Be in no doubt that the only reason that the people of the UK were allowed a say in our EU membership was because of Nigel Farage, who like Le Pen, was not elected.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The choice was simple for Cameron. He could have decided not to promise a referendum and in so doing he would have lost the general election to Labour and the Small Scottish Woman. UKIP would have taken too many votes away from the Tory party.
If Cameron wanted to win the last general election, he had no choice but to offer the referendum because of the Farage / UKIP affect, so the referendum was "forced." France, Germany, Italy and Holland will face a similar situation in future.
The dissatisfaction of EU citizens will intensify as the migrant crisis continues to deepen and the inevitable economic catastrophe approaches for Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Both of these factors are going to hoover up unthinkable amounts of cash in terms of bailouts and handouts. Stop pretending that it's only the UK who face difficult times ahead. Us being shackled to this mess posses as bigger threat as anything else. We could be in the best place to stand by and watch the fireworks.
I was referring to UK parliament. Not sure what your point is in relation to the original statement.
being elected, both Le Pen and Farage get a lot more TV time and official funding to grow their popularity.
I agree with OG on why Cameron agreed to a referendum, internal strife of the conservative party. The current tory majority is only 17. Mrs May can't do much with such a small majority, either side of her party can easily throw a spanner.
I agree with OG on why Cameron agreed to a referendum, internal strife of the conservative party. The current tory majority is only 17. Mrs May can't do much with such a small majority, either side of her party can easily throw a spanner.
How do you know that here is no truth in this? You may copy and paste the opinions of others, but what makes their contrary view any more or less truthful than those printed in the Daily Telegraph? Why are you the final arbiter on what is right and what is wrong?
I still think it was the UKIP affect. The Le Pen affect will cause a similar outcome.
The choice is simple, offer a referendum and win, don't and lose.
the story of the referendum is one of the two halves. Ukip benefited from the division but leaving the EU will not change the future of most people who voted to get out of the EU, not even a little bit. They are unlikely to buy properties abroad or go and look for work elsewhere in the EU in the past, present or future. The vote affects adversely the other half though. Result: net loss to the UK as a whole.
Why do I have an opinion at all over what is right or wrong? because I have the right to of course, so that is a pretty dumb question, as your permission is neither required or sought.
You missed the Caveat at the end of my post in order to put your usual rather stylish "spin" on it.
"Well it would be if there was even a shred of truth in it"
Which is not an arbitrary remark, is it?
After all it does leave open the possibility of there being a shred of truth somewhere in there doesn't it ,despite that being unlikely.
And of course the Telegraph enjoys a "Spotlessly unbiased" reputation for reporting the facts, just as all the other papers do.
Let's examine their printed headline
""
UK to avoid recession and world economy to ‘stabilise’ as Brexit shock passes"
Simply another opinion, but presented as being factual ,what makes it any better than any of the others?
Your line, "Well it would be if there was even a shred of truth behind it" is not presented as an opinion, you have made a statement presented as fact. The words "even a shred of truth" imply that the whole article is a lie, not a single element of it is true. How can you know this to be fact? All that you seem able to do is to quote, as gospel truth, alternative sources of information which pose a counter argument. But then we don't know the authenticity of this information either.
I'm simply asking what makes you the final arbiter?
Last edited:
we all express an opinion even when not accopnaied by caveat - I don't see any problem in that.
The piece in the Telegraph is rather bland, but factual IMO.
The shock seems to be milder than predicted. As long as there are not much job losses, we'll get over it and fight another day.
so, when a leave voter is asked to envisage a brexit future farage and le pen take centre stage in that. This isn't a reflection on you tilson, ive experienced this in most of my conversations with others who voted leave. At best, IMHO, it is by way of saying anti-immigration was at the heart of the leave vote. At worst racism (to me le pen and farage are both racists, considering say farage's policy to prevent immigrants who have HIV from entering UK, of a very unattractive sort).
I don't think this aspect of the leave vote can change - in my experience people who have this kind of philosophical stance in life (xenophobic, racist), don't change. In America in the 1960's the government integrated schools. they found that either a complete absence off, or enforced contact between children from different ethic backgrounds increased racism - only voluntary contact reduced it. this doesn't happen to those who avoid contact at all cost (as with brexit).
But a brexit based on anti immigration doesn't have an economic plan - and this is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone as the pound plummets. I think this little nightmare will only end when real prices rise, dramatically, and it begins to bite those who voted leave.
What has that got to do with the topic?
Odd that the reaction to my post gets such a response,
Why did you do that? some sort of rather simplistic "one upmanship" ploy?
Forget it Tillson, it was your assertion and I don't have any interest in playing along.
I replied after all,
"Why do I have an opinion at all over what is right or wrong? because I have the right to of course, so that is a pretty dumb question, as your permission is neither required or sought."
Or are you saying that only opinions acceptable to you are deemed true?
Are you questioning that right? some sort of "Thought Police?"
And in answer to this
"The words "even a shred of truth" imply that the whole article is a lie, not a single element of it is true. How can you know this to be fact?"
How can you prove it isn't?
It was presented as if it is a fact when it is only an opinion, as I pointed out, and has no more veracity that my remark about it, does it?
I treated it as a joke, which is of course what such statements are, simply click bait for the faithful Brexit fans.
You would have done better to advance an argument in favour of the assertion in the Telegraph rather than indulging in this deflection attempt with a personal attack.
So the question is, where is your proof I was wrong to be suspicious of such a headline? do you have any proof to present, that the statement made in the Telegraph was truthful and factual?
And not as I suggested just click bait?
The shock is being offset to a large extent because at this stage the investors have found ways of turning a profit, as they inevitably will, and as we have said this is the "phoney war" before the real action starts.
Let us hope it continues, but really we are really very poorly equipped to face a competitive future, and no amount of fudging will alter that.
Our industry with the exception of the Foreign owned companies is hopelessly out of date and and is a travesty of what it once was, and the future of our Services Sector could well be uncertain too, and that is our Achilles Heel for the future.
Added to that huge debts and a totally incompetent Managerial and Political class doesn't give cause for optimism either, which when you think of the mood of the Public is split right down the middle too, sounds more like a TV Soap opera than a real Nation going through a major change of direction.
Titanic and Iceberg comes to mind.
Perhaps, but if you look at the bias expressed and just raise to the power 10 and you won't be too far out,seems a good starting point.
Admittedly,they are much more thoughtful and less blatant but the editorial direction is the same after all!
They do score on style admittedly.
I suspect that's true though I really can't see how that is any kind of advantage to us nationally over being as we are now.
