New BBC soap

In message , Indy Jess John
writes:
[]
It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he

That is often said, but I've not seen any proof. (Mind you, I haven't
looked for any, either.)

was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
lost to UKIP.

That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU

It was noticeable that just after our referendum result, the bureaucracy
of the EC did make moves to increase the difficulty for other countries
to leave. Such activity died down subsequently, and I don't know if it
actually reached any implementation.

talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be
a pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.

I can't help thinking there is at least some truth in that. If we were
to stay in, our relations would be considerably more strained with our
fellow members, due to harsh things that have been said in the past
three years (on both sides - of the channel, I mean). If we leave, the
same applies: basically it'll take a long time for things to cool,
whatever we do.

Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.

I think that's correct; most EU citizens probably aren't that bothered
what the percentage was, only the result. In the same way, from a
greater distance, most Iranians currently probably think of us as
Americans, even though our views on Iran are considerably different to
the USA's.

Jim
John
--
me

In message , Bob Latham
writes:
[]
Yes this is very typical remain arguments.
[]
To remind you the bus said...

"We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund the NHS instead.
Vote Leave Let's take back control."

It was, in the interpretation a lot of people put on it, a BIG lie. (But
see below.)

Oh yes a massive lie that. Do you believe it would have made any
difference had the figure said £100M /week? I don't, I think both are
unimaginably large sums of money. It also did not promise to spend

That's one of two points that tend to get overlooked:
1. Had it been closer to the net value (about 100m is it?), I doubt that
would have made much difference to those who voted leave for reasons of
just the money. (Had it even been half the true value, I still don't
think it'd have made much difference. 350, 100, and 50m are all figures
too big for most people - including me - to grasp easily.)
2. That wasn't the only reason many voted leave.

350m /week on the NHS which is a common claim.

It certainly strongly implied it though!

Now can you list these other lies that leave told and then we go over
the utter trash we've had from remain for over 3 years day after day.

Both sides have been extremely dishonourable.
[]
Judge says our bus was OK.

I'm sure only on some very narrow interpretation, such as it showed a
true figure but for the _gross_ contribution, not _net_. (But see above
for whether it would have actually made much difference.)
[]
--
me

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:25 24 Jul 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/07/2019 21:19, Tim Lamb wrote:



Spaced Tim was an uncertain on polling day:-)

One could point to the lack of measurable benefits for leaving other
than recovering some ephemeral sovereignty, a financial contribution
not already rebated and the expectation of recovering already sold
fishing rights. Really comes down to TNPs fear of being told what to do
by someone whose grandfather might have worn jackboots.

I am sorry to hear you say that Tim, since taht is not the case and I
suspect you know it.

It is for me all part of a larget striuglle agqainst kneejerl politics,
the dumbing down of pthe public into dicidel aheep and teh raoe of the
citizens by a criminal elite.

It all starte for me by asking 'why windmills?' when windmills after a
few weeks of analyis, were not a solution to a problem I wasnt sure even
existed.

Since there was no green reason for them I followed the money trail. It
led not just to te EU but to an international caretl of political
slitists in cahoots with global coroprations to maximise their profits
at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a barrage of
propaganda mainly using faau moral arguments like 'social justice' to
justify the rape.

Read that again! You sound like some student commie revolutionist.
Paranoid too.

The only way to oppose this for the good of the citizen was to take arms
against the EU.

"Take arms against the EU" to fight "global corporations"? Yes, sure.
That's a good idea. You want to wreck our economy for your personal
political objectives of bringing down global corporations.


It wasnt so much taht this would in and of itself change things for the
better - in fact in the short term it would probably be slightly worse -
but it would allow of other changes to happen. E.g. scrapping the
climate change act and halving electricity bills thereby.

The only democratic act we were ever wllowed, was te referendum, all
else was verboten, and the EU told us what to do.

Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU and
we never really had any democracy at all?

By and large the semi-educated professional middle classes were doing
all right, and they supported the EU, but the the rest of the population
was not.

