Brexit " The Uncivil War " C4, 9.00pm

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:10 am

aggi wrote:I'd say "legal" is stretching it a bit, a lot of the targeted advertising on Facebook was outright lies.

I suppose Osborne's 500,000 job losses can be put down to being clueless at economics, and Cameron's promise to stay on as PM is just the vacillations of a man who doesn't know his own mind from one day to the next. So no lies there. Nice to know that Remain's campaign was based on the honest incompetence of fools.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:10 am

aggi wrote:A fair proportion had already decided, a fair proportion hadn't

Have you got the statistics of the polling data for that one? I just had a quick check on that site and although I see the image, there is no information as to how many, demographics etc.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:15 am

burnleymik wrote:Have you got the statistics of the polling data for that one? I just had a quick check on that site and although I see the image, there is no information as to how many, demographics etc.

Page 302 has some detail https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... bles-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ~ 12,000 surveyed. Demographics are probably somewhere in that link too.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:20 am

dsr wrote:I suppose Osborne's 500,000 job losses can be put down to being clueless at economics, and Cameron's promise to stay on as PM is just the vacillations of a man who doesn't know his own mind from one day to the next. So no lies there. Nice to know that Remain's campaign was based on the honest incompetence of fools.

Well the 500k job losses were a forecast and clearly presented as such (obviously it turned out to be unduly pessimistic, although other elements of the forecast did pan out). As for Cameron, who knows. His position was clearly untenable but the man should have showed some balls.

If you think that justifies blatant lies such as those I linked then fair enough.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:41 am

aggi wrote:Well the 500k job losses were a forecast and clearly presented as such (obviously it turned out to be unduly pessimistic, although other elements of the forecast did pan out). As for Cameron, who knows. His position was clearly untenable but the man should have showed some balls.

If you think that justifies blatant lies such as those I linked then fair enough.

I would be interested to see any comment of mine that suggests any blatant lies were justified. You see, saying "The remain side didn't tell the truth either" is not the same as saying "the lies were justified".

None of this controversy can ever be agreed on, anyway. There are still far too many people on the Remain side who believe that to vote Remain was so self-evidently right, that there must be something wrong with people who voted to Leave. Either they are very stupid, or they are too old to care about their children and grandchildren, or that they were lied to so it wasn't their fault. Leave voters, by and large, accept there were two sides to the argument and just because Remainers disagree does not mean Remainers were wrong to have that opinion. A very vocal number of Remain supporters are much less open-minded.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:21 am

dsr wrote:I would be interested to see any comment of mine that suggests any blatant lies were justified. You see, saying "The remain side didn't tell the truth either" is not the same as saying "the lies were justified".

None of this controversy can ever be agreed on, anyway. There are still far too many people on the Remain side who believe that to vote Remain was so self-evidently right, that there must be something wrong with people who voted to Leave. Either they are very stupid, or they are too old to care about their children and grandchildren, or that they were lied to so it wasn't their fault. Leave voters, by and large, accept there were two sides to the argument and just because Remainers disagree does not mean Remainers were wrong to have that opinion. A very vocal number of Remain supporters are much less open-minded.

Fair point, you didn't say they were justified. Apologies.

Personally I struggle to see an equivalence between a caveated economic forecast (which is what people seem to bring up when such leave lies are highlighted) and things which are presented as fact but are clearly lies (e.g. Britain's new border is with Syria and Iraq, the EU is banning kettles). What was also interesting was that those lies were generally only presented to those who may believe them, they weren't in the open to be refuted.

I can see why people voted leave, I'm no particular fan of the EU but I was of the view that our current crop of politicians are way too weak to negotiate an exit (which appears to be correct) and that we actually have a pretty decent EU deal with vetoes, rebates, etc which I wouldn't want to risk with a Brexit that goes tits up and we end up back in the EU with the Euro, schengen, etc.

I think the fact that such a mainstay of the Leave campaign (a whacking great bus with an incorrect figure on it) was a lie makes it easy to believe that a lot of the voters were lied to and believed it. The Facebook adverts are obviously another example.

I'm not so convinced that the extreme Leave side is much more open-minded than the Remain side, I'd suggest it appears that way because some of the Leave arguments are so much more easy to unpick (look at some of the guff that Ringo posts about unelected EU politicians for instance, somehow ignoring the fact that there are EU elections). Pointing out facts or inaccuracies isn't not being open-minded. It's easy to point out that Turkey isn't joining the EU, it's less easy dismissing a complex economic forecast.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:12 am

dsr wrote:I suppose Osborne's 500,000 job losses can be put down to being clueless at economics, and Cameron's promise to stay on as PM is just the vacillations of a man who doesn't know his own mind from one day to the next. So no lies there.

