Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Donnywolf on January 16, 2019, 10:14:30 am
-
I am guilty of "plugging" this again and again. I never truly understood it until I did if that make sense
Just wondered what other people thought about it and importantly if we as a Nation want it how we ever get it BECAUSE if the process of Leaving the EU is anything to go by it would take forever
The 2 main Parties are the main beneficiaries of our unjust First Past the Post system so they will be hard to crack that is for sure !
There is the Twitter feed here of Make votes Matter so I can butt out now
https://twitter.com/MakeVotesMatter (https://twitter.com/MakeVotesMatter)
-
Pros and cons isn't there. The big point against is the likely number of coalitions which historically don't go down well in the UK. How many seats would ukip have had in the past for example....
-
No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result.
-
Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..
We have that with general elections..
-
BFYP.
We've had minority, Govts, or Govts with extremely slim majorities that constrained their freedom to act for 19 of the past 45 years (74-79, 92-97, 10-19). And that's under our FPTP, the one argument for which is that it is supposed to deliver strong and stable Govt...
There is no practical or moral argument against PR. UKIP SHOULD have got a lot of seats in 2015 with the votes they got.
PR would enable the two main parties to split and produce the 5 natural parties that we should have in England (Corbynista Left, Ed Milliband-type Left, Centrist, Ken Clarke-type Tory, Ress-Mogg-type Tory/UKIP).
Then we'd all be able to vote for something much closer to what we actually believe in, and coalition Govts would naturally emerge. Our politics would be far more grown up. Take Brexit. Those 5 parties would all be able to campaign for what they really believe (the far-left and far-right FOR Brexit, the other three against) without having to worry about alienating supporters.
-
PR is fair IMHO when it comes to choosing the government and the constitution of parliament - however - you could end up with towns being represented by an MP of a minorty party locally, due to how the seats are allocated..
-
How would the people get rid of an MP they don't like under PR?
-
Do we need a system like they have in the USA where you vote separately for your local representative as well as your head of government.?
-
That would require an elected head of state, I think.
That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.
-
Do we need a system like they have in the USA where you vote separately for your local representative as well as your head of government.?
It's called Separation Of Powers, and most countries have it, we're the ones who are the anomaly.
-
That would require an elected head of state, I think.
That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.
A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.
-
Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..
We have that with general elections..
Outcome? We've not even left yet!
Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?
-
That would require an elected head of state, I think.
That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.
A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.
That's why I also added that you could just change the way the PM was chosen.
-
Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..
We have that with general elections..
Outcome? We've not even left yet!
Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?
But if is clear the outcome isn’t going to appear either end of the brexit voting spectrum, why not create a better choice to vote for again.??
That isn’t about reversing the decision repeatedly, however..
-
That would require an elected head of state, I think.
That or you change the way the PM is chosen, as at the moment it's just the head of whoever wins/can form a majority bloc.
A symbolic Head Of State, just for ceremonial purposes, can be anybody you like. If they've no power why would they need to be elected? I once suggested the Lord Mayor Of London - the job is exactly the same, just covering the country and not just London.
That's why I also added that you could just change the way the PM was chosen.
If you went for proper Separation Of Powers, they'd have to be chosen differently as it wouldn't be the election of the legislature that decided it.
-
...total rolling goat f**k...
Can't read the rest of the thread, too busy laughing. That's my new favourite saying.
-
I will be listening for it Saturday if we go behind to Burton or the Ref drops an immense clanger
I use the word k******d a lot when criticising the Ref but total rolling goat f****r may take its place !
Im IN
-
Aye BB, but also noting that if the outcome of the result is a total rolling goat f**k, then some time later there can be a further vote..
We have that with general elections..
Outcome? We've not even left yet!
Who said we can't have another vote to rejoin in future?
But if is clear the outcome isn’t going to appear either end of the brexit voting spectrum, why not create a better choice to vote for again.??
That isn’t about reversing the decision repeatedly, however..
Because it would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it.
-
BB
Aye. A democratic vote is guaranteed to undermine confidence in democracy.
-
BST. A vote to overturn a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote.
-
It wouldn’t be a vote aimed at overturning the previous result, it would be a meaningful vote for clear defined choices..
-
Yes it would, and no it wouldn't. It would be seen by many millions of people as a vote aimed at overturning the previous result, and if it went the other way it would be treated as one apiece and a best of 3 situation.
