Leaving the EU

[flecc]

[QUOTE="gray198, post: 295502, member: 7694"
]I didn't think that he gave Boris a chance to answer anything properly,[/QUOTE]

Some while ago BBC 2 had a programme examining Boris Johnson, the man and his life, which took the form of Andrew Marr interviewing him at length for the entire programme.

Apart from some perceptive and probing questions, Marr gave Johnson his head to speak freely, resulting in Johnson hanging himself by showing what a devious and thoroughly dishonest person he is. I would love the BBC to show this again, and it should be required viewing for anyone foolish enough to consider backing him to hold any public office.

Unfortunately the rules on impartiality would probably prevent this happening.

So I'm not surprised at Andrew Marr's insistence on Boris Johnson giving concise straight answers in this latest interview, knowing so well the circuitous waffling that Johnson usually uses to avoid any straight answer.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

I must have watched another program - Boris owned Marr today - he stayed on topic despite Marr trying to deviate him

 

[tillson]

Just watched the Andrew Marr show. It was interesting to see how he treated Boris Johnson and would not let him answer a single question without interrupting and talking over him. This was in marked contrast to the deference that was shown to the German finance minister who was allowed to make his case for us to stop in and try to scare us. Again this just shows the bias of the BBC. I always thought Marr was a fair interviewer but have now changed my mind. Also interesting to see that the head of the Bcc has been suspended for saying we would be better off out.Wonder if that would have happened if he had expressed the opposite view.

I used to think that the BBC was a great institution and something which we could be proud of. Over the last 20 years it has been infiltrated and taken over by left wing sympathisers. It is now a very politically biased organisation that is no longer fit for purpose. Worse still, it pretends to maintain the balanced outlook which was at the heart of the original BBC. It should be shut down with all speed.

I too read that the head of the BCC had been suspended for stating his views on the EU (pro leaving). Really, anyone who is undecided should look at this and other examples of bullying and the crushing of free speech. If the EU was really such a good option for us all and our future prosperity, would there be any need to act in this way? No there would not, you would simply need to set out the advantages in order to sell your argument.

In terms of treachery, nothing really surprises me regarding the French. Deceit, back stabbing and underhandedness is in their DNA. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, their latest tactic of threatening to allow thousands of un-vetted immigrants enter the UK if we vote to leave the EU finds them achieving a new low. Remember the support and solidarity which the UK showed to the French after the Paris atrocity? Some of those responsible were un-vetted immigrants. How do the French repay us? They threaten to expose UK citizens to the risk of a similar attack if we don't vote the way in which they want us to. What kind of sickness makes people take such despicable action? It's a sickness called the EU and after what the French have done I think we need to be out of it.

The BBC, the BCC and the actions of the French should tell you that the EU is a bad place. It's a perversion of the original idea which has run its course and needs to be brought to an end. The sooner we leave the EU, the sooner other countries will follow and we can replace political union with friendship and trade. In its present form the EU serves no one but a minority of politicians and Eurocrats. That's why they bully, they have nothing else to offer.

 

[derf]

I used to think that the BBC was a great institution and something which we could be proud of. Over the last 20 years it has been infiltrated and taken over by left wing sympathisers. It is now a very politically biased organisation that is no longer fit for purpose. Worse still, it pretends to maintain the balanced outlook which was at the heart of the original BBC. It should be shut down with all speed.

I too read that the head of the BCC had been suspended for stating his views on the EU (pro leaving). Really, anyone who is undecided should look at this and other examples of bullying and the crushing of free speech. If the EU was really such a good option for us all and our future prosperity, would there be any need to act in this way? No there would not, you would simply need to set out the advantages in order to sell your argument.

In terms of treachery, nothing really surprises me regarding the French. Deceit, back stabbing and underhandedness is in their DNA. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, their latest tactic of threatening to allow thousands of un-vetted immigrants enter the UK if we vote to leave the EU finds them achieving a new low. Remember the support and solidarity which the UK showed to the French after the Paris atrocity? Some of those responsible were un-vetted immigrants. How do the French repay us? They threaten to expose UK citizens to the risk of a similar attack if we don't vote the way in which they want us to. What kind of sickness makes people take such despicable action? It's a sickness called the EU and after what the French have done I think we need to be out of it.

The BBC, the BCC and the actions of the French should tell you that the EU is a bad place. It's a perversion of the original idea which has run its course and needs to be brought to an end. The sooner we leave the EU, the sooner other countries will follow and we can replace political union with friendship and trade. In its present form the EU serves no one but a minority of politicians and Eurocrats. That's why they bully, they have nothing else to offer.

i like the BBC, I'm a first generation migrant who grew up under an autocracy and sometimes think the English don't know how good they have it: within the usual scope of standard human treachery, deceit and narcissism the BB manages to strike in my view a pretty ethical balance. of course its far from perfect, but it beats the living daylights out of a Murdoch empire, or neo-conservative guardian, or any of the other awful privately owned very-hidden-agenda-special-interest-we've-bought-some-mp's-lately news empires. It's a bit like the NHS in this way.

 

[gray198]

[QUOTE="gray198, post: 295502, member: 7694"
]I didn't think that he gave Boris a chance to answer anything properly,

Some while ago BBC 2 had a programme examining Boris Johnson, the man and his life, which took the form of Andrew Marr interviewing him at length for the entire programme.

Apart from some perceptive and probing questions, Marr gave Johnson his head to speak freely, resulting in Johnson hanging himself by showing what a devious and thoroughly dishonest person he is. I would love the BBC to show this again, and it should be required viewing for anyone foolish enough to consider backing him to hold any public office.

Unfortunately the rules on impartiality would probably prevent this happening.

So I'm not surprised at Andrew Marr's insistence on Boris Johnson giving concise straight answers in this latest interview, knowing so well the circuitous waffling that Johnson usually uses to avoid any straight answer.
.[/QUOTE]
Don't they all waffle and never give a straight answer .

 

[trex]

flecc may have referred to this interview of Boris Johnson:
skip to time index 9:50

 

[oldgroaner]

I used to think that the BBC was a great institution and something which we could be proud of. Over the last 20 years it has been infiltrated and taken over by left wing sympathisers. It is now a very politically biased organisation that is no longer fit for purpose. Worse still, it pretends to maintain the balanced outlook which was at the heart of the original BBC. It should be shut down with all speed.

As it would seem the Conservative Party itself has if we are to believe that because half of them wish to remain in the EU and the "Little England" faction in it have taken to labelling them Marxist, socialist and traitors!
This sort of silliness is not helping the public come to a decision that requires an impartial presentation of the facts in a situation which I will try and sum up as simply as possible.
Two Choices
1: Stay in and try to get a better deal
2: Come out on the basis (credit here to Spike Milligan)
"We haven't got a plan so nothing can go wrong."
Quite simple really.
Here's a novel suggestion: someone start telling us the truth and no more of this infantile "left wing sympathisers" BS thank you very much.

 

[robert44]

flecc may have referred to this interview of Boris Johnson:
skip to time index 9:50

God help us if this is one of our most "charismatic" politicians!

 

[trex]

he is a bit of a maverick, and he's got a difficult sell.
If you follow the polls, the remain camp is edging ahead in the last few days. The Pound rose also a bit since.
I was talking to my son who works in the City this afternoon, most people in the banking sector don't think we'll leave the EU, they do some stress testing but don't prepare for Brexit.

 

[oldgroaner]

Compared to Ronnie Barker he is an amateur at waffling!

 

[robdon]

Tillson reminds me of Margret Thatcher, the "working classes are the enemy within"

 

[gray198]

I don't think Boris is the answer but for me a lot of the other politicians don't come out of this very well. They have shown that they are more interested in their own careers than doing what's best for the country, and for the people of this country who elect them to be for us and our interests. Maybe we may be worse off for a while outside the EU, but at least we'll be able to shape our own destiny. In fact I don't even know why we have over 600 MP s who don't seem to have a say over what we can and can't do. The immigration policy is an absolute shambles. We can kick out a 90 year old South African woman but don'seem to be able to get rid of rapists and child molesters etc because of their human rights. I wouldn't trust our current crop of politicians to run a chip shop.Totally spineless and self serving.

 

[flecc]

flecc may have referred to this interview of Boris Johnson:
skip to time index 9:50

That's the programme Trex, thanks, my memory mistake made me think it was Marr, worth watching it all though.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

I don't think Boris is the answer but for me a lot of the other politicians don't come out of this very well. They have shown that they are more interested in their own careers than doing what's best for the country, and for the people of this country who elect them to be for us and our interests. Maybe we may be worse off for a while outside the EU, but at least we'll be able to shape our own destiny. In fact I don't even know why we have over 600 MP s who don't seem to have a say over what we can and can't do. The immigration policy is an absolute shambles. We can kick out a 90 year old South African woman but don'seem to be able to get rid of rapists and child molesters etc because of their human rights. I wouldn't trust our current crop of politicians to run a chip shop.Totally spineless and self serving.

