Brexit discussion

[Chloé Palmas]

I have to ask Mr K, who is the General Kitchner of the CF right wingers?

Oh dear, compared to Trump.

*hangs head in shame*

Btw...I have called a pinko commie liberal and by US standards I suppose I am fairly liberal but by UK standards I am as fairly conservative. Most Brits think that I am way out there (as I am pro gun / anti abortion etc).

Stay on topic with less of the personal digs

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Okay I need to explain this comment. In no way did I mean to make fun of diabetics but shortly before May became PM, Boris apparently struck a deal with her that he would take over in 2019. (I can't remember the exact details but the story was published in the Telegraph).

In post 2731, you wrote:



I should permlink that. The reason that Bojo was indeed aghast is because the public listened, and voted to leave! He never had any plans to fix this mess because 1, he never wanted to leave in the first place and 2, he never thought that the public would buy it.

Think about it this way - when does a politician ever try win votes in this day and age - when campaigning for or against something? It was a lot easier for Boris to say "look at those EU bureaucrats" to go win votes with the British public to go get elected than say "see I won!". Then he would be accredited for the current disastrous state of affairs. Think that the next Tory will go to the voters and say "vote for me for look at the brilliant and magnificent job TM is doing?" Of course not. They will talk about what the pitfalls of a Jeremy Corbyn led administration (propped up by the SNP with John McDonnel as Chancellor and Dianne Abbot as HS) to such an extent that it will do for Cameron what Ed Miliband was in 2015. In my link above I categorically said that the SNP's failure in the North are what allowed May to form a minority government in the first place. The Tories are right not to ram that home though, so they can use Strugeon as a punch bag for the next race! No way (in this day and ago) can someone run on their own merits - you have to constantly belittle and undermine the other side. Ergo, negative attack ads and campaigning work.

Look at what happened with Obama in the US - for so long Republicans felt like they had to carry water for Wall street at the end of 2008 (an unpopular war etc) but when Obama came in my God they found their feet - governing is not so easy but being in opposition all they have to do is talk about their dissatisfaction with the other side. (Like with the Iraq war, the Democrats never had a plan so for all their Bitching about Bush / Cheney / Rumseld they never had a plan of their own). Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - 80 years in exile / the Wilderness etc. Hosni Mubarrak finally goes and what happens - Morsi comes in and is thrown out and imprisoned within a couple years. Burma / Myanmar. All good and well when you are winning Nobel peace prizes while under home confinement but when you are leader of the country and have to deal with the slaughter of Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, it is not so easy, is it?

(I could go on, but back to that comment I made).

So let's take a look at some of the most prominent voices on the leave side:

Farage...no longer has a job nor purpose, quit UKIP and has to resort to working for LBC.

John Redwood...lost his marriage and still not worthy to lick John Major's boots.

Michael Gove...we all know what happened to him.

(I could go on but this post is getting rather long winded).

Gove and Johnson looked aghast as they realized that they might have to clean up this mess. Think things are going well? May was the perfect woman to put in to take the heat for all this. Because now Boris can say "May is screwing all this up, which is why your life is dreadful"...where as before the vote he could blame it all on the EU.

That is why he had to think fast, and he did by getting the one job in government that spelled out his reality. "Britain will have wonderful times ahead...I am going to show my patriotism to it by going off to warmer and sunnier climes and wow am I going to enjoy it! Go Britain!". Nobody will ever know whether he did what he did intentionally or Gove really did knife him in the back but either way Gove will forever take the blame and Boris doesn't have to deal with any of this - he found his stooge in May to take the blame for all that goes wrong. He can live his life up a bit, in the mean time.

The joke that goes round is that he could have cake but a diabetic could not - so he put the diabetic in as PM so he could have his cake, and eat it - while she suffered so mercilessly. I don't like Boris at all (don't agree with him, his personal behavior is repulsive etc) but on this one issue I am glad that he does what he does to May - she deserves it. She is the most two faced lecherous PM this country has ever had the misfortune of having and she deserves to be tormented the way that she is. It is not fair for other diabetics to be tarred by her, so even whenever I hear the phrase I will try to rebuff it and my apologies to anyone who took offense to my words - they are not my own but just the running gag I hear going around. I thought that it was funny at first but there is no good reason to tar anyone with May - diabetic or not. (Feel for me - I am the same gender as her!!!)

I am not sure Mrs May deserves such hatred. I mean "lecherous", really? If anything, she is guilty of being two-faced: a Remainer one minute and then an ardent Leaver the next. But then, how many politicians are not two-faced? Corbyn, is positively venal! At the first whiff at the prospects of power, he dropped how many decades of staunch anti-EU behaviour and became one of the Remain cheerleaders. Ok, he was pathetic at it which maybe was by design but the bottom line is he is as bad as May.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not sure Mrs May deserves such hatred. I mean "lecherous", really? If anything, she is guilty of being two-faced: a Remainer one minute and then an ardent Leaver the next. But then, how many politicians are not two-faced? Corbyn, is positively venal! At the first whiff at the prospects of power, he dropped how many decades of staunch anti-EU behaviour and became one of the Remain cheerleaders. Ok, he was pathetic at it which maybe was by design but the bottom line is he is as bad as May.

The rest of the cabinet plus Mr Rees-Frogg, could be called lecherous though. Back stabbing till the last ones is left standing, power is everything, meanwhile the country can go hang. They will all be ok at the end of the day, unlike us.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The rest of the cabinet plus Mr Rees-Frogg, could be called lecherous though. Back stabbing till the last ones is left standing, power is everything, meanwhile the country can go hang. They will all be ok at the end of the day, unlike us.

What is fascinating about the Moggster is that Dacre has set the attack dogs on him:

Mogg's Moscow Millions: Brexiteer's firm has poured a fortune into a string of Russian companies with links to the Kremlim but has invested next to nothing in Britain

Jacob Rees-Mogg’s investment firm has a stake in a string of Russian companies with links to the Kremlin and to some of Moscow’s wealthiest oligarchs, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The hardline Brexiteer owns almost a fifth of Somerset Capital Management, which he founded and which now manages nearly £7.5 billion for wealthy private investors and City institutions.

On behalf of its clients, SCM has bought shares in two Russian firms blacklisted by the US and others which are controlled by powerful oligarchs in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

Despite the Tory MP’s avowed belief that the British economy will thrive after Brexit, the funds have almost nothing invested in the UK.

Not quite sure what is going on here ..

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What is fascinating about the Moggster is that Dacre has set the attack dogs on him:

Mogg's Moscow Millions: Brexiteer's firm has poured a fortune into a string of Russian companies with links to the Kremlim but has invested next to nothing in Britain

Not quite sure what is going on here ..

The article is in the Mail on Sunday which I believe follows a more liberal agenda than its more infamous stablemate.
And Somerset Capital invests in emerging markets so Russia ticks that box.
I suspect there's nothing to see here but I could be wrong, as much as I dislike Rees-Mogg.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I notice though, Chloé, that you don't mention Barnier's intransigence and inflammatory language, to which Davis was responding.

In regards to that I hadn't seen his comments that seem to have stung Davis the way that they seem to have. He (Barnier) is a seasonal negotiator (you have to be to deal with Brussels as a whole, at a Federalist level) where as Davis seems to have gone at this as quite a novice / someone caught quite blind-sighted. When Davis said what he did, I kind of thought "If they could have been that imaginative / creative to begin with then there would have been no need for a referendum to begin with". Barnier is a wile old fox in a lot of ways and he has clearly taken the more conciliatory tone where as Junker has taken the role of very much hard lined unwavering discipline. If anything, Tusk has been the most accommodating (I think that he really did try his best to get Cameron a negotiation that would work for the public) and Barnier has tried his best, too - it is Guy and CJ that have come across as rather abrasive.

It is in the interests of both sides to have frictionless trade and it is entirely possible to achieve this, but we do not intend and will not accept free movement of people.

