Brexit: the referendum

cullennz said:
Linking or just a Google?
Click to expand...

One of the earliest subscribers/supporters to the magazine, and mentioned by the former editor's later newsletter. According to the editor the killer was at one point interested in setting up a SAP local group, although nothing came of it. This is all from around ten years ago (pre-dating Britain First), so it doesn't look like the guy just flipped in the last few weeks. Souther Povery Law Center is reporting alleged links to US white supremacist groups, including the purchase of a, "manual... in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol."
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Germany is not part of the "Eastern European voting block" being whined about. Surely the UK could find common ground with them on many, if not most, issues?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

jimbob said:
It's perfectly reasonable to point out that one side is being far more dishonest.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and that side is pretty obvious. Just today the Fail was forced to retract one of it's fabricated stories about immigrants.

Tanglewood said:
If we leave the EU, can we leave our football hooligans in France?
Click to expand...
No. And you may be forced to east USAian quality chocolate too.

Information Analyst said:
Mostly serious. Brexiters' response to anyone who has criticised their claims as being inaccurate has simply been to steadfastly say that those making the criticisms are the one who are wrong. They never try to clarify or justify what they said in the first place, they just keep repeating it.
Click to expand...
Very Trump-like.

Information Analyst said:
Mostly serious. Brexiters' response to anyone who has criticised their claims as being inaccurate has simply been to steadfastly say that those making the criticisms are the one who are wrong. They never try to clarify or justify what they said in the first place, they just keep repeating it.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
According to this BBC report, The Netherlands see the UK as a natural ally against the Continental powers of France and Germany.
Click to expand...

Yes - basically the QMV rules I referred to earlier mean if France and Germany want something which doesn't need unanimity, it's very hard to stop them, as they can both normally bring a large group of Member States with them. NL likes us to keep reminding DE about the free market.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Regarding who is the most dishonest, the media wing of Farage's hate campaign (the Daily Fail) has had to issue yet another apology and correction for yet another front page lie about migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...blishes-correction-story-migrants-from-europe
Click to expand...

I wonder if a good way to deal with this would be to have to print the apology in the same typeface and in the same position of the original report. No hiding it away on p.33; instead a headline saying "WE LIED".
 
cullennz said:
Complete kiwi question. But wonder what the outcome means for Helen Clarks Head of U.N. bid
Click to expand...
On International voting while the EU likes to take a joint position, particularly if there is an EU national in the race, it doesn't always happen. The UN post is normally a Security Council matter, but this one is different, and it looks as if the general assembly will have a large say. Here most of the candidates are EU, so I guess there would be free voting until there is only one EU candidate left, as which point the Commission would encourage Member States to coalesce.

I can imagine the UK has been pushing for Clark (though I haven't followed it closely), and there could be pushback. However it probably won't make that much of a difference.
 
gypsyjackson said:
I wonder if a good way to deal with this would be to have to print the apology in the same typeface and in the same position of the original report. No hiding it away on p.33; instead a headline saying "WE LIED".
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's feasible but severe sanctions for continued repeated dishonesty surely need to be considered if we are to preserve any faith in the press.

On another note I read also that the guy in charge of the Mail received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the EU to look after his country estate while actively campaigning against it. Did someone say dishonesty?
 
jimbob said:
It's perfectly reasonable to point out that one side is being far more dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yes, but which side is which? And how can we tell? Taking one side's word for it seems... Problematic.

No, I take it back: The first side to make the claim that they're the truth tellers are probably the biggest liars, by virtue of being first out the gate with such blatantly self serving propaganda.

You don't do your side any favors by stooping to such claims.
 
jimbob said:
@Corsair,

The central claim of the Leave campaign is that EU membership costs the UK £350 million a week. That's untrue as there is a rebate that can't be removed without the agreement of the UK. It also ignores the money that the EU sends to the UK.
Click to expand...

Money sent to the the UK after being sent from the UK just seems like an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy and wastage in what would otherwise be a relatively straightforward matter of self rule.
 
gypsyjackson said:
I wonder if a good way to deal with this would be to have to print the apology in the same typeface and in the same position of the original report. No hiding it away on p.33; instead a headline saying "WE LIED".
Click to expand...

We can only dream. Meanwhile the damage is mostly done.
 
theprestige said:
Money sent to the the UK after being sent from the UK just seems like an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy and wastage in what would otherwise be a relatively straightforward matter of self rule.
Click to expand...
That presupposes we could trust any UK government to continue with the the subsidies to farms that constitute the bulk of the money that comes back from the EU. The EU bureaucracy will be working out the administration of the farming subsidies for all 28 countries, so there is an obvious economy of scale there. It would no doubt cost the UK government more to bring that responsibility back in-house, and there would always be a temptation to them to deviate from EU levels of payments for their own advantage.
 
theprestige said:
Money sent to the the UK after being sent from the UK just seems like an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy and wastage in what would otherwise be a relatively straightforward matter of self rule.
Click to expand...

So would you prefer a system in which the UK contributed to the EU but didn't get anything back? I think the exiters would have an even bigger field day with that, don't you?

It could be a duplication of bureaucracy or it could be a massive saving of 27 different bureaucracies replaced by 1. Devil is in the detail really.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, but which side is which? And how can we tell? Taking one side's word for it seems... Problematic.

No, I take it back: The first side to make the claim that they're the truth tellers are probably the biggest liars, by virtue of being first out the gate with such blatantly self serving propaganda.

You don't do your side any favors by stooping to such claims.
Click to expand...

Why when they are true? It's like saying that Trump has run a more dishonest campaign than, say Kasich.
As well as the lies that poison the atmosphere, the main Leave claims don't add up; their key claim isn't simply disputed, it is unequivocally untrue as are many of their other claims.
The Donn put it best:
The Don said:
It's a bit like a long-standing marriage. Each partner already gets the benefits associated with being in the relationship so the only way that they can respond to the suggestion that the marriage should end is to make some forecasts about how things are likely to be after the split - not knowing what the asset split, custody arrangement, alimony and so on are going to be like.

OTOH the Brexit campaign seem to be doing the equivalent of telling the man that he can continue to **** his ex-wife whilst having his pick of other sex partners, that he can spend the money he currently contributes to the running of the family homes on a new stereo, and a new car, and a great holiday and so on, that he'll get full custody of the kids and the dog unless he doesn't want them that weekend in which case his ex-wife will be happy to take them.
Click to expand...


I suppose there is this "demolition" of my original post.


Malbec said:
Is that a rough script outline for a late Channel 4 attempted comedy programme ?
I will not go into details , save to say , selective cherry picking .
Why not simply say that you are predisposed to voting one given way , and that you recognise that neither side can make any believable future predictions and from default have separately resorted to extravagance and drama ? Let alone the promotion of Fear .
Click to expand...

To be fair, I am obviously more prone to believing some news stories than Malbec, for example that the Orlando shooting wasn't instigated by the FBI and that this is not part of a pattern and that the Zika Virus is not any type of conspiracy, or that the Boston Marathon bombs (and possibly Sandy Hook) were not "false flag"operations by... Them?

And that was with a five minute search.

Sometimes, one side *does* lie a lot more than the other. They might still be right, but in this case, their central claims are wrong, and they must realise that.

ETA: Although I do know some reasonable people who are predisposed to leave, it is also fair to say that they are winning in the wingnut demographic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom