Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

I watched his speech made to MEPs. In it he specifically asked EU not to grant any extensions to Art50 so they would be rid of him ASAP yet your article says he asked them grant an extension so he could carry on drawing EU salary. Gurardian is factually wrong. He did no such thing.
The amounts in question, and in all likelyhood perfectly legitimate, pale into insignificance at those claimed by EU Counsellors.
Its a none story, with a spin and errors to discredit Farage. You should know better OG.

I made no comment, did you miss that? here it is again
"Note: no comment from me required, is it? "

But still you had to have a go at me, why was that?
And again you are seeing what you want to see not what is actually there.
The Guardian is not factually wrong, it made no factual claim, simply reported this.

"Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company. "

Where is the connection between Vehofstadt claiming Farage wanted an Extension and Farage denying it in his speech? Farage is a congenital liar and also denied he benefited from this hedge fund.
Incidentally as you are so often keen on saying where are your links to prove your claims?

 

[Zlatan]

Fair point.

 

[Zlatan]

I made no comment, did you miss that? here it is again
"Note: no comment from me required, is it? "

But still you had to have a go at me, why was that?

Where is the connection between Vehofstadt claiming Farage wanted an Extension and Farage denying it in his speech? Farage is a congenital liar and also denied he benefited from this hedge fund.
Incidentally as you are so often keen on saying where are your links to prove your claims?

Tommie posted the speech yesterday. I suggest you go back and watch it.
You said no comment was necessary, it was. Your guardian link was proven wrong and if you actually read posts you would have known so before posting bill shut.
Just watch the speech for god's sake. Its already on here.
And BTW why shouldnt Farage have an account with money in it. Like I said the link is pathetic like most Guardian articles.
All you do is regurgitate propoganda before even checking its validity. You do it every morning. Its sad.
The point of forum is to try and get away from the lies not simply reinforce and repeat them.
In the speech Tommie supplied Farage makes it very clear he wants out from EU quickly, repeatedly telling everyone not to grant any extension to Art 50.Perhaps his speech was manipulated??? Idiot.

 

[oldgroaner]

Tommie posted the speech yesterday. I suggest you go back and watch it.
You said no comment was necessary, it was. Your guardian link was proven wrong and if you actually read posts you would have known so before posting bill shut.
Just watch the speech for god's sake. Its already on here.

I watched the speeches, please read the actual guardian article they did not make a factual claim
It seems nothing I post will fail to get a negative reaction from you even posting "No comment necessary" you have a real anger problem, don't you?

 

[50Hertz]

Here for your delectation a tale of Mr Toad's cunning Tax Dodge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/nigel-farage-company-thorn-in-the-side-assets-up-400000

Note: no comment from me required, is it?

As you know, I’m not a supporter of Leave, but the above is a perfect example of the pathetic misinformation put about by both sides, and it is a major contributory factor in the mess we are currently experiencing. You are guilty of spreading this rubbish and therefore guilty of contributing to the current state of affairs. Pack it in.

 

[Zlatan]

Superb!...what a speech! We need a few of these in the HoC to liven things up!

Here are Farage's actual words.
Compare that with your article OG.
Its actually a perfect example of misrepresentatiin, Fake news and lies.
Farage directly asks that no extension is granted. Guardian reports he, s asked for one and for his own personal benefit.
They should be sued and punished. Trouble is this is widespread and folk, as we have seen, buy into it especially so if it suits their politics.
Not just buy into it either, but propogate and support it.
And we are talking Guardian here not RT or Vox or AAV but a so called pillar of journalism. We are in a mess.
And OG you failed to notice my positive comment (fair point) over you more accurate post.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Here are Farage's actual words.
Compare that with your article OG.
Its actually a perfect example of misrepresentatiin, Fake news and lies.
Farage directly asks that no extension is granted. Guardian reports he, s asked for one and for his own personal benefit.

No it doesn't. The article says:

Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company.

I think M. Verhofstadt was using cynicism or even a bit of irony.

So the Guardian reports no such thing, it quotes another MEP having a bit of a dig at Toady.

 

[Zlatan]

No it doesn't. The article says:

Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company.

I think M. Verhofstadt was using cynicism or even a bit of irony.

So the Guardian reports no such thing, it quotes another MEP having a bit of a dig at Toady.

But either way last thing Farage wants is an extension, paper mskes out the opposite and justfies it by publishing his account details and suggests Farage wants, needs the EU salary. All utter fabrication.
Amazing how misrepresentation is fine by you fro. Guardian towards Farage. Had DM done similar towards JC you, d be in uproar.
Which is the exact problem.
Guardoan should be impartial, it plainly is not.
And where in articlle does it claim irony. It doesnt. It justfies the stance it foistered on Farage, playing to some folks image of him.
Even your quote from paper is way off the truth.. You have quoted paper factually but that quote in itself is deflamotory and plain wrong.

 

[anotherkiwi]

You don't like the Guardian do you? That is not what I read.

 

[Danidl]

how does no deal get stopped.Does legislation have to be passed? I have heard talk of a statuary instrument, but isn't that the one where someone can just say object which stops it ( as in the case of the upskirting). Other than that will a law have to be passed revoking article 50. I think it's fair to say it is a bit of a mess

Legislation needs to be passed. The Speaker of the House was very clear on that... And Tommie here also. The votes of yesterday and today are only moral victories,and have no force. As of today,there are 12 working days before the Crashout. Bluntly they are now out of time. The EU council is scheduled to meet on 20th. or 4 working days away. That was intended to sort out any glitches. But there are no glitches..there is a chasm.