Alas you have shown the misunderstanding that most people have about "Human Rights" the reason we can't kick out the undesirables is nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with the fact that in 1951 we signed the United Nations Charter on Human Rights, which will still apply if and when we leave the EU!
No country has EVER cancelled their signature to that treaty, so where does that put your case for leaving?
And as for being spineless how about this for an act of cruelty?
"British Navy ship dispatched to turn back Migrants in desperate bid to tackle crisis""
Think about that: First the careful wording "Migrants" not "Refugees"
So that they are not accused of sending people back to certain death and being in contravention of the Human Rights Laws?
Not Rescue them as required by the Law of the Sea, TURN THEM BACK and pretend they will be OK?
We might as well machine gun them in the water..
And this is the sort of Government you want?

 

[trex]

at the heart of the Brexit debate, I think most people do not make a clear distinction between political systems and administrations. We do not vote directly on policies. Every 5 years, we vote for 1 person that most of us know nothing about other that his/her political affiliation and trust that this collection of these elected people is going to deliver the right policies. Nearly two thirds of these votes go to waste anyway because the person we voted for failed to be elected.
The objective of democracy is to deliver the policies that suit most people. The question is, do you trust more 'build the wall' Boris to dictate the policies or an indirect but proportional EU triumvirate?

 

[derf]

at the heart of the Brexit debate, I think most people do not make a clear distinction between political systems and administrations. We do not vote directly on policies. Every 5 years, we vote for 1 person that most of us know nothing about other that his/her political affiliation and trust that this collection of these elected people is going to delivery the right policies.

especially in a Westminster system, as opposed to say proportional representation, where there is more need for coalition and bringing together different views. I couldn't help thinking as I read this post - how much more damage could the EU possibly do than Cameron or Blair in their ideological acting out.

 

[gray198]

That 'human rights ' charter seems to only apply to some and not to others

 

[tillson]

Alas you have shown the misunderstanding that most people have about "Human Rights" the reason we can't kick out the undesirables is nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with the fact that in 1951 we signed the United Nations Charter on Human Rights, which will still apply if and when we leave the EU!
No country has EVER cancelled their signature to that treaty, so where does that put your case for leaving?
And as for being spineless how about this for an act of cruelty?
"British Navy ship dispatched to turn back Migrants in desperate bid to tackle crisis""
Think about that: First the careful wording "Migrants" not "Refugees"
So that they are not accused of sending people back to certain death and being in contravention of the Human Rights Laws?
Not Rescue them as required by the Law of the Sea, TURN THEM BACK and pretend they will be OK?
We might as well machine gun them in the water..
And this is the sort of Government you want?

That would be all well and good if they were refugees. They aren't though, they are people fleeing a place of safety in pursuit of the facilities that other countries have to offer such as benefits and health care. All at the expense of ordinary people who now experience a much reduced service due to the extra burden imposed by these non contributors. There sense of entitlement is breathtaking and when they don't get what they want, they resort to violence. Hardly refugees?

They need turning back and they should have being doing it 18 months ago. The message needs to get back to these people that there is nothing for them in Europe and that if they try to get here, at best they will be immediately returned or at worst they will sink in the ocean.

If you feel differently, open your home up to them and fund them for an indefinite period. Didn't think so! It's dead easy to pledge other people's money and resources.

However, genuine refugees fleeing danger and persecution, as far as I am concerned are welcome here at any time. But not these criminals in boats.

 

[trex]

Tillson, there are 4 main groups of asylum seekers: Syrians, Afghans, Iraquis and Northern Africans. They are all entiled to our protections under 2 UN Conventions, 1949 and 1951 because of wars or unstable political situations in their countries of origin.
In general, successive UK governments have allowed failed asylum seekers to remain a few years after their asylum applications are examined and most are actually rejected.
It follows that all people on those rubber boats must be allowed to arrive on dry land and given help. If they arrive on Lesbos, then the Schengen countries must allow them to choose where to apply for asylum.
The real solution is to stop wars and not help new 'springs'.

 

[flecc]

However, genuine refugees fleeing danger and persecution, as far as I am concerned are welcome here at any time. But not these criminals in boats.

Unfortunately, for several hundred years we have been the "criminals in boats", invading other countries around the world, subjugating their peoples, enforcing our form of rule and often stripping their assets.

We've most recently been doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can understand Iraqis, Afghans and others feeling they have a right to come here.

We reap what we sew.
.