This is where I disagree with you, some. While I agree that it may well be in the best interest(s) of everyone (definitely, in fact) to have as friction-less trade it is not possible at all, IMO, unless the UK stays a member of the CU. Like Mick said above, he knows what he was voting for and realizes that there will have to be tariffs and borders if the UK leaves the CU.

It is not just about whether it is practically feasible or not ; the logistics are one thing but it is the principle of the matter. What purpose would it serve to be a member of the CU for any member state if they could just opt in to which trade agreements that they wanted and strike their own ones after? The whole purpose of the EU trade agreements are collectivism - you either do it together or not at all. You're either in it (no friction) or out (free to strike your own trade deals round the world, plus barriers and tariffs with the EU). Has to be one or the other.

Incidentally, I agree that the objective of reducing immigration to the hundreds of thousands should be dropped. A ridiculous ploy by David Cameron, in my book.

It should be reduced to whatever is required by industry and our public services, and that should be the objective behind controlling immigration.

Absolutely agree with you there 100% - I do not know who or where it came from but the whole idea of quotas on migration should surely have some empiric (something or another) data behind it. Markets and public services / industry seem like one of them - no? Maybe wage and currency issues etc - but I get the feeling that Cameron / May etc just plucked it out of thin air and nor could it or should it ever have been suggested. Bad policy formed on...I am not sure what.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What is fascinating about the Moggster is that Dacre has set the attack dogs on him:

Mogg's Moscow Millions: Brexiteer's firm has poured a fortune into a string of Russian companies with links to the Kremlim but has invested next to nothing in Britain



Not quite sure what is going on here ..

Maybe this pearl of wisdom from the Honourable member for the 18th Century didn't go down well in Daily Hateland.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...cob-rees-mogg/

Britain could rejoin the European Union after Brexit, says Jacob Rees-Mogg

I think he's taken a leaf out of Russia's book, anything to create instability.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It's no longer a debate it's just whinging about losing and not accepting the results of democracy .

Hardly - you won. Now what? (It is the move of the leavers, next).

We're not whinging - we can accept that 52% of the country voted to leave. You now need to map out the road out ahead - and that doesn't mean that we are or EU bureaucrats all need to go along with whatever you suggest, nor does parliament when they get a vote on it.

Because they get a say due to the fact that they were elected - not giving someone who is a sitting member of parliament a say and not accepting the vote in parliament would be, as you said:

not accepting the results of democracy

Every Smurf (MP) gets a vote (even us little smurfettes!). I may not be a member of Parliament but then again, May is not Queen. Unelected Peers may well be an affront to Democracy (you could probably even go as far as to boot the speaker) but even May would struggle to abolish the House of Commons.

This Democracy thing goes both ways - you want to sell it to the British public that you can leave any way you want to? Go for it! But you will have to make the case, May isn't the dictating Queen that she wishes to be.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not sure Mrs May deserves such hatred. I mean "lecherous", really?

Yeah in hindsight that likely wasn't the correct word. I just looked up the meaning and it says "overly sexual" so maybe it is better than the word whore but in this current political climate / predicament that she finds herself in, she seems willing to do anything, for anyone at any cost. Maybe the word(s) to describe her do more harm than good. When Leadsom called her out through the leadership race about not having kids she brushed it off as nothing, but clearly her role as PM has shown how impotent she is at every single thing she ever touches. It is not her fault that she can't have kids, but it is her fault that we all have a PM that we need to baby like a little kid. She is a disgrace to women, and she disgusts me.

I remember watching the highlight reel of the last PMQs that Cameron had and when we said it was "2-0" for women PMs to the Tories but all she did is gush and giggle like a little child on the benches - and that has been what it feels like with her as PM. A little child who needs the grown ups (whether in cabinet or the back benches, the media, Brussels or anywhere else) to all tell her what to do, and make her do it. After the abysmal election the 1922 committee had to control her to fire Hill and Timothy (glove up her butt / puppet style), then the cabinet with their wars which went right over her head (no matter how much she tried to reign authority), then the back bench rebels along with Brussels diplomats (she caved into them, every single time) and now women in Parliament over abortion. That is just like 4 or 5 examples of like...hundreds, everyone else says "Jump" and May says "do the 4 inches count if I wear stilettos?"