 

[Wicky]

I watched his speech made to MEPs. In it he specifically asked EU not to grant any extensions to Art50 so they would be rid of him ASAP yet your article says he asked them grant an extension so he could carry on drawing EU salary. Gurardian is factually wrong. He did no such thing.
The amounts in question, and in all likelyhood perfectly legitimate, pale into insignificance at those claimed by EU MPs.
Its a none story, with a spin and errors to discredit Farage. You should know better OG.
Dont agree with Farage generally but making stuff up and claims of this nature are propoganda rather than news. Its the norm for the Guardian. Pathetic.
Your comment should have been
"my link is utter bo!!ox" like most of your propoganda and indoctrination.

Strange as in the Guardian article it has written: "Farage said: “I don’t want me coming back here”, and called for the EU to reject an extension and make sure the UK left on time."

I watched the same 'debate' and that's to me eyes seems to be reflect what Farage said/claimed and what Verhofstadt said /claimed in turn.

Then as the Guardian reported, I recall Verhofstadt getting up and replying, "Verhofstadt claimed Farage wanted an extension to article 50 in order to keep Britain in the EU, so he can continue to have his MEP’s salary and transfer it into an offshore company."

Did you watch the Rusky RT.com version of the debate which shows only Farage & misses out on Verhofstadt's part or the full version which has both in it and is what the Guardian report is based.

 

[Danidl]

It tells us how good her deal is when it suffers one of the biggest defeats in parliamentary history, not once, but twice. You only need to look at newspaper reader’s comments to see how unpopular her deal is with both sides. It / she is universally unpopular.

She can’t be allowed to drag her hateful & shambolic deal with all of its associated threats and bullying strap-lines before the country again.

Long gone is the time when the country came first. This is all about Theresa May’s personal gratification. She wants to make her mark in history as being the Prime Minister who devised the mechanism which took the U.K. out of the EU. She will make the country pay any price in order to realise that ambition.

If one follows the debates in the HoC, and being Lent,and in need of penance, as I have over the last three days ,the following is obvious.
30% accept the WA whatever its flaws and compromises.
30% reject the WA because it does not create the clean break with the EU that they believe in
30% reject the WA because it is a break with the EU,and reduces the living standards of UK people,or for political gain
10% reject the WA and the Backstop is part of their reasoning.
So how can there be any meeting of minds?.

 

[flecc]

May’s deal is dreadful.

She does not understand NO.

I don't like her either, but she's not mentally ill, she's doing the only thing possible to match all these requirements:

1) The public voted to Leave the EU.

2) Parliament won't accept No Deal.

3) Only one deal is on offer.

Number 1 rules out cancelling Article 50, number 2 rules out No Deal, so that leaves Deal, which is the only one remaining, so she's pursuing that.

Yes, I hate it too, but why can't you and others see that's all that is left to satisfy those restraints? Both parliament and public are asking the impossible, to have something that does not and can not exist, to leave with all the freedoms while keeping all the benefits. That is where the mental illness is.
.

 

[50Hertz]

Legislation needs to be passed. The Speaker of the House was very clear on that... And Tommie here also. The votes of yesterday and today are only moral victories,and have no force. As of today,there are 12 working days before the Crashout. Bluntly they are now out of time. The EU council is scheduled to meet on 20th. or 4 working days away. That was intended to sort out any glitches. But there are no glitches..there is a chasm.

Agreed. The options are crash out or cancel A50. May’s deal is unthinkable.

 

[50Hertz]

I don't like her either, but she's not mentally ill, she's doing the only thing possible to match all these requirements:

1) The public voted to Leave the EU.

2) Parliament won't accept No Deal.

3) Only one deal is on offer.

Number 1 rules out cancelling Article 50, number 2 rules out No Deal, so that leaves Deal, which is the only one remaining, so she's pursuing that.

Yes, I hate it too, but why can't you and others see that's all that is left to satisfy those restraints? Both parliament and public are asking the impossible, to have something that does not and can not exist, to leave with all the freedoms while keeping all the benefits. That is where the mental illness is.
.

We should bin the whole sorry episode. I doubt there is much public enthusiasm left for Brexit now.

 

[Woosh]

Guardoan should be impartial, it plainly is not.

why? other newspapers are not.
The information is public and correct though, Nigel Farage has not tried to hide anything. His company collects his speaking fees and pays his expenses and dividend. All under the same legal basis as any ordinary business.
The company name has a ring to it: Thorn in the side.

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/07650770/THORN-IN-THE-SIDE-LIMITED/companies-house-data

 

[flecc]

We should bin the whole sorry episode. I doubt there is much public enthusiasm left for Brexit now.

I think that's probably true, but it needs a new referendum to implement that. That could be the sensible option now.
.

 

[Danidl]

We should bin the whole sorry episode. I doubt there is much public enthusiasm left for Brexit now.

Public enthusiasm,and moral victories are fine,but they don't butter parsnips. A decision on the impossible conundrum ,as flec says is necessary, otherwise 60%to 70% of the HoC will not get their wishes.

 

[oldgroaner]

As you know, I’m not a supporter of Leave, but the above is a perfect example of the pathetic misinformation put about by both sides, and it is a major contributory factor in the mess we are currently experiencing. You are guilty of spreading this rubbish and therefore guilty of contributing to the current state of affairs. Pack it in.

Not a chance! I simply posted a newspaper article, take up your argument with them!

 

[anotherkiwi]

Public enthusiasm,and moral victories are fine,but they don't butter parsnips.

Have you tried them with olive oil?