Farage's March To Leave

[T-195]

ArmaghMan said:

I LOVE the absolute arrogance of the English
We're leaving the EU because we wont have Johny Foreigner telling us what to do....

But we're quite happy to tell another country what to do

I'm embarrassed to be English, at least London was as Pro Remain as Scotland and N.I.

Wales a close call too.

Hope that helps.

Edited by T-195 on Monday 8th April 11:18

[T-195]

ArmaghMan said:

I LOVE the absolute arrogance of the English
We're leaving the EU because we wont have Johny Foreigner telling us what to do....

But we're quite happy to tell another country what to do

I'm embarrassed to be English, at least London was as Pro Remain as Scotland and N.I.

Wales a close call too.

Hope that helps.

Edited by T-195 on Monday 8th April 11:54

[Digga]

Pastor Of Muppets] said:

cardigankid said:

what have you to fear from another vote?

That Leave would win in even bigger numbers and Parliament would do everything in their power to thwart the will of the people
just like the first one.

Or that we'd end up having a "best of 3" contest.

In other news, are Oxford asking for a rerun of the boat races?

No.

[And then she]

Digga said:

Pastor Of Muppets] said:

cardigankid said:

what have you to fear from another vote?

That Leave would win in even bigger numbers and Parliament would do everything in their power to thwart the will of the people
just like the first one.

Or that we'd end up having a "best of 3" contest.

In other news, are Oxford asking for a rerun of the boat races?

No.

There have been 3 Varsity boat races since the referendum, and both sides have won.

To date, Oxford have won 80 and Cambridge 84. That's closer than 52:48, but should we just say that Cambridge have won overall and call off the 2020 race?

Edited by And then she on Monday 8th April 11:30

[JuanCarlosFandango]

ElectricSoup said:

This is the most horrible misapprehension in the Leave side. You have to understand that it is precisely because we are so pro-British that we believe in Remaining. It is the route to serve our interest best by pretty much every measure. It is of Leavers that I wonder, how can the be so flagrantly blind to our nations best interests? I'm not just talking about economics and percentage points of GDP either, important though they are. Look outside your Union Flag curtains at how the world now perceives us, merely as a result of this political farce. We are reputationally destroyed. A laughing stock. Carry brexit through and we'll be that way for at least a generation. Maybe more, if May falls and a worse anti-EU ideologue takes over.

Ok, to qualify "anti British" a little I don't necessarily mean people who simply hate everything about Britain and want to wreck it by any means. Rather people who feel Britain is inadequate, deficient, finished or otherwise incapable of continuing to be a prosperous and decent country outside the EU.

Your post seems to continue in this spirit. Can you expand on this reputational damage? Laughing stock? I just don't see it. And I do occasionally meet with foreigners.

I don't infer a general incompetence of Americans for the impeachment saga which took over Clinton's second term. Though I recognise it has problems. I don't think Germans are all wooly headed idiots or cynical opportunists as a result of Merkels migrant fiasco, or that France is a seething hot bed of nationalism kept in check by a heavy handed establishment. Ok, the last one maybe.

Politics, and especially democratic politics is clunky and awkward and countries seldom attract global attention for the right reasons. If that makes you embarrassed to be British I think you need to have a good think about things.

[SeeFive]

ElectricSoup said:

SeeFive said:

ElectricSoup said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I'm not saying Remainers are stupid and wrong. I believe some were scared, averse to change or over credulous. Some are ideologues who believe in world government, and some are simply anti British for whatever reason. I also believe that many, probably most, sincerely believed that remaining was in our best interests. Whether because they thought we were doing ok and could avoid further integration and push for reform, or they actually believe that a country called Europe is a noble goal and that Britain should form part of it.

This is the most horrible misapprehension in the Leave side. You have to understand that it is precisely because we are so pro-British that we believe in Remaining. It is the route to serve our interest best by pretty much every measure. It is of Leavers that I wonder, how can the be so flagrantly blind to our nations best interests? I'm not just talking about economics and percentage points of GDP either, important though they are. Look outside your Union Flag curtains at how the world now perceives us, merely as a result of this political farce. We are reputationally destroyed. A laughing stock. Carry brexit through and we'll be that way for at least a generation. Maybe more, if May falls and a worse anti-EU ideologue takes over.