Remaining is equally vague in terms of future benefits but 40 years of
stability and a GNP hugely larger than most countries our size must
count for something.

None of which has anything to do with the EU. You will be claiming that
the sun shines because we are in the EU, and when it goes behind a
cloud, its climate change. Really Tim, I expectd better from you.

In the end it is all about trust, who you trust and why you trust them.
In so many ways I have een teh EU, and they must by their actions, know
that they are lying, in so many ways. If they are lying, why? What is so
bad they must conceal it?

Ypou presumably think they are trustworthy.

After all that has happened in the last three years?

The last 3 years have shown the glaring incompetence
of Brexiteers to deliver their pledges.

Bet Boris does.

Almost none of the benefits they promised are going to materialise.

That’s a lie too with being able to do whatever the govt
chooses to do regardless of what the EU thinks about that.

Brexit adds no value,

Another lie.

so it's no surprise.

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:12 24 Jul 2019, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 24/07/2019 11:55, Pamela wrote:

Oh my. So our general elections were being thwarted by the wicked EU
and
we never really had any democracy at all?

No. Our general elections were rigged rather differently in that there
was rarely a party on the voting slip that didn't want to remain in the
EU. And even the parties which promised that any further loss of
sovereignty would be put to the public vote always lied about that.

Every politician wants to be in the EU because the EU is gradually
extending the range of people guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and
eventually that scope will include the national governments of EU member
states

It is also worth noting that David Cameron only offered a public
referendum because he was certain the result would be to remain, and he
was worried that without that referendum, too many Tory votes would be
lost to UKIP.

That is why Brexit has to happen. The public will never ever be given
another chance to leave the EU. Only after we have left will the EU
talk sensibly to us. If we stay having invoked Article 50, we will be a
pariah state for many years; we will truly regret staying in.

Regardless of whether an individual voted leave or remain in the
referendum, that is the brush the entire country is now tarred with.

A second referendum in the light of what we
know 3 years later should clean this matter up.

Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.

Alternatively a general election fought mainly on Brexit should do it.

Not going to happen given the polls.

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2019 18:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pamela
wrote:

A referendum is not as expensive as the extra £17 billion expenditure
every year for border checks which is what Brexit will require. By
comparison the last referendum cost less than £130 million which is a
bargain by comparison.

£17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.


Where are the Eu doing them?

Irrelevant to the bare faced lie that they will cost the UK £17b every year.

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:14 24 Jul 2019, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Pamela
wrote:

A referendum is not as expensive as the extra £17 billion expenditure
every year for border checks which is what Brexit will require. By
comparison the last referendum cost less than £130 million which is a
bargain by comparison.

£17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.

I don't mean only the NI border. The estimate was between £17 and £20
billion extra. See he

"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226

Just more Project Fear lies.

On 25/07/2019 02:27, Swer wrote:
Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
a no deal brexit which they clearly don’t want.

They want to give Britain a better deal than no deal even less.

Brexit MUST fail and be SEEN to fail or everyone will leave the EU, and
there will just be a bunch of ****s in suits bumbling around with no one
to bully.

You don't get to be top protection racket in Europe without smashing a
few economies.

Greece, Italy and nearly Ireland come to mind.

Does the EU give a ****? Nope... "We are your friendly nice godfather,
now give us £39bn and sign the profits to us forever'



--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:07:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


£17 Billyun to do border checks? Are ye mad? And anyway it's already
been stated that we won't be doing any border checks at the border.


Where are the Eu doing them?

Irrelevant to the bare faced lie that they will cost the UK £17b every year.

PROVE it, you blithering Australian idiot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:00:46 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

I don't mean only the NI border. The estimate was between £17 and £20
billion extra. See he

"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226

Just more Project Fear lies.

PROVE it, you clinically insane senile Australian asshole troll!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:27:14 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


A second referendum in the light of what we
know 3 years later should clean this matter up.

Its still not known what the EU will cave on to avoid
a no deal brexit which they clearly don¢t want.

It IS known that you are a trolling senile asshole, senile Rodent!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: