Jump to content

Brexit frustrations make snap election a big gamble for Johnson


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, blazes said:

 

Since we are now into conspiracy theories, why not bring in the name of good old Uncle George Soros, who made his billions in shorting the pound sterling in (?) 1992?

 

Soros has never denied it. Very smart speculator who made a few more billions by shorting the £. Nothing illegal or conspiratorial there. Went on to use a lot of that money in supporting worthy charitable causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Soros has never denied it. Very smart speculator who made a few more billions by shorting the £. Nothing illegal or conspiratorial there. Went on to use a lot of that money in supporting worthy charitable causes.

You seem not to have noticed that I said "at least the Soros story was true."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

Of course you are quite entitled to live with that sentiment if you so choose, a strong indication that you do not recognise the difference between party manifesto and the complexities of brexit.

If the politicians had no idea of what they were talking about, how come Joe Public would have known any better. Even to this day Bojo is still displaying his ignorance on WTO and the single market. Only a few weeks ago he admitted on national TV that he had not read para c of GATT Article 24 but claimed it was a get out of jail card.

There would have been very few that gave WTO or Ireland a second thought before casting their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yesterday the Spectator, today Express, what's next?

Same story in the mail. Still trying to find it in the remain papers but no doubt it will take a few days, to filter through. How silly those posters who categorically claimed it was fact, when it shows it is like most of the remain slur, Hot Air and false.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7460621/Met-Police-DROP-investigation-Leave-EU-referendum-campaign.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a message for Boris in Thursdays Guardian Cryptic Crossword... 

https://www.theguardian.com/crosswords/cryptic/27924

 

If you do not want to do the crossword here is a clue to the subliminal message...

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/guardian-crossword-hidden-<deleted>-to-brexit-1-6266121

 

EDIT IN> (seems the TVF word censor works on links too... :whistling:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yesterday the Spectator, today Express, what's next?

Same story in the mail. Still trying to find it in the remain papers but no doubt it will take a few days, to filter through. How silly those posters who categorically claimed it was fact, when it shows it is like most of the remain slur, Hot Air and false.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7460621/Met-Police-DROP-investigation-Leave-EU-referendum-campaign.html

Thanks for answering my question: Daily Mail ...

Please tell me, do you really believe what is written in those "media"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for answering my question: Daily Mail ...

Please tell me, do you really believe what is written in those "media"?

Read what I said. the remain papers will follow suit. So you are saying that it is a lie or didn't happen. If you were native you would clearly understand the way the newspapers affiliate themselves to a political spectrum. I will post it from other sources when they come through, just so you understand

 

"Scotland Yard said there is 'insufficient evidence' to justify further investigation into the Brexit campaign group, founded by businessman Mr Banks and spearheaded by Nigel Farage".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for answering my question: Daily Mail ...

Please tell me, do you really believe what is written in those "media"?

The remain newspaper the Guardian have it at the bottom of their website but its the 4th most read news. Oh dear how much egg on your face. But you don't believe it do you. Its a lie or conspiracy. The Met are making it up

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/13/met-to-take-no-further-action-over-leaveeu-spending-breaches-arron-banks

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the referendum was conducted on a lot of dubious claims, with little evidence to back it up. very little mention was made about deals. And the result was close. MPs cannot agree what too do. We now have a lot more information, and the electorate can make an INFORMED decision. Time for a confirmatory referendum.

 

Of course, most hard Brexiteers do not want that because they know they would lose. WHY?

 

1. Demographics. Leave voters were on average a lot older. A lot more of them are now dead than remain voters.

2. More information. Many claims by leave campaigners have been shown to be inaccurate, if not actually untrue. Remainers may have exaggerated also, but a lot of their claims haven't happened yet, because we haven't left yet.

3. The deal offered by the EU may be awful, but why are the public not being allowed to vote on it?

4. There are a lot of people who have found out that a hard Brexit will affect their business badly. Also probably a lot who MAY be affected, but we don't know by how much.

 

SO that's why Brexiteers do not want another vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

You think a Corbyn's Labour party would win? ????

 

I think any election would be about people voting against this pathetic government but I cannot see all the votes going to Labour.

 

I do get that your post was ironic ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for answering my question: Daily Mail ...

Please tell me, do you really believe what is written in those "media"?

Yes, more than the Graruniad and Undependent anyway. Newspaper snobbery is typical of Remainers sneering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for Farage is that if he stands against Johnson he loses Brexit to Corbyn, who is promising a new referendum on a deal he negotiates. So you can have a very soft Brexit, or none at all. And then you can live under a Corbyn Government for at least 5 years. 

 

Great strategy Nigel. Way to go mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Yes, more than the Graruniad and Undependent anyway. Newspaper snobbery is typical of Remainers sneering. 

As a long-term sneerer (snobs advocate the Times, FT or Telegraph) , Yes Minister was on the ball:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjgpd71-8_kAhWLq48KHTEfAxQQwqsBMAJ6BAgLEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDGscoaUWW2M&usg=AOvVaw1h8Vf00rJScxtjIlS0ArNI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The remain newspaper the Guardian have it at the bottom of their website but its the 4th most read news. Oh dear how much egg on your face. But you don't believe it do you. Its a lie or conspiracy. The Met are making it up

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/13/met-to-take-no-further-action-over-leaveeu-spending-breaches-arron-banks

 

From the article in The Guardian (your link):

“It is clear that whilst some technical breaches of electoral law were committed by Leave.EU in respect of the spending return submitted for their campaign, there is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation,” the statement said.

 

I am sure you understand the meaning of "insufficient evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

From the article in The Guardian (your link):

“It is clear that whilst some technical breaches of electoral law were committed by Leave.EU in respect of the spending return submitted for their campaign, there is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation,” the statement said.

 

I am sure you understand the meaning of "insufficient evidence".

Yes being British it means that they are not guilty and can't be proven to be, so they are innocent.

 

In the UK that means that the 'bizzies;' can't find any evidence and that they are talking nonsense, because if it were true, they would have evidence and be nicked.

 

Now where you are from it might be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes being British it means that they are not guilty and can't be proven to be, so they are innocent.

 

In the UK that means that the 'bizzies;' can't find any evidence and that they are talking nonsense, because if it were true, they would have evidence and be nicked.

 

Now where you are from it might be different.

Interesting related article on the news yesterday. Last year, only 3% of reported rapes in the UK resulted in convictions. Does that mean 97% of the alleged rapists were innocent? No it means that due to the very stringent rules on evidence required to secure a conviction, many rapists walked free.

 

"Insufficient evidence" = Lucky this time, not innocent.

 

BTW. I'm not a scouser so it may be different where I live.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes being British it means that they are not guilty and can't be proven to be, so they are innocent.

 

In the UK that means that the 'bizzies;' can't find any evidence and that they are talking nonsense, because if it were true, they would have evidence and be nicked.

 

Now where you are from it might be different.

"insufficient evidence" means that there was evidence but not quite enough to guarantee a conviction.  And I am British.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The remain newspaper the Guardian have it at the bottom of their website but its the 4th most read news. Oh dear how much egg on your face. But you don't believe it do you. Its a lie or conspiracy. The Met are making it up

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/13/met-to-take-no-further-action-over-leaveeu-spending-breaches-arron-banks

 

You are conflating the police investigation into Banks with the electoral fraud committed by the Leave Campaign and its subsidiaries.

 

The investigation into Banks has floundered due to a lack of evidence, the electoral fraud committed by the Leave Campaign and its subsidiaries is a proven fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are conflating the police investigation into Banks with the electoral fraud committed by the Leave Campaign and its subsidiaries.

 

The investigation into Banks has floundered due to a lack of evidence, the electoral fraud committed by the Leave Campaign and its subsidiaries is a proven fact.

 

You just totally contradicted yourself, if the investigation dosnt have the evidence there are no "proven" facts... thats why the case  was dropped.

 

You dont have any facts just a narrative you "want" to believe, thats how propaganda works and you are displaying classic signs of it being used to effect ????

 

The general public are quite easy to guide and whip up, you dont have to prove anything in the public arena, there are always those who "want" to believe anything claimed about someone they dont like, they do the spreading and shouting and others get on the wagon etc etc... its the same tactics that fuel Moral outrage hysteria, Russia collusion, Tuplip mania, stock market panics, rape culture, white vs black, the patriarchy, hate speech, 100 gender diverstity, changing sex etc Its all claims and narrative based on nothing but peoples "beliefs" wants, wishes and  fears spreading hysteria, mostly fuelled by media and or marketing. 

 

Educated people are actually more susceptible than most to this form of propaganda when done correctly because their egos are usually stronger and have confident belief in they "must" be correct because they have been educated, especially women Being particularly prone to group think, trends, gossip, fantasy and hysteria marketers use maternal fears and other tricks as women react to it more strongly and in turn the men react to women in distress, its very easy to employ, basic human nature and public social herd mentality does most of the work.  Good marketers/campaigner/propagandists ( all the same thing ) use it all. 

 

The biggest Project fear other than the Trump is going to cause ww3/Russia collusion etc atm is Brexit and the end of the world, medicine shortage, people are going to die etc... its ALL of it about making people fearful of the future which nobody knows.. 

 

If anyone wants to know how campaigns use the media, work or spread false narratives, especially in  elections or project fear campaigns etc watch an excellent Documentry called Our brand is Crisis, a 2005 American documentary film by Rachel Boynton on American political campaign marketing tactics by Greenberg Carville Shrum (GCS) in the 2002 Bolivian presidential election. All the strategy is filmed original recording and documented as the meetings take place. Its as factual as anything youll see. 

 

There is a 2015 hollywood version with eye candy Sandra Bullock and its pretty good and sticks to the main facts but the original documentary is much more raw and has original footage as the strategy meetings take place and reveals exactly how false narrative is spread and the real deadly effects it can have when believed. 

 

Its truly shocking the manipulation and lies used just to sway public opinion and the worst is always politically motivated campaigns. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bannork said:

And you would have that second vote within 5 years at the latest, earlier if the government proved to be disastrous..

It's now well over 3 years since the Brexit vote and a lot has come to light since that day, especially the consequences of a no deal exit. Time to let the people vote again.

Why? I didn't get a second vote when the UK signed up to the EU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, englishoak said:

The general public are quite easy to guide and whip up, you dont have to prove anything in the public arena, there are always those who "want" to believe anything claimed about someone they dont like, they do the spreading and shouting and others get on the wagon etc etc... its the same tactics that fuel Moral outrage hysteria,

Very true. The unsubstantiated and often completely baseless vitriol against Corbyn, seen on this forum, is a prime example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2019 at 9:23 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for answering my question: Daily Mail ...

Please tell me, do you really believe what is written in those "media"?

The Mail article does state in a quiet section "A National Crime Agency investigation into Mr Banks over 'suspected criminal offences' relating to £8 million of campaign funding remains ongoing. He denies the allegations.", so not entirely whiter than white...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...