But you can't seriously believe that on the morning after the vote Cameron's position was tenable? and had he stayed on and tried to negotiate a deal he would have been in an even weaker position than May. (I suppose the big difference would have been that he wouldn't have called a snap election, but he would have faced the same issues as May, and as an arch-remainer he would have been hammered continually by the tabloids and the ERG for not "standing up to the EU" - no matter what he did).
With regards to what he said prior to the referendum, he really couldn't announce that he would resign if he lost, as the referendum wasn't supposed to be about personalities, indeed if he had said that he would resign if he lost then we may well have seen a landslide victory for leave!!
[Even I would have been tempted to vote leave if it had been regarded as a vote of confidence in him, and then rely on the sovereignty of Parliament to get a good deal by remaining in Customs Union and Single Market].

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:48 am

The Turkey one was the one I kept seeing in my timeline (shared by various older relatives!) on facebook.

There was quite an outcry about that one and it was refuted (I think) but by then the damage has already been done.

Its was like a story from a newspaper that is on the front page, but proved to be wrong, and is corrected on Page 19, below an advert for cars. No one notices that sadly.

And has already been said, very unlikely it can happen again because its been noticed.

Course, the fact that it clearly has an effect and was illegal should raise more questions about the validity of the referendum. The simple fact that the two main parties are ignoring that suggests that both are quite happy for the result to stand.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:59 am

There is more chance of us leaving the EU directly leading to World War 3 than there is of Turkey joining the EU any time in the next 50 years.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:06 am

I recall Boris Johnson warning of the prospect of Turkey soon becoming a member of the EU on one of the TV discussion programmes.

So limited was his grasp of foreign affairs that just a few months later he was appointed Foreign Secretary.

You couldn't make it up really.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:06 am

Test User wrote:There is more chance of us leaving the EU directly leading to World War 3 than there is of Turkey joining the EU any time in the next 50 years.

Outstanding

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:25 pm

aggi wrote:Well the 500k job losses were a forecast and clearly presented as such (obviously it turned out to be unduly pessimistic, although other elements of the forecast did pan out). As for Cameron, who knows. His position was clearly untenable but the man should have showed some balls.

If you think that justifies blatant lies such as those I linked then fair enough.

I would agree with the general comment you are making, I like Lord Ashcroft’s polling too. One of the better ones.

We can all debate Turkey and whether Turkey looking less like joining is a more recent thing after the anti-migrant movement in the EU. I personally think it was valid to mention Turkey but like the bus it was factually a stretch. But I don’t think it made the key difference.

That picture you put up from the polling tallies with what I said on Page 1 which is that roughly a third on each side had already decided. The middle, crucial, third I would speculate aren’t the type of easily influenced folk who go on Facebook and get swayed. They are, like me, also mindful of the economy, sovereignty and generally more nerdy things than migrant numbers.

I read the entire Project Fear Handbook when it came out, cover to cover, decided I wasn’t convinced, and voted Leave because if we can handle the economy I believe Brexit will better the lives of most of our citizens. If I was convinced about the economic disaster I would have gone for the “reform from within” view. I think that is typical of that group. I know loads of business owners who voted Leave who say similar.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:00 pm

I remember them mentioning a few times that Turkey "could" join the EU and that still stands true, no matter how unlikely. Amazes me how remain supporters are outraged about the fact that Leave made those claims, whilst they are happy for the remain side to now claim all these negative extremes that "could" happen if we leave without negotiating a deal. Plenty of double standards on show here....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:15 pm

I personally think it was valid to mention Turkey

Boys, we did this already about two years ago.

Turkey has managed to pass one out of 34 tests for EU membership in forty years.

It was as likely as us winning the league this season!

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:43 pm

burnleymik wrote:I remember them mentioning a few times that Turkey "could" join the EU and that still stands true, no matter how unlikely. Amazes me how remain supporters are outraged about the fact that Leave made those claims, whilst they are happy for the remain side to now claim all these negative extremes that "could" happen if we leave without negotiating a deal. Plenty of double standards on show here....

Take another look at post 49 (in particular, the pictures) and see if you can find the word “could” in there.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:56 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:That picture you put up from the polling tallies with what I said on Page 1 which is that roughly a third on each side had already decided. The middle, crucial, third I would speculate aren’t the type of easily influenced folk who go on Facebook and get swayed. They are, like me, also mindful of the economy, sovereignty and generally more nerdy things than migrant numbers.

I'd say that middle third were exactly the type that were more likely to be swayed. Leave campaigns/Cummings (I can't remember which) have said that the undecided, floating voter was exactly who they were targeting. That's the reason that Leave had that surge in advertising in the couple of weeks before the vote, they knew who they were after and it worked. They said there was no point in advertising to those who had made their minds up, it was wasted money.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:58 pm

It wasn't a case of bringing up Turkey and suggesting they could join the EU though, it was presenting it as fact that they were. (They even added Seriously in case you were unsure.)

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:12 pm

burnleymik wrote:I remember them mentioning a few times that Turkey "could" join the EU and that still stands true, no matter how unlikely. Amazes me how remain supporters are outraged about the fact that Leave made those claims, whilst they are happy for the remain side to now claim all these negative extremes that "could" happen if we leave without negotiating a deal. Plenty of double standards on show here....

When Cameron said that leaving the EU *could* threaten the peace and prosperity that has staved off a third world war where was this thinking then? We all mocked him.

Seems like Leavers have one rule for Remain's ridiculous arguments and quite another rule for Leave's ridiculous arguments.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:15 pm

anyone who believes what a politician says needs their head examining! that's any politician of any stripe. can anyone say that they 100% believe what a politician says or what the media tells us? that's true of both the leave and remain camps.

May has put herself in the mess she's now in because, at heart, she is a remainer and she's trying to push through a deal which she has dressed-up as a leave deal but one that appeases remainers too. seems neither side of the argument are falling for it.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:29 pm

Test User wrote:When Cameron said that leaving the EU *could* threaten the peace and prosperity that has staved off a third world war where was this thinking then? We all mocked him.

Seems like Leavers have one rule for Remain's ridiculous arguments and quite another rule for Leave's ridiculous arguments.

Cameron was mocked ? Surely not ?
What had he ever done to deserve that ?

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:11 am

Well, Ringo has been proved correct on Bercow.

Yesterday showed why so many Labour MPs were content to overlook multiple allegations of bully boy behaviour in order to protect Bercow and the role he could play in preventing Brexit.

I miss Ringo and IT. Hope they are back soon.
UTC

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:26 am

aggi wrote:I'd say that middle third were exactly the type that were more likely to be swayed. Leave campaigns/Cummings (I can't remember which) have said that the undecided, floating voter was exactly who they were targeting. That's the reason that Leave had that surge in advertising in the couple of weeks before the vote, they knew who they were after and it worked. They said there was no point in advertising to those who had made their minds up, it was wasted money.

We would need a poll that separates out those who admit to having been undecided.

There were many variables for the small (<10%) swing to Leave that won the vote.

One was Cummings and the approach of focusing on the money and sovereignty.
One was Cameron’s failed negotiation, which made a lot of people feel the EU would never change in our direction.
One was the economic trend (the eurozone was a basket case at the time we were growing)
One was the Remain campaign, their lack of persuasive reasons to stay, it was all about exaggerated reasons why not to leave.
One was the degree to which austerity and shifting jobs outside the U.K. had naffed people off and made them determined for change.

So given all that, and given that “Leave” plus “Stay but reduce EU powers” has been polling above 50% for virtually the last 20 years, I think there is a danger in crediting Cummings too much, even though he was clearly a maverick genius. The danger in doing so is that the other four things aren’t going away, people will still demand they are addressed, and I don’t hear many of the MPs addressing them.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:28 am

Have to admit to thinking "wasn't that what Ringo was going on about" yesterday?

Which shows how much he's in all these conversations!

anyway, this is the reality

- The government prolongs the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there will not be a Queen's Speech.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

- The government packs the select committees with Tory majorities, even though it is a hung parliament by procedural sleight of hand.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

- The government prolongs the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there will not be a Queen's Speech.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

A secretary of state repeatedly misleads the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government repeatedly ignores and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval whatsoever, and forced litigation to go all the way tot eh Supreme Court so that parliament could have that approval.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government commits itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the DUP for support in a supply and confidence vote.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider "Henry VIII powers" so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government becomes first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

Government stands by as there are attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service?

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- To lead those attacks, while the government shrugs.