-
BB
So let me get this right.
You're saying that if the British public, now, in 2019, have a different opinion to the opinion they had in 2016, they shouldn't be able to express that through a vote?
Is that it?
-
BST. I'm saying that not everyone wants another vote because they consider it to be undemocratic because we've already had a vote.
What part of my posts on this thread do you disagree with?
-
BB
Yep. We had a vote. And no-one in that vote knew what Leave meant.
Not even Farage knew what Leave meant, because back then he was talking about a Norway deal. Now he's talking about No Deal.
Now, we all know a lot more about what the myriad possibilities of Leave are.
We know that we won't be £350m/week better off with Brexit. (in a poll in Ref 2016 week, 48% thought we would).
We know that 80million Turks won't be arriving in Britain anytime soon. (Several million videos were sent to the Facebook accounts of people who had been identified as susceptible to that sort of message in the week of the vote. Videos paid for by Putin).
We know more now. The facts are a lot clearer.
Surely, you'd want a more informed decision to be made now?
-
Not one person on the Brexit side has come across as being capable of negotiating any sort of deal.
-
BST. You're missing the point. The point is millions of people disagree with you and still want to leave, and will demand the right to leave because the country voted to leave.
I believe that having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it.
Don't you?
-
No. I don't. For all the reasons I gave above.
This is sounding like an emotional spasm.
"We VOTED in 2016 and we won and we don't give a shit about any of these facts being brought up now."
That's what it looks like. Am I wrong?
-
No, I don't think you are wrong. I believe many millions of people don't give a shit about what you and people who share your opinion think. The leave vote won and they will insist on leaving.
Only time will tell who's right on the consequences of another vote if we have one of course.
-
Ok devil's advocate time again. We have a 2nd referendum, leave win again (and poll trackers suggest they would) what then? More years of whining? Campaign for a 3rd referendum? Where does it stop? If Labour win the next GE do we have a further vote before they can implement their control just in case we have changed our minds in the interim?
-
Ldr, the idea is that a furrher vote for the public would have to include a clear leave option, with a plan agreed by parliament and acceptable to the EU - therefore you know what’s on the table for an informed choice..
So if leave then wins, we know what would happen afterwards.
More than two and a half years after the referendum and we STILL don’t know what leaving actually means.!
How the hell is that “democratic”.??
-
Ok devil's advocate time again. We have a 2nd referendum, leave win again (and poll trackers suggest they would) what then? More years of whining? Campaign for a 3rd referendum? Where does it stop? If Labour win the next GE do we have a further vote before they can implement their control just in case we have changed our minds in the interim?
Ldr, I have been asking about the question in for first paragraph for a while, no one comes up with a straight answer.
BST tells me that a second referendum would not be simply Leave or Remain but that is all I get back.
The most vociferous opponents to Ref2 are the hard line Leavers who are concerned that it could turn out a Remain result, possibly due to them knowing that many Leave voters have changed their mind and would vote to Remain.
If the hard liners are so confident that Leave would win again, why not agree to a Ref2.
-
I thought the topic was about Proportional Representation.
There is another one called Brexit!!!
So back to PR.
I think in theory it is a good idea but it is very dangerous because it could give minority parties & groups like the National Front seats in parliament.
Germany in the 1930’s. We don’t need that thankyou very much.
So while our present system may not seem the most fair one it is a system that protects us from the extreme right & left of politics.
-
Cheers CR - I was just going to try to steer us back to PR ! That B****t sh*t is pervasive for sure
-
I thought the topic was about Proportional Representation.
There is another one called Brexit!!!
So back to PR.
I think in theory it is a good idea but it is very dangerous because it could give minority parties & groups like the National Front seats in parliament.
Germany in the 1930’s. We don’t need that thankyou very much.
So while our present system may not seem the most fair one it is a system that protects us from the extreme right & left of politics.
It is a bit like when a thread about say, Marquis, becomes one about Alfie May.
Almost every thread deviates.
-
Hound.
I have said time and time and time again that if a Ref2 with a clear and unambiguous Leave option results in a Leave vote, I would accept that.
-
BST people interpret things as they see fit. As far as I am concerned there was nothing deal wise offered or implied at the referendum it was as simple as leave which by inference is no deal. That's how I saw the question. People who have a differing opinion on leave / remain have spent 2 year convincing themselves that people who voted leave didn't understand that or voted because of false promises which is very condescending. I voted leave (for reasons I have discussed with you before) with no expectation of any deal
-
Wolfie, PR is the only way forward and would force consensus politics rather than the polarisation we have now
-
Ldr
That is absolute nonsense. EVERYONE on the Leave side was telling us we'd get a great deal from the EU.