They all keep tugging at her getting a piece of the pie and she is totally unable to fight back - just paralyzed sitting there and taking it. Either that or she is the collective responsibility of everyone and once everyone has had a dip into her, they just pass her onto the next person. If that isn't the definition of a political whore, I dunno what is. I really don't mean to be vulgar / graphic in this discussion so please tell me, if you have the word for her kind of weakness / paralysis, then please tell me - by all means, I am all ears.

If a woman behaved like this at a party, we would all know what to call her (crowd-surfing her way over every guy going), so in political terms, what would you call it?

Only as a woman, I would never behave like this and no woman with half a shred of decency would, either.

If anything, she is guilty of being two-faced: a Remainer one minute and then an ardent Leaver the next. But then, how many politicians are not two-faced? Corbyn, is positively venal! At the first whiff at the prospects of power, he dropped how many decades of staunch anti-EU behaviour and became one of the Remain cheerleaders. Ok, he was pathetic at it which maybe was by design but the bottom line is he is as bad as May.

Any other PM would have crushed Corbyn and truth be told, any other competent LOTO would have crushed her into pieces in the last GE. They are as bad as each other? More like they are fit for one another.

I don't doubt the latter part of your analysis but I think that he did such a dreadful job of campaigning to stay in the first place (through the referendum) that it is part of the reason that we are trying to leave - traditional union voters didn't seem very moved by his performance.

There are few principled people left on the remain side, those in Parliament anyway. Lammy is one and I think Ken Clarke is one on the Tory side but like Lab's front benches (with the exception of Steimer) they all are carrying the water of "the people voted for it".

Osbourne is livid with May (though he seems to have eased lately) and I am principled enough to say I voted remain, I am still pro remain and even though the majority of Brits voted to leave, it does not change my view of the EU. I hate people who flip flop. Jeremy Hunt is an example of that. For May, that is the least of her screw ups.

But my problem is that Corbyn half enabled this with his no show through the referendum.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Care to comment?

No comment, OB?

One of the Big Lies about the Leave campaign was that we could not control EU immigration ..

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

No comment, OB?

One of the Big Lies about the Leave campaign was that we could not control EU immigration ..

Was that on the bus ?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

No comment, OB?

One of the Big Lies about the Leave campaign was that we could not control EU immigration ..

Well, we can't control EU immigration! People walk into this country and as long as they can get work, they are allowed to stay. What Brexiteers say is that we should only take in people from outside this country if we have a skills shortage and employers feel that this is the only way of addressing it. The reason for the restrictions we want to see is nothing to do with race, it is simply the fact that we are already overcrowded, which places a strain on our housing, education, health service and social services. If there was a balance between immigration and emigration, this would not have become an issue.

And it is all very well for you to say that we can send them back if they don't get work, but that depends on whether we can find them!

We should only let in those who have the skills we require until we can restore the balance. Leaving the EU will help us to achieve that.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

Takes one look at this thread and I just can't help hearing the tune with the following lyrics...."Then put your little hand in mine.....

.....I got you babe...."

That reminds me, Donald Trump was recently asked if he knew the difference between Sunni and Shia? He replied, "I don't know which is which but I know they sung 'I got you babe'"

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe this pearl of wisdom from the Honourable member for the 18th Century didn't go down well in Daily Hateland.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...cob-rees-mogg/

I think he's taken a leaf out of Russia's book, anything to create instability.

Can't stand old Jacob Really Smug, as someone called him earlier, don't trust him an iota

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That reminds me, Donald Trump was recently asked if he knew the difference between Sunni and Shia? He replied, "I don't know which is which but I know they sung 'I got you babe'"



Can't stand old Jacob Really Smug, as someone called him earlier, don't trust him an iota

It is certainly difficult and embarassing to hear someone speaking so eloquently on the other side of your own arguments, demolishing all the issues you raise one by one.

He is certainly not the person to listen to if you want to stay in your own comfort zone.