IMO, It’s not much to do with the decision to leave the E.U. but the hapless approach of trying to avoid it after the referendum which has made us laughing stocks, or even Cameron taking the risk of asking the question in the first place.

However, all that is history. If a swift, well planned and negotiated decisive exit had been implemented, the view of Euro supportive people looking on may well have been “Well their population is idiotic for voting for it, but wow, they certainly can act upon democracy”.

Only time and experience of no longer being a member of the E.U. will accurately inform on the sense of the decision, so anyone suggesting that is the reason we are laughing stocks is a little premature IMO. But it is clear to me right now that our reputation is being destroyed by a lot of people in power who don’t “really” want to implement the democratic leave result from the referendum and are grotesquely contorting our political system to accommodate their real agenda.

That is not the perception from abroad. The perception is that our government is a basket case, our negotiating skills are sub par and that there will from now on be far great circumspection when it comes to trading with and negotiating agreements with the UK. Which will leave us measurably poorer in pretty much every way. None of this is because of Remainers - you are simply deflecting.

I am sticking to the point made of how the outside world sees us in my experience and reading. Furthermore, your response seems to actually agree that it was not the democratic result of the referendum that the outside world sneers at, but “how” our elected representatives have handled it, and the perception of an easy job negotiating one sided trade deals with us going forward.

So seeing that you are not contending in your response that the outside world does not sneer at our democratic right to decide to leave the E.U., lets go forward.

You have to ask yourself “why” our negotiating skills have proved sub par. One could glibly say the problem is too hard to handle, and there is an element of truth in that, it isn’t easy to negotiate with the E.U.. But we could have made it easier by focusing on leaving, and establishing firmly in the mind of all around the negotiating table that we were committed to leave, and on prepared to do so on WTO terms if absolutely necessary.

So many errors and capitulations were unnecessarily made from day 1. Perhaps our preparation to leave and approach was flawed in accepting the terms of discussion from the E.U. without a whimper, you know, no discussion before A50, or pay 39million first and then we will talk. If the situation was more believed in and prepared to leave on WTO terms, then a committed leave team would have simply stated “no” and walked away testing the mettle early.

Our lack of commitment to leave was spotted at the outset of negotiation by the E.U. and has been a consistent weakness throughout resulting in a half in, half out deal. Because our negotiators, or more accurately May wresting control of the negotiation half way through with some vain attempt to please everyone were weak, compared to the E.U. stance of preparation and solidarity, we looked and were very poor.

With regards to trade deals going forward, one would hope that a hapless PM would just be a figurehead in those negotiations and leave the detail to the experts.

To see that precedent continuing, take a look at the amendments which have been proposed in the House of Commons recently. Look at the most recent 8. The remain focus is clear to see, especially the language used such as “crashing out with no deal” etc. I am afraid that the evidence is there to see that our negotiation to leave has been skewed by a bias to stay in some way, resulting in today’s governmental pandemonium and farce as viewed by the UK and the outside world.

In short, I do not believe that the rest of the world are ridiculing the voters for deciding to leave, the message I get is we have always by our own choices (no Euro, no Shengen etc) and by the makeup of the E.U. structure been on the fringes.

My point was, I think they are laughing at how our elected representatives could not execute that decision. I don’t see you disagreeing with that. Which way did May vote? As remain always point out (and so do I by the way), “where the hell is (spineless) Boris, JRM, Farage etc in these negotiations”?

No leavers either had the balls or were invited into planning and directing the process. Therefore the democratic vote to leave the E.U. is being carried out by a remain PM and her appointed team of remainers IMO, and very poorly.

[j_4m]

ElectricSoup said:

This is the most horrible misapprehension in the Leave side. You have to understand that it is precisely because we are so pro-British that we believe in Remaining. It is the route to serve our interest best by pretty much every measure. It is of Leavers that I wonder, how can the be so flagrantly blind to our nations best interests? I'm not just talking about economics and percentage points of GDP either, important though they are. Look outside your Union Flag curtains at how the world now perceives us, merely as a result of this political farce. We are reputationally destroyed. A laughing stock. Carry brexit through and we'll be that way for at least a generation. Maybe more, if May falls and a worse anti-EU ideologue takes over.

There is definitely a minority contingent of anti-British Remain voters, at least on social media, but they're to be treated the same as the openly racist Leave voters.

[SeeFive]

And then she said:

There have been 3 Varsity boat races since the referendum, and both sides have won.

To date, Oxford have won 80 and Cambridge 84. That's closer than 52:48, but should we just say that Cambridge have won overall and call off the 2020 race?

Edited by And then she on Monday 8th April 11:30

So is the answer to get remain and leave in two rowing boats for a race down the Thames rather than leaving it to our parliament to screw up? Actually you may be onto something here.

Except if leave win, remain will say that despite years of precedent of how we decide the winner in a boat race, this time the wind and tide was unfairly against them, or that the Leave boat was fuelled by lies, or the thick gammons didn’t know what they were rowing for...

[ElectricSoup]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Ok, to qualify "anti British" a little I don't necessarily mean people who simply hate everything about Britain and want to wreck it by any means. Rather people who feel Britain is inadequate, deficient, finished or otherwise incapable of continuing to be a prosperous and decent country outside the EU.

Your post seems to continue in this spirit. Can you expand on this reputational damage? Laughing stock? I just don't see it. And I do occasionally meet with foreigners.

I don't infer a general incompetence of Americans for the impeachment saga which took over Clinton's second term. Though I recognise it has problems. I don't think Germans are all wooly headed idiots or cynical opportunists as a result of Merkels migrant fiasco, or that France is a seething hot bed of nationalism kept in check by a heavy handed establishment. Ok, the last one maybe.

Politics, and especially democratic politics is clunky and awkward and countries seldom attract global attention for the right reasons. If that makes you embarrassed to be British I think you need to have a good think about things.

You are reading too much in to my comments. I am postulating that the governance of this country has become a laughing stock and our reputation as pragmatic international dealers at the highest level is ruined. Our standing at the international level is gone. This does not infer a "general incompetence" of British people and businesses. But the way we are currently being governed and the way our governing actors in the international sphere are operating gives pause for thought to our counterparts aboard, and their verdict is currently damning. We are diminished. OK it's an act of trolling but we have the Serbian (Serbian!) government telling their people they should think carefully about even visiting Britain. For this to even be out there even at the level of trolling is an absolute illustration of how our reputation has fallen, to even be the subject of such piss taking is deeply damaging. We have opened ourselves to this sort of ribbing.

I'm not embarrassed to be British, but I am embarrassed by our government's approach to this subject. It is utterly incompetent and unacceptable.

The penny has finally dropped with Peter Oborne, a firm advocate for leaving the EU for decades:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i...

Edited by ElectricSoup on Monday 8th April 12:06

[gooner1]

ElectricSoup said:

You are reading too much in to my comments. I am postulating that the governance of this country has become a laughing stock and our reputation as pragmatic international dealers at the highest level is ruined. Our standing at the international level is gone. This does not infer a "general incompetence" of British people and businesses. But the way we are currently being governed and the way our governing actors in the international sphere are operating gives pause for thought to our counterparts aboard, and their verdict is currently damning. We are diminished. OK it's an act of trolling but we have the Serbian (Serbian!) government telling their people they should think carefully about even visiting Britain. For this to even be out there even at the level of trolling is an absolute illustration of how our reputation has fallen, to even be the subject of such piss taking is deeply damaging. We have opened ourselves to this sort of ribbing.

I'm not embarrassed to be British, but I am embarrassed by our government's approach to this subject. It is utterly incompetent and unacceptable.

The penny has finally dropped with Peter Oborne, a firm advocate for leaving the EU for decades:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i...

Edited by ElectricSoup on Monday 8th April 12:06

If George Soros is involved with open democracy, it'll be much more than a penny
being dropped.

[And then she]

gooner1 said:

If George Soros is involved with open democracy, it'll be much more than a penny
being dropped.

[gooner1]

And then she said:

I do hope you carried out a bleach test before applying any chemicals
to your Barnet.

[cardigankid]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I guess that's a No on needing a super majority for Remain in your second referendum? You can have too much extra democracy...

I am simply arguing that there should be legal controls on the proportion of the population required to vote for a change to the constitution, like Germany. I think that the vote was a political stunt and the result was a protest vote gone wrong. I do not think that it could be repeated now that the public have had a glimpse of what Brexit actually involves and the intractability of some of the associated problems.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

It is very clear from that post that you are letting your prejudices cloud your conclusions.

I think that you are classifying views you don’t agree with as prejudices.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Trade disruption happens and is not the end of the world.

it may seem like it if one loses ones livelihood as a result. This is not just disruption, a term which is commonly used as a positive force these days, it is the loss of business which I believe will result from the introduction of tariffs between the UK and the EU. It is the loss of investment based on the ability of the UK to trade freely within the EU.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Losing their access to (and dependence on) the British market arguably gave Australia and New Zealand the impetus to modernise their economies. Perhaps some of those 17.4 million thought that being more open to world trade would bring similar long term benefits.

It never happened before Britain entered the EEC so why should it happen now? It did not happen because business cannot expand in a high tax economy where the focus is on regulation and state benefits rather than enterprise, which is where we have been since 1945. People sell out. Britain doesn’t have the discipline of the Germans or the Japanese, or the clever corporation tax regimes of the Irish. Being open to world trade means being competitive. We are not competitive. Our prosperity comes from other qualities, and most importantly the inward investment which successive governments have worked so hard to secure over 40 years, and which is now disappearing.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Perhaps others feel that sacrificing some prosperity - and most of us wouldn't call marginally lower GDP growth an "abyss" - is a price worth paying for greater democratic control and cultural stability.

If that was democratic control, its not something I want. It is also unclear to me what you mean by cultural stability. If you mean street parties with Union Jack bowler hats I suspect that most people would prefer the prosperity. If you mean reduce the number of immigrants, most of these are not from the EU, and successive governments have promised reductions and failed to deliver. Why should that change?

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Others may believe that greater protection for their industry will raise their standard of living. The arguments against protectionism might be well established at a macro level but there are many cases where certain groups or industries can benefit.

Earlier you were arguing for opening up to world trade, now you are arguing for protectionism. The two are incompatible. It also has to be said that protectionism failed in the post war period, British industry was weakened, not strengthened. The fundamental problem is a lack of investment, and Britain simply does not have the wealth to do this without foreign investment, and has not had since 1914.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Yet more may have been sceptical of the economic credentials of the geniuses in Europe who have presided over decades of chronic youth unemployment that has blighted whole swathes of southern Europe, bankrupted Greece and allowed debt to spiral out of control.

That is precisely the point- because Britain was outside the Euro it could basically have its cake and eat it. Now if you think that the EU is run by geniuses, who do you think runs Britain? Most of the EU bureaucracy we complain of in Britain is actually generated by our own civil servants. The same rules are not applied in France or Germany, or are applied in a much less rigid fashion.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

That is 4 logical reasons off the top of my head why people may have wanted to leave the single market despite the economic risks, without once mentioning Queen Victoria or fuzzy wuzzies, or protesting against anything.

I am still of the view that misguided patriotism plays a part in the Brexit movement, but I acknowledge that you have not played that card, with the exception of your reference to cultural stability. Is that not about keeping the fuzzy wuzzies, as you put it, out

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I'm not saying Remainers are stupid and wrong. I believe some were scared, averse to change or over credulous. Some are ideologues who believe in world government, and some are simply anti British for whatever reason. I also believe that many, probably most, sincerely believed that remaining was in our best interests. Whether because they thought we were doing ok and could avoid further integration and push for reform, or they actually believe that a country called Europe is a noble goal and that Britain should form part of it.

I think that Remainers see our semi detached membership of the EU as being a source of wealth for Britain - few I think support any kind of Bilderbergesque world government or have any delusion that a country called Europe is any kind of goal at all, and most are motivated by pure British self interest.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

There's plenty that could be improved about the British constitution, but it hasn't stopped us being an almost uniquely stable, prosperous, peaceful and pleasant country for an awfully long time in comparison with many others.

I would argue that our stability has been due to prosperity, which is to a great part due to incoming investment which in turn is due to EU membership.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

The referendum was voted for in a general election, proposed by the government, debated and passed by both houses of parliament and approved by the electoral commission. It's quite an elaborate stunt.

But still basically a stunt conceived by David Cameron. Simple fact I think.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

What is noteworthy is that you follow a theme of saying how awful modern Britain is and how leavers are seeking to wallow in past glories of empire and military might.

That is the impression I have. What do others think? Why are we getting all these historically inaccurate films about Dunkirk and Churchill?

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Since the taboo of second guessing others motives has long been broken in this debate, I would suggest that this particular focus betrays a feeling common amongst remainers that simply being a prosperous stable country isn't enough. The empire had to be replaced, and the replacement was Europe. Beyond democratic control, exotic foreign postings, vast power and resources and a mission to civilise lesser people, even if they happened to be in Doncaster rather than Dar es Salaam. Something that could take on the US and China, and make European politicians feel like big shots again. Maybe that's still a noble ambition in its way, but you can't expect everyone to share it.

Our Civil Service still live as if there was an Empire. All the same, this is a clever and interesting argument. Let me be absolutely clear. The British Empire is in the past. It is not coming back. Our prosperity and stability have been due in large part to our EU membership, even if our peace such as it is is guaranteed, for the time being, by the USA, and the price of that is buying US military hardware and taking part in misguided foreign wars when the USA tells us to. I have no desire to see EU politicians feel like big shots, but it is the Commission which really needs to be reined in. That can only be achieved by a combination of Britain and Germany, and if the EU collapses we would be foolish to be complacent about it. It is the combination of Britain and Germany, two independent nations working together, that I see as the source of our prosperity in the future, not some Empire for Empires sake. They can help us and we can help them - you won’t get a more Anglophile nation anywhere. And together we have a combination of such strength and ability that we can strike real deals throughout the world. On its own, Britain is a non-entity, not to say a laughing stock.

I am really grateful that a supporter of Brexit has argued the case for us.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Point by point.

Cameron didn't think so in 2016. They can hardly be applied retrospectively, and if they can then why not apply them further back and say we never should have joined.


No, you appear to be quite literally pre-judging why people voted how they did.


Yes, but it is still a disruption from which I believe we will recover. There was no shortage of warnings about economic disruption before the referendum. People voted for it anyway, whether because they didn't believe it or thought it was worth it.


Companies do grow in Britain.

There's no reason we can't become more competitive. I'm not convinced national stereotypes adequately explain economic performance but even on that basis we're hardly a nation of layabouts who only rouse ourselves to cause chaos. Even so, hiding behind the protectionism of the EU doesn't seem like the best answer. Like any rut you fix the problem.


It's quite obvious that you don't want it. But we had a vote on it and leave won. That's democracy.

We currently have completely open migration with 27 neighbouring countries, many of whom have high unemployment or much lower wages. Do I really need to explain how ending this could affect immigration?


I was talking about what a different group of leave voters may believe, not what I want. Even so it's quite possible that we could protect some industries and throw others open as suits us. That's the whole point of having a trade policy.


My point was that the EU is hardly an unqualified economic success. Much of the continent has been stagnant for decades with chronic unemployment and huge debt. Their credibility with voters is not a given.


I couldn't possibly say that there were no racists amongst the 17.4 million people who voted Leave. Immigration was a significant issue, but mostly white immigration so not sure that's racist in the traditional sense. Largely it wasn't even about the people themselves, who are just people themselves. It was simply about a large influx of people in a short space of time and the impact of this.


Few may consciously support world government or an EU superstate but many suspect that the driving force behind it is just that, and not without reason.


Investment usually follows return on investment. So long as we can provide that investment will keep coming. EU membership may be one component of that, but only one.


What isn't a stunt on that basis?


I think a burble of historically inaccurate jingoism is the norm for films.


So let me be equally clear: I don't want to be part of an empire or a superpower. Not a British one, not an American one, not a German or European one. I am more than happy to have a stable, peaceful, democratic and relatively prosperous country.

It is our political class and as you rightly say, the civil service, who need to give up their imperial ambitions. Not Brexiteers.

[T-195]

[Gandahar]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Point by point.

Cameron didn't think so in 2016. They can hardly be applied retrospectively, and if they can then why not apply them further back and say we never should have joined.