Farage was talking about us being like Norway or Switzerland (both of whom have deals with the EU).
Johnson told us the EU needed us more than we needed them and would be desperate to give us a good deal.
No one on the Leave side talked about No Deal because it would be boneheadedly stupid to unilaterally decide to cut out economy by 8-9%.
-
BST
As I said, I voted with the understanding it didn't imply any deal, the option was to leave the eu.
You illustrate my point about condescension clearly by implying what any of those cretins said had any influence.
-
I vote this thread is for the discussion of PR in all its forms !
I am 67 almost 68 and for my first 30 years was oblivious to PR - then I used to laugh at John Cleese coming on and singing its praises on behalf of The Liberals
I used to say to the TV - well you would want that as you cant win any other way. The older I got (darent say wiser) I took more interest in all Politics and PR in particular
I staarted this thread because there are more and more pressure groups out there like Make Votes Matter who are dedicated to PR and personally I hope they pull it off. If the Tories dont like it and Labour dont like it I understand that. They have the most to lose. Sure they might carry the Country by 42% as Thatcher did with a landslide but that is not good for us as people
42 pc wanted the Tories 58 pc did not so lots of the 58 are unrepresented. Lots of younger voters especially those "stuck" for instance in South Yorkshire where Labour hold all the Seats with 57% of the Vote openly say "no point Voting - my vote does not count"
So I wanted to throw this out there and if possible through discussions learn a bit more myself - and if some of the "my vote does not count people" read this Thread maybe they will be more advanced understanding wise as I was at their age
One last thing - if PR (in whatever from is used) is so good for most modern democracies why have we "The mother of Parliaments" lagged so far behind in its adoption
-
BST. You're missing the point. The point is millions of people disagree with you and still want to leave, and will demand the right to leave because the country voted to leave.
I believe that having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it.
Don't you?
So if we had another vote and a version of Leave won, it'd be undemocratic and shouldn't be acted upon? :silly:How would the people get rid of an MP they don't like under PR?
-
It should have been acted upon in the first place without the need for another vote.
-
It has been acted upon. And we are where we are now because of that last referendum.
-
We are where we are now because of people like you who won't accept a democratic vote.
-
It has been acted upon. And we are where we are now because of that last referendum.
When we leave, then it's been acted on, any other view is crazy
-
Hound.
I have said time and time and time again that if a Ref2 with a clear and unambiguous Leave option results in a Leave vote, I would accept that.
There won't be a ref 2, so kinda pointless.
But if there is a clear and unambiguous explanation of what leave results in, then there also should be a clear and unambiguous explanation of what remain means.
-
The problem with it is it was never as simple as leave and remain. Many who voted leave didn't want this deal, or no deal and many who voted remain didn't want to be closer to Europe or stay the same. The ironic thing is with some change remain would win, but the EU won't give that change.
-
BST
As I said, I voted with the understanding it didn't imply any deal, the option was to leave the eu.
You illustrate my point about condescension clearly by implying what any of those cretins said had any influence.
You are obviously someone who thinks deeply about issues and forms a coherent judgement. But the fact is that there WERE many, MANY people whose opinions WERE influenced by the discussions in 2016. For example, in the very week of the vote, a poll found that 48% of voters believed the £350m/week claim, even though it had been comprehensively shown to be grossly deceptive at best, an outright lie at worst.
-
Think that's the nicest thing you have said to me BST
-
We are where we are now because of people like you who won't accept a democratic vote.
So it's me that's cobbled together a crap deal and elected the MPs that won't vote for it. Aye, right.
-
It's people like you who can only accept the result of a democratic vote when it goes their way.
Thanks once again for disagreeing with me by the way. It provides such a boost to my opinion.
-
BB.
I'll say again. What exactly WAS Leave in 2016? What was it that Leavers were voting for. if you don't have a firm definition of that, then the vote in 2016 was not a sacred democratic process.
How on earth can a re-visiting of that decision NOW, from a position of far better knowledge about what Leave means, be undemocratic?
-
BST.
I'll say again. The Leave vote was to leave! Leavers were voting to leave. The definition of leave is depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate.
That is the definition (I believe) the Leavers based their decision to leave.
-
It's people like you who can only accept the result of a democratic vote when it goes their way.
Thanks once again for disagreeing with me by the way. It provides such a boost to my opinion.
What's that got to do with the political impasse there is now? What has it got to do with the negotiations that have resulted in May's deal? What has it got to do with that deal being voted down in parliament? Nothing. Of course.
PS Accepting a result and agreeing with it are two very different things. But you'll ignore that because it doesn't suit your f**kaboutery.
-
Thanks again Mr Wiggerly.
-
No answer. Of course.
Just more f**kaboutery.
-
Thanks again Mr Wiggerly.
So if there was another democratic vote and the result was remain, would you accept it BB?
-
I would have been happy with it in the original vote, seeing as I voted for it! As it turned out I lost, but the difference between my stance and some others on here is I accepted it and believe the best way forward now is to support it.
-
Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:
No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?
Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?
a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?
If there is another vote and it went Remain, the Leavers would demand a 'best of 3' situation?
-
Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:
No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?
Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.
Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?
Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.
As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.
a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?
If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.
If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?
See my reply to your first question.
Bet you don't answer my questions now.
-
Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:
No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?
Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.
So you don't think there's a difference between campaigning against a vote and demanding another one?
Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?
Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.
So you think my opinion that having another vote would undermine democracy as we know it is complete rubbish. Don't you think there are millions of people who disagree with you, thus it resulting in being the end of British politics as we know it?
As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.
So you agree a re-vote would be undemocratic? The House of Lords is part of the political system and is not what is on the agenda to change. Voting out something that has only just been democratically voted in before it has even been enforced is.
a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?
If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.
So you don't think it would become your problem if millions of people rebel against a re-vote?
If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?
See my reply to your first question.
I never asked you if it should be accepted, I asked you if they'd demand a best of 3 sitiation.
Bet you don't answer my questions now.
Bett you wiggle out as usual.
-
Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:
No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?
Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.
So you don't think there's a difference between campaigning against a vote and demanding another one?
Someone campaigning may demand another vote as part of that campaign but they're not the same thing.
Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?
Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.
So you think my opinion that having another vote would undermine democracy as we know it is complete rubbish. Don't you think there are millions of people who disagree with you, thus it resulting in being the end of British politics as we know it?
No I don't.
As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.
a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?
If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.
So you don't think it would become your problem if millions of people rebel against a re-vote?
They won't. Besides which, you didn't mention a hypothetical rebellion of millions in your original question. But as it won't happen, no it's not my problem
If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?
See my reply to your first question.
I never asked you if it should be accepted, I asked you if they'd demand a best of 3 sitiation.
How the f**k should I know what they'd do although no doubt there'd be the usual social media shitshow.
Bet you don't answer my questions now.
Bett you wiggle out as usual.
That's twice I've not wiggled out of answering you. Still waiting for you not to wiggle out of answering my questions.
-
I'm sure some people will find your forecast of a lack of reaction to a re-vote situation quite comforting. Unfortunately, I find anything that comes from you has an opposite effect.
-
I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't think that there will be a rebellion of millions if there's a second referendum.
I've given you the courtesy of answering your questions twice now and am still waiting for you to stop wiggling and show me the same courtesy.
-
I've wiggled through enough of your posts today, Mr Wiggerly. How about asking me again and once I've de-wiggled it I'll try to answer you.
-
Thought not. The concept is alien to you.
-
BB.
Leave with no deal?
Canada deal?
Canada +?
Canada++?
Switzerland deal?
Norway deal?
Norway ++?
BINO?
May's deal?
Stay in the Custom's Union?
Stay in A Custom's Union?
Stay in the Single Market?
Stay aligned with the Single Market?
Have access to the Single Market?
Have a deal that prevents a hard border in Ireland?
Like I say, there is not and never was any single thing called "Leave". It's a myriad of different possibilities. All with vastly different pros and cons. Some of those possibilities are technically "Leave"-ing, but the consequence would be closer to Remain than to leaving with no deal.
I'm not sure where you've been for the past 2.5 years, but that's pretty much what the whole clusterf**k discussion has been about. How you define "Leave".
I understand your wish to simplify the problem down to a binary choice, but the real world out there is a bit more complicated than that.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
-
That's how I saw it too
-
Surely it was clear enough that the UK is so deeply embedded within the EU, that leaving would always be a very complex issue and not as simple as walking away no deal, leading to chaos.?
A second referendum isn’t a simple repeat of the last one, it should be a vote with clear options..
I would wait to see what the definitions were, and if there is a leave option which suits me I could just as easily vote leave as remain.. but last time that clarity wasn’t there was it.?
-
The vote was- leave or remain
It WAS NOT - deal or remain
-
That's odd then. Given that Farage was still proposing a Norway deal 6 months after the referendum.
Given that Fox was saying after the referendum that we'd get a deal with the EU and it would be the easiest negotiation in history. Given that Davies was proposing a Canada++ deal 18 months after the referendum.
Remind me. Who was talking about leaving with No Deal in June 2016?
-
The vote was- leave or remain
It WAS NOT - deal or remain
Exactly, which was crazy.! Uncertainty at best, chaos at worst, vs maintaining the status quo..
-
The official Vote Leave promise was this if you voted Leave:
"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
I'd have thought that no deal betrays that promise. I'm surprised so few other people do.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I'd already made my mind up, but I'd probably have changed it if I'd listened to you.
-
That's odd then. Given that Farage was still proposing a Norway deal 6 months after the referendum.
Given that Fox was saying after the referendum that we'd get a deal with the EU and it would be the easiest negotiation in history. Given that Davies was proposing a Canada++ deal 18 months after the referendum.
Remind me. Who was talking about leaving with No Deal in June 2016?
And prominent Brexiteers have suggested before the vote there could be a final vote on the final deal.
And the fact that David Davis said this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-KJQWAXoAAvibb.jpg)
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I'd already made my mind up, but I'd probably have changed it if I'd listened to you.
I agree.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
-
I accept thank you and many others voted to leave in a simple out or in choice..
But don’t you think it would have been fairer if the outcomes had been clearly defined first.?
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?
And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
Just a PS - I was quoting the Official Vote Leave Campaign literature. Who should people have believed if not the Official campaign?
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?
And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?
Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?
And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?
Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no
So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?
And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?
Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no
So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.
Man you like to twist don't you. I assume that because you agreed with remain everything they said or did is beyond reproach? As for leave, not my place to say is it?
-
I voted leave as I didn't believe in a much closer federal Europe.
I did expect that as in most divorces both sides would discuss sensibly an outcome that left both sides with something.
There hasn't been any sense of the Brexit side having the ability to negotiate between themselves, never mind the EU.
If as a second referendum I would change my vote to remain after the debacle of the last 30 months. That's without taking into account the likelihood of Putin pumping money into the leave campaign.
-
BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.
You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.
I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though
I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?
If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.
If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?
I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)
I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?
And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?
Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no
So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.
Man you like to twist don't you. I assume that because you agreed with remain everything they said or did is beyond reproach? As for leave, not my place to say is it?
Twist? You tell me what people should have believed and what they shouldn't have and how they could tell the two apart then. If it's not your place to say, why say people shouldn't have believed them at the time?
Of course I don't agree with everything Remain did. Osborne said some bloody stupid stuff, but then he always looked dead behind the eyes at the best of times. Cameron tried being his normal oily self, which didn't help, but he certainly didn't say there'd be WW3 if we voted Leave as some people keep insisting.
-
LDR.
I applaud your clear sightedness.
Just a question though. Does the prospect of an 8% dip in GDP following a No Deal Brexit concern you at all?
Only, there's no serious economic analysis of No Deal that suggests anything better than that.
Is it really worth losing the entire NHS budget for the foreseeable future to take back control?
-
Thanks BST, id be lying if I said it wasn't a concern of course, doesn't change my opinion. I learned a long time ago that there is more to life than money. Money obsession is a distinct thatcherite trait which I am glad to have been able to move on from myself having been there.
-
Yes there is more to life than money but when lack of money means poverty, lack of investment in vital services such as the NHS and Social Care and job losses then it becomes a bit more of a problem.
-
Indeed mate, which is a concern
-
BST. What exactly do you want then?
-
LDR.
I respect that opinion. But I'm with Tommy on this.
Don't think of it as money. Think of it as the ability of the country to do things.
No one younger than 90 in the UK has any comprehension of what the effect of losing 8-9% of GDP would be on society. It hasn't happened for over 80 years.
But look at the 80/81 recession. We lost 2% of GDP for less than a year. The effect was a tripling of unemployment. Public service funding slashed. Massive societal tensions.
No deal would make that look like sweetness and light. If you are not concerned by that, to be blunt, you've not properly thought about it.
-
I want us to have a properly informed public discussion where the REALITY of the various forms of leave are set out. Not the unicorns and candyfloss versions that were irresponsibly peddled in 2016.
Personally, I'd like to see the result of that being Britain getting over its emotional spasm, realising that our best interests are staying in the EU, and moving on.
But that's just my preference. If the country decided through a properly informed choice to leave in whatever way, I'd accept that.
-
BST. Before the referendum, leaflets were sent out to every household in the country explaining the negatives of leaving the EU. The referendum had two choices, leave or remain. The majority of voters chose to leave.
We've heard nowt but 'properly informed discussion' ever since. The Leavers have been told time and time again that they are thick, stupid idiots who have been conned.
Despite this, 'experts' claim that another vote now would result in an even larger leave majority, and the Leavers reluctance to have had to risk losing a vote they previously won, and with nothing whatsoever to gain in doing so, wouldn't this change the face of democracy as we know it?
I believe even if the Leavers won again, it would. I also believe if the Leavers lost there would be unprecedented political unrest.
-
BB
BB.
Regardless of that leaflet the Leave side comprehensively won the popular argument about the pros and cons of Brexiteers in 2016. But they did that by hammering on points which we now know we're fundamentally incorrect:
-We'll get a brilliant deal with the EU.
-We'll be economically better off.
-We'll save £350m/week which can go to the NHS.
-If we don't leave, 80million Turks are coming to a place near you.
I'm not saying people were thick to fall for that. I'm saying the Leave campaign knowingly, systematically and consistently peddled lies. Very skillfully. And NOW we know they were lies. We have a far clearer idea of what the truths of Brexit are. So it is illogical to say that re-visiting the decision from a point of more understanding is somehow a crime against democracy.
And that's before you factor in the illegal actions of the Leave campaign in deliberately profiling a number of vulnerable people who they deliberately poured lies at through social media. And before you factor in the Kremlin pouring money into the Leave campaign.
Any single one of those points is grounds enough for calling for a re-visiting of the decision.
As for unrest, it might happen. It's more likely to if people pre-justify it. If you're really saying we shouldn't have a democratic process because the people who lose might get violent, you might want to consider your take on democracy. (And I'm using "you" generally here, not specifically aimed at you, before we get the "condescending" argument ressurected.)
-
BST.
Regardless of your disregard of the one-sided leaflets that were sent through everyone's letterbox, If you believe leave votes were won because of the NHS bus advert and the Turks joining, do you also believe there were votes won for remain by the threats of an immediate recession, punishment budget, and pension cuts?
In view of the new 'facts' that have appeared since the first vote, Why do you think there are strong opinions of a greater majority of Leave voters should there be another vote?
-
BST.
I'll say again. The Leave vote was to leave! Leavers were voting to leave. The definition of leave is depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate.
That is the definition (I believe) the Leavers based their decision to leave.
That is EXACTLY what I thought I was voting for! I'm pretty sure everyone I know thought the same. I don't recall anything about doing deals before the vote. I thought it was simple in or out.
-
BB.
We've been through this so many times, I'm a bit weary of it now. But it's important so I'll repeat it. Again.
1) We DID have a sharp economic slowdown as a result of the Leave vote. We didn't tip into recession because there was an unexpected global mini-boom that cushioned us, but our economic performance relative to Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Canada, USA etc has slipped by several % of GDP, and we WOULD have been in official recession conditions without the cushion of the global boom. But the fundamental issue is the same. The Brexit vote HAS hugely hit our economic performance, just as it was predicted to do.
2) The Brexit vote DID have a seriously detrimental effect on public finances. Before 2016, the aim was that the budget deficit would be eliminated by 2019/20. The current projections are that it won't be eliminated until 2025. Hammond, as Chancellor, chose to address that by a long, slow, grinding programme of suppressed Govt spending, rather than Osborne's stupid threat to do it in a single hit, but the fundamental argument is still the same. The Brexit vote HAS f**ked the Govt finances, just as it was predicted to do.
3) As for the Govt leaflet. Which predictions in that were wrong? I've just gone back and re-read it. You can too. It's here. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiA-Lqz2vffAhUmRBUIHdVMBgcQFjABegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F515068%2Fwhy-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2vwlBk5mBWzwPDSS3zhlGQ
Tell me which bits have been demonstrated to be lies. On a par with the £350m or the Turkish immigration claims of Leave.
4) I don't know whose these opinions are, predicting a greater majority of Leave voters in Ref2. But that's irrelevant anyway. My argument is that the electorate were consistently and deliberately lied to by one side in 2016. And that alone means that Ref2 is a sensible democratic choice. If Leave wins that, then grand. The electorate may well choose to commit economic suicide, but at least it will be doing so from a position of knowing what it is doing this time.
-
BST, I'm sick and tired of repeating myself too.
WE DID NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE RECESSION.
What we did have immediately was an economic slowdown that was expected by BOTH Remainers and Leavers.
You can argue until you're blue in the face but what matters is what the people of the country think. Let's see who's more in touch with the majority opinion.
If only to settle this once and all, let's have what you demand. Let's have a re-vote. Let's see who wins!
-
BB.
You do yourself a dis-service by this silliness. You're a lot smarter than that.
Here's an analogy for your take. You are considering jumping out of an aircraft without a parachute. Someone tells you that you will fall at 100mph if you do.
You jump out of the plane. There's an unexpected updraft. You only fall at 50mph. You turn round and shout, "f**king useless prediction."
-
BST, that's an analogy based on past experience of the consequences of jumping out of a plane without a parachute. No one has such a negative experience of the consequences of leaving the EU.
It's not a question of how smart or thick I am, it's about how the majority of the country perceive the situation.
-
Yes, BB. Of course no one has experience of the precise effect of a country leaving the EU.
But the topic of the effect of making trade easier or harder with other countries is a very well established area of economics research. So you can draw pretty robust general conclusions.
The Treasury forecast in 2016 was that the effect of a Leave vote would be to produce a drop in GDP of about 3.6% over two years compared to voting Remain. Since 2016, we HAVE lost something like that amount compared to the growth that other leading economies have experienced. They have seen GDP growth increase over that time. Ours has fallen.
The predictions were broadly correct. Unlike the key promises of the Leave campaign which have all been shown to be piss and wind.
And I agree that it's the perception of the majority that matters. Which is why it's so important that people don't continue to peddle falsehoods.
-
You seem to me to overemphasize the impact the leave campaign had on the Leavers. In my opinion, the vast majority of people had made their mind up to leave not because of Turkey joining and an NHS bus advert being displayed, but largely because of immigration control and sovereignty.
I don't see what will have convinced those people to have changed their minds now, and perhaps their number may even have increased, not least because of the attitude of many of the Remainers.
This can be confirmed by the apparent increased support to leave now.
-
So BB. That poll in the week of the vote that showed that 48% of voters thought the £350m/week claim was correct?
And...why would Putin pour money into paying for Leave's social media campaign of lies if it was pointless? Why would Dominic Cummings stick £3m to Cambridge Analytica to identify people who were vulnerable to having lies pumped into their Facebook feed?
You reckon they were all wasting their time and everyone had made up their minds?
-
And WHAT increase in support to leave? The polls are going very strongly the other way.
-
You seem to me to overemphasize the impact the leave campaign had on the Leavers. In my opinion, the vast majority of people had made their mind up to leave not because of Turkey joining and an NHS bus advert being displayed, but largely because of immigration control and sovereignty.
I don't see what will have convinced those people to have changed their minds now, and perhaps their number may even have increased, not least because of the attitude of many of the Remainers.
This can be confirmed by the apparent increased support to leave now.
I get that people may have voted leave simply on the premise of sovereignty - and that is certainly more understandable than immigration issues.
However how many people who voted due to sovereignty would now be pissed off with how the leave process is working out..?
-
Perhaps you have to be one of them to understand their thinking.
I suspect many of them will be well pissed off, along with many Remainers. Some of them might even take a different view on the EU because of its 'Virgin Broadband' like difficulty in terminating contracts!
-
It isn't the terminating the contracts that's the difficulty though. We're asking for 300mb super fast fibre broadband while saying "nah f**k yous we're only paying for a phone line from now on".
-
Are we?
-
Aye.
-
Have we tried Talk Talk or won't Jeremy agree to that?
-
So BB. That poll in the week of the vote that showed that 48% of voters thought the £350m/week claim was correct?