But for the Speaker to allow an amendment on business motion so that the will of elected MPs can be carried?

Loud outrage and front page screaming headlines.

*Shrug*

(thanks to @davidallengreen)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:37 am

Corbyn doing a speech in which he ignore 88% of his members wishes.

*Quick edit* - he's clarified that a 2nd vote is on the table, which is a relief!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:01 pm

Latest estimate is that TM deal will fail by about 250 votes.

I hope someone knows what "Plan B" is!

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:02 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Latest estimate is that TM deal will fail by about 250 votes.

I hope someone knows what "Plan B" is!

But Bercow though!!!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:02 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:We would need a poll that separates out those who admit to having been undecided.

There were many variables for the small (<10%) swing to Leave that won the vote.

One was Cummings and the approach of focusing on the money and sovereignty.
One was Cameron’s failed negotiation, which made a lot of people feel the EU would never change in our direction.
One was the economic trend (the eurozone was a basket case at the time we were growing)
One was the Remain campaign, their lack of persuasive reasons to stay, it was all about exaggerated reasons why not to leave.
One was the degree to which austerity and shifting jobs outside the U.K. had naffed people off and made them determined for change.

So given all that, and given that “Leave” plus “Stay but reduce EU powers” has been polling above 50% for virtually the last 20 years, I think there is a danger in crediting Cummings too much, even though he was clearly a maverick genius. The danger in doing so is that the other four things aren’t going away, people will still demand they are addressed, and I don’t hear many of the MPs addressing them.

I think without the stats we're not really going to get any kind of consensus on this. What we can probably agree on is that the Leave campaign was cleverly run with some innovative features (however legal or truthful they were) such as very targeted advertising designed to push the correct buttons on the correct people compared to the more traditional remain campaign.

I think one point that you're missing is that people are generally naffed off with austerity and feeling like they're being ignored by the "political class" and this was a protest vote against this. Possibly in part driven by a steady drip-feed of media stories blaming these problems on immigrants and in part driven by the thought of I may as well vote for change, I can't see how things can get worse. That is something that isn't going to be fixed by leaving or remaining and somehow needs to be addressed regardless.

One area where I disagree is your lumping together of leave and “Stay but reduce EU powers”. I'd be in the latter camp as would many other remainers but that doesn't mean I want to leave the EU. What has "leave" been polling for the past twenty years?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:06 pm

android wrote:Well, Ringo has been proved correct on Bercow.

Yesterday showed why so many Labour MPs were content to overlook multiple allegations of bully boy behaviour in order to protect Bercow and the role he could play in preventing Brexit.

I miss Ringo and IT. Hope they are back soon.
UTC

He's had some influence but it was ultimately still up to MPs to actually vote on the amendment, which Ringo didn't really seem to appreciate.

As one journalist put it I think his[Bercow's] critics will struggle to explain to the public why he should not allow MPs to vote on something that the Government doesn't want anyone to vote on.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:17 pm

Is “exaggerated reasons” another term for lies now ?
Sounds catchy for sure !

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:25 pm

aggi wrote:I think one point that you're missing is that people are generally naffed off with austerity and feeling like they're being ignored by the "political class" and this was a protest vote against this.

One area where I disagree is your lumping together of leave and “Stay but reduce EU powers”. I'd be in the latter camp as would many other remainers but that doesn't mean I want to leave the EU. What has "leave" been polling for the past twenty years?

The austerity one was the last one on my list so yes I agree.

The answer to your other question is that Leave has often been around 20% but probably without it being given a great deal of thinking.

The reason I lumped them together is because it proves that there are by definition > 50% of people who are unhappy with the status quo in the EU and have been for decades (actually since the euro was formed, more or less). Thus the aim of the campaign would be to get all these to agree that leaving is now the best option (and to get more of them actually out to vote). All the wiggling around in the polls is this chunk of people wavering on whether they are in the Leave or reform basket. The point being, it wouldn’t change the fact that over 50% remain unhappy with the EU and are getting increasingly so.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:53 pm

The point being, it wouldn’t change the fact that over 50% remain unhappy with the EU and are getting increasingly so.

Again, it does sound like you are running your own polls that contrast quite a bit with the real ones.

Lots of people complaining of Brexitfatigue, and just wanting to go "to get it over with" These are the very same people who wanted a "No Deal" but realise that the majority will never go for it. So they are trying a different tact.

