negotiate significant changes in the UK's terms of membership in a matter of weeks. As any new deal would have to be ratified by the other 27 members, that was always a ridiculous claim.

 

Everyone knew that - Remainers & Leavers both.

 

He failed to make a positive case for voting Remain. That was hardly surprising as Tories rarely run a positive campaign. It might not have mattered so much if he had made more of an effort to run a multi-party campaign.

BUt if, as is regularly claimed here, people were 'brainwashed', then why would a positive campaign have made a difference?

 

He spoke in favour of allowing Britons living elsewhere in the EU to have a vote but failed even to attempt to implement that in time for the referendum. He also failed to allow non-British EU citizens living in the UK to vote.

 

Allowing the latter especially would have played right into Leavers hands!

But our MEP's form only a small proportion of the EU parliament, so they have as little influence as the SNP do in the HoC.

!I cannot believe you trying to link the recent poisonings to Brexit. :o

Perhaps you could then explain how a vote for Brexit, rejected on a technicality, would have *reduced* Euroscepticism?

 

 

If it was *clearly* stated from the beginning that three nations and whatever % was needed for the issue to be closed, with a further referendum iin I dunno 20 years and a continuation of status quo if not reached, then people would have understood that the vote would only be concrete, and only not advisory, if those thresholds were met. Nothing would reduce skepticism among the Sun readers. There is a HUGE generational divide. However, the whole referendum was botched beyond belief. Setting limits on referendum is beyond fair. LEaving like this, against 96% of residents in Gibraltar, the TRUE will of the people, against the Scottish and Irish, will do nothing to soothe remain voters and it's basically a 50/50 split at the best of times. It wouldn't be a technicality if these, not unreasonable, terms were spelled out CLEARLY BEFOREHAND.

You mean the SNP that forced the government to back down over repealing the Fox Hunting ban and against removing Sunday trading restrictions???

You mean the SNP that forced the government to back down over repealing the Fox Hunting ban and against removing Sunday trading restrictions???

 

Not quite the same situation though, as they needed cross-party support for that.

!I cannot believe you trying to link the recent poisonings to Brexit. :o

 

Never claimed that at all. Re-read it.

 

I claimed the headlines about Project Fear by the gutter press continue to be proven to be fake news. Cameron said:

 

Brexit will make us weaker with Russia, and could be dangerous for us.

 

The Express said this was scaremongering.

 

Without the EU behind us we will be more isolated and the grip Russia has over the UK will increase, as evidenced by the lack of action (until the Tories were forced to) on murder, buying and controlling British assets with dirty money, and banking cash in tax havens. Of course it's not scaremongering, it was a statement of fact. More isolated economically means less power to react. The weaker the UK the less we can afford to piss off a nation we depend on for energy.

 

 

Never claimed that at all. Re-read it.

 

Well I did say I couldn't believe it. :teresa:

 

OK, you got me there.

 

I claimed the headlines about Project Fear by the gutter press continue to be proven to be fake news. Cameron said:

 

Brexit will make us weaker with Russia, and could be dangerous for us.

 

The Express said this was scaremongering.

 

That comment in itself was fairly innocuous, but the 'Brexit/WW3' link was not - and that was a *Daily Mirror* headline!

 

 

 

Not quite the same situation though, as they needed cross-party support for that.

It is exactly the same situation. They can throw their weight around, as does the UK in the EU parliament. There are a number of smaller nations who vote with us, the likes of Sweden and Czechia that add weight to our arguments and often cause qualified majority votes to fail. Without us those votes would pass comfortably.

 

So say that we don't have any real impact at the EU Parl is to simply stick your head in the sand and deny reality. Even with UKIP attending approximately 3 sessions per year the UK still stands up for it's own interests, it joins forces with other countries to oppose votes and if it doesn't like the outcome then it throws a strop and adds another opt out to it's long ass list of opt outs.

 

Just because you fail to understand EU democracy doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

It's a good time to be a constitutional lawyer - hundreds of suckers willing to throw money at you for cases with minimal chance of success...

 

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/brexitchallenge/

I've commented on the ill-advised dangers of thresholds, elsewhere.

 

Assuming they *would* have supported him, if asked. :unsure:

Everyone knew that - Remainers & Leavers both.

 

BUt if, as is regularly claimed here, people were 'brainwashed', then why would a positive campaign have made a difference?

Allowing the latter especially would have played right into Leavers hands!

Well done. You've managed a full set of missing the point.