You portray the poll as though 48% of leavers voted because of the bus slogan! I'm surprised you think the thick, stupid, misinformed, selfish Leavers would have the integrity to care about the future of the NHS.
And...why would Putin pour money into paying for Leave's social media campaign of lies if it was pointless? Why would Dominic Cummings stick £3m to Cambridge Analytica to identify people who were vulnerable to having lies pumped into their Facebook feed?
You reckon they were all wasting their time and everyone had made up their minds?
Do you honestly think many vulnerable Facebook people needed persuading to vote leave? Even if it's ever proved true I reckon it was £3 million quid wasted. Give me strength.
-
You've lost me entirely BB. I think you're losing yourself.
You keep on getting really confused on this issue.
There's no real complexity to leaving the EU if we want to leave with no deal. It's relatively simple. The EU won't stop us from doing that.
What they WILL do is to refuse to negotiate a preferential trade agreement with us if we just walk away, because us walking away would very badly affect one of their members, Ireland.
Why do you keep raising this claim that the EU are making it difficult for us to leave? If we are so boneheadedly stupid as to want to leave with a trade agreement, the EU would not stop us. But not would they help us out of the catastrophic economic consequences of such a decision.
Where's the problem in that?
-
BB
I don't think they needed convincing to SUPPORT Leave. I think they needed a final push to get out and VOTE Leave.
That's the whole point of that advertising campaign. They targeted people whose viewing habits suggested they were anti-EU but who normally didn't vote. They egged them on to vote by lying to them.
That's not my opinion. You could check for yourself instead of assuming I'm trying to blather you. It's what the man who ran the f**king campaign is on record as saying.
-
You've lost yourself owd lad, not me! My reasoning is, and always has been, how I think Leavers look at the situation. It matters not one iota what my personal view is, although listening to some of you on here I could quite easily vote leave if there is a next time.
Now then. Where do I keep raising the claim that the EU is making it difficult for us to leave?
-
BB
I don't think they needed convincing to SUPPORT Leave. I think they needed a final push to get out and VOTE Leave.
That's the whole point of that advertising campaign. They targeted people whose viewing habits suggested they were anti-EU but who normally didn't vote. They egged them on to vote by lying to them.
That's not my opinion. You could check for yourself instead of assuming I'm trying to blather you. It's what the man who ran the f**king campaign is on record as saying.
So, persuading people to go out and vote for what they believe in, instead of sitting on their arses and not bothering to vote, is wrong?
-
You reckon stoking folk up with lies after illegally profiling them and making illegal payments to do that ISN'T wrong?
I do hope you're on the jury if I ever get caught doing owt illegal.
-
What lies were they told that they didn't hear in other forms of media?
-
BB
Like I said. How about you go and do a bit of research about the subject instead of assuming I'm blathering you.
Go and listen to the man who ran the campaign.
https://youtu.be/w3Nw6ikVKU4
He talks about the importance of the £350m and Turkish immigration lies.
He talks about profiling people who were not politically engaged but who were conviceable (precisely the sort of people who wouldn't sit and listen to the TV news).
He talks about "blowing the entire budget in the last 7 days" on hitting 7million people with a torrent of 1.5billion video links to the £350m and Turkish immigration lies in their Facebook feed.
A constant stream of images coming up. Every time they logged onto Facebook.
Lies. Aimed at people who had illegally been profiled as being vulnerable to being lied to about immigration and the EU.
And you reckon REMAINER'S are condescending about Leave voters? This is the Kitson who ran the Leave campaign (and who is now in the middle of a criminal investigation) showing what he thought about them.
He played them. And he got them to vote for a much worse future for themselves.
But hey. I'm sure you know better and it had no effect.
-
BST. I was trying to do a bit of research by asking you.
Why is it that everything that you read and agree with is true, but everything you read and disagree with is untrue?
-
Not sure you understand how this research thing works BB.
What you do, is to look for corroborating evidence. And you consider the track record of the people making the claims. You decide what's likely to be true based on that. You don't decide what you want to be true then go looking for things to back up that decision.
So you've got cause and effect t the wrong way round.
You agree with things because, on balance, you think they are true. You don't think they are true because you agree with them.
-
Are you sure about that? I find people look for evidence to corroborate their own opinions.
-
Are you sure about that? I find people look for evidence to corroborate their own opinions.
That's definitely what BST does
-
We that's a sad commentary on where we are. If, with zero evidence, you assume that other people are unable to be rational and honest.