Discussion on Radio Five this morning summed it up for me

General consensus between a leaver and a remainer about that not all Brexiteers are thick, and that its deeply insulted personally to her that she gets accused of "not knowing what she voted for"

She then said "I voted to stop us being ruled by a non-democratic superstate"

Thats the problem right there, even though she was articulate and clearly believes it, she actually doesn't have a clue about what she voted for.

Its going to be very hard to move on as country when the actual realities are being denied like that.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:42 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:The austerity one was the last one on my list so yes I agree.

The answer to your other question is that Leave has often been around 20% but probably without it being given a great deal of thinking.

The reason I lumped them together is because it proves that there are by definition > 50% of people who are unhappy with the status quo in the EU and have been for decades (actually since the euro was formed, more or less).

I still disagree. Just because you want something to improve doesn't definitively mean you're unhappy with the current situation, just that you could be happier.

It also certainly doesn't mean that these people are "unhappy" enough to want to leave. If you were offered the options of "Stay at your current job", "Leave your current job", "Stay at your current job with £100k pay rise" then choosing the pay rise doesn't mean that you're unhappy and want to leave your job.

You're interpreting the results (I'm not sure where these numbers are coming from) through your own perspective. In reality they could mean anything.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the TV programme that was on this week, rather than the 142nd running of the oh so tedious and repetitive Brexit arguments.

Enough..or put it on the correct thread.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:27 pm

That went to the great big thread in the sky didn't it?

Happy to let these threads die a death, but not if people persist in telling porkies on them to back up their position

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:30 pm

ask a remainer what they voted for and they'll say 'to stay in the EU' . That's all the information they need to give for their vote; pretty easy for them. ask a leaver what they voted for and the answer cannot be so easy to give. there are any number of reasons that leavers voted to leave. the permutations of reasons is countless but basically leave voters can see what the EU is all about and don't like it. seems, perhaps, remainers are blinkered and cannot [or even more shockingly] refuse to acknowledge that the EU is a behemoth or a secret society [MAFIA?] that has acquired an unhealthy amount of power. even I think that there are some admirable things one could say about the EU, and I acknowledge that it could have been a great institution that could have been more beneficial than any other in history. Unfortunately the power that certain EU officials have given themselves and their fellow conspiritors has corrupted both themselves and the institution which they serve.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:32 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:I thought this thread was supposed to be about the TV programme that was on this week, rather than the 142nd running of the oh so tedious and repetitive Brexit arguments.

Enough..or put it on the correct thread.

Well a fair part of the TV programme was about Dominic Cummings and a large part of this thread is about the advertising methods that were being used and the impact that he potentially had on the Leave campaign so it seems pretty much the correct thread.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Again, it does sound like you are running your own polls that contrast quite a bit with the real ones.

Lots of people complaining of Brexitfatigue, and just wanting to go "to get it over with" These are the very same people who wanted a "No Deal" but realise that the majority will never go for it. So they are trying a different tact.

Discussion on Radio Five this morning summed it up for me

General consensus between a leaver and a remainer about that not all Brexiteers are thick, and that its deeply insulted personally to her that she gets accused of "not knowing what she voted for"

She then said "I voted to stop us being ruled by a non-democratic superstate"

Thats the problem right there, even though she was articulate and clearly believes it, she actually doesn't have a clue about what she voted for.

Its going to be very hard to move on as country when the actual realities are being denied like that.

What's wrong with this woman voting leave for the reason she gave? You don't have to agree with her. But it's not unreasonable to regard some aspects of the EU as not very democratic - isolating democratically elected member governments that are too right wing or too left wing for example. And it's hardly controversial to believe that many with influence in the EU would like to head further down the road to a superstate. Perhaps she thinks you don't have a clue what you voted for! I think both your votes have equal merit.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:18 pm

It is.

And it's hardly controversial to believe that many with influence in the EU would like to head further down the road to a superstate.

But its not an EU superstate and can't be one under current rules enshrined by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Thats why I said she doesn't know what she is talking about

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:It is.

But its not an EU superstate and can't be one under current rules enshrined by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Thats why I said she doesn't know what she is talking about

and of course, the EU, can't possibly, ever, change things to suit its' agenda for its' future.
Oh! wait a mo. maybe it can if [or rather when] they decide to.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:28 pm

If only there was a veto.

If only there was 27 nations who would have to agree

The chances are reassuringingly low enough for me to happily discount it.

I don't want to say you are kinda proving my point here but if the cap fits and all that.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:43 pm

If only the veto was as all-embracing as you think it is. Did we have the chance to veto the Greek bail-out, for example?

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:07 pm

lancaster - i don't know if you are being extremely naive or particularly blinkered with this. i do not believe that the EU is the benevolent entity that you incorrectly think it is. it has an over-riding agenda to create the much-talked-of European Superstate to rival the USA, China, Russia etc. do you honestly think that when push comes to shove the EU won't wave a big carrot and a big stick to ensure the 'smaller' 'less powerful' states fall into line? really? they will do whatever it takes to mould the EU into what they want it to be. can see this kind of scenario - Italy doesn't agree with the EU on something - the EU offer billions of euros, if that doesn't work the EU threatens it with all kinds of punishments, if that doesn't work the EU make Italy have a referendum and then another until they get it right. not that the EU have proven themselves to be a nasty, vindictive bunch of xxxxx.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:18 pm

dsr wrote:If only the veto was as all-embracing as you think it is. Did we have the chance to veto the Greek bail-out, for example?

Nope. That was passed by a qualified majority vote. What's that got to do with any of the things the UK actually has a veto on though?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:19 pm

biggles wrote:lancaster - i don't know if you are being extremely naive or particularly blinkered with this. i do not believe that the EU is the benevolent entity that you incorrectly think it is. it has an over-riding agenda to create the much-talked-of European Superstate to rival the USA, China, Russia etc. do you honestly think that when push comes to shove the EU won't wave a big carrot and a big stick to ensure the 'smaller' 'less powerful' states fall into line? really? they will do whatever it takes to mould the EU into what they want it to be. can see this kind of scenario - Italy doesn't agree with the EU on something - the EU offer billions of euros, if that doesn't work the EU threatens it with all kinds of punishments, if that doesn't work the EU make Italy have a referendum and then another until they get it right. not that the EU have proven themselves to be a nasty, vindictive bunch of xxxxx.

Whether the above is correct or not, it wouldn't currently affect the UK or matter since we have a veto on that sort of thing. In the future - without the UK - who knows?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:28 pm

dsr wrote:If only the veto was as all-embracing as you think it is. Did we have the chance to veto the Greek bail-out, for example?

Except - so far as I recall - we didn't have to pay anything to Greece, and we are also exempt from any future "bail-outs" in the Eurozone.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:28 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:It is.

But its not an EU superstate and can't be one under current rules enshrined by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Thats why I said she doesn't know what she is talking about

So the EU can never change! Come on Lancs you are better than that. I respect your view but it's incredible that you have no respect for other views. Maybe you are getting bogged down with a technical definition of a superstate based on the Lisbon Treaty! People may say superstate and mean an entity that has overreached itself but is not technically a superstate as defined by...

As for the veto, I am with Paul Waine on that one. It's not fair on the rest of the EU to keep vetoing things they want to do (or, say, a woman you disagree with thinks they are likely to want to do)!

You didn't comment on the non-democratic aspects so maybe you accept the woman's concerns on that one?

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:32 pm

lancaster - just to make it absolutely clear, my last post ended with a naughty word not kisses!!!

and nothing personal in my posts to you. we just have a difference of opinion over brexit and i really like your photos. x

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:33 pm

android wrote: it's incredible that you have no respect for other views

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:14 pm

Fed up of the biased reporting,
So from now on:

Soft Brexit sounds better than a Hard Brexit

It's not Hard but it's Clean!
Soft is only Half and not fit for purpose!

Clean Brexit sounds better than Half Brexit or Floppy Brexit

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:40 pm

I respect your view but it's incredible that you have no respect for other views.

not actually true. I don't have any time for the ones that are made up though. To use leaver terminology, a lot of this is "Project Fear"

Maybe you are getting bogged down with a technical definition of a superstate based on the Lisbon Treaty! People may say superstate and mean an entity that has overreached itself but is not technically a superstate as defined by...

Nope, its pretty clear in there. Again, you are seeing what you want to see, not necessarily what it is.

As for the veto, I am with Paul Waine on that one. It's not fair on the rest of the EU to keep vetoing things they want to do

Again, sadly it shows how people just assume the UK is the only one that is worried about further integration. Sweden and Denmark for starters are never going to give up the Veto, but still see themselves as key parts of the EU, as should we. I think I'd throw most of the other members in there as well.

Nothing wrong with wanting to leave the EU, its leaving based on lies and falsehoods that I have a problem with, and that is before you have all the real, actual economic reasons why its a really bad idea.