No, you appear to be quite literally pre-judging why people voted how they did.


Yes, but it is still a disruption from which I believe we will recover. There was no shortage of warnings about economic disruption before the referendum. People voted for it anyway, whether because they didn't believe it or thought it was worth it.


Companies do grow in Britain.

There's no reason we can't become more competitive. I'm not convinced national stereotypes adequately explain economic performance but even on that basis we're hardly a nation of layabouts who only rouse ourselves to cause chaos. Even so, hiding behind the protectionism of the EU doesn't seem like the best answer. Like any rut you fix the problem.


It's quite obvious that you don't want it. But we had a vote on it and leave won. That's democracy.

We currently have completely open migration with 27 neighbouring countries, many of whom have high unemployment or much lower wages. Do I really need to explain how ending this could affect immigration?


I was talking about what a different group of leave voters may believe, not what I want. Even so it's quite possible that we could protect some industries and throw others open as suits us. That's the whole point of having a trade policy.


My point was that the EU is hardly an unqualified economic success. Much of the continent has been stagnant for decades with chronic unemployment and huge debt. Their credibility with voters is not a given.


I couldn't possibly say that there were no racists amongst the 17.4 million people who voted Leave. Immigration was a significant issue, but mostly white immigration so not sure that's racist in the traditional sense. Largely it wasn't even about the people themselves, who are just people themselves. It was simply about a large influx of people in a short space of time and the impact of this.


Few may consciously support world government or an EU superstate but many suspect that the driving force behind it is just that, and not without reason.


Investment usually follows return on investment. So long as we can provide that investment will keep coming. EU membership may be one component of that, but only one.


What isn't a stunt on that basis?


I think a burble of historically inaccurate jingoism is the norm for films.


So let me be equally clear: I don't want to be part of an empire or a superpower. Not a British one, not an American one, not a German or European one. I am more than happy to have a stable, peaceful, democratic and relatively prosperous country.

It is our political class and as you rightly say, the civil service, who need to give up their imperial ambitions. Not Brexiteers.

The issue here is that the question asked by the government to the people was very simple --

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The answer was very simple, yes or no.

But it then turned out the question was actually very complex, so much so the government, who asked the question, did not know what actually they were asking for. Hence why so many things raised in parliament of late show they haven't a clue how to implement this simple choice by the population on a question they asked.

An analogy would be an exam type question where the marker could not decide if the answer was correct or not due to mistakes on their side.

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 12th April 01:15

[Gandahar]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I would suggest that this particular focus betrays a feeling common amongst remainers that simply being a prosperous stable country isn't enough. The empire had to be replaced, and the replacement was Europe. Beyond democratic control, exotic foreign postings, vast power and resources and a mission to civilise lesser people, even if they happened to be in Doncaster rather than Dar es Salaam. Something that could take on the US and China, and make European politicians feel like big shots again.
.

Slight problem with this wishful thinking is money spent on defence.

Currently the UK, who do want to be part of the EU world domination force, has spent billions and billions on two aircraft carriers and F35 fighter jets for it's non-EU role. Why ?

The EU Irish republic meanwhile has spent only 0.2% of GDP on defence and with the money saved allowed corporate taxes to be lowered and so jobs have gone to Ireland from the UK even before Brexit.

You are living in a UK colonial 1930s dreamworld.....

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Gandahar said:

The issue here is that the question asked by the government to the people was very simple --

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The answer was very simple, yes or no.

But it then turned out the question was actually very complex, so much so the government, who asked the question, did not know what actually they were asking for. Hence why so many things raised in parliament of late show they haven't a clue how to implement this simple choice by the population on a question they asked.

An analogy would be an exam type question where the marker could not decide if the answer was correct or not due to mistakes on their side.

I would say it's morea case of the government not wanting to implement the decision than not knowing how to.

In exam terms it's more like a teacher setting an exam he thought was a bit tricky, only to find his pupils all passed it quite easily. So he flounces around saying they must have cheated, they don't fully understand it, the pass mark should have been higher and they'll never get anywhere with that attitude anyway.


I don't see how the almost completely pro EU civil service amd government spending fortunes on military equipment is meant to prove that I'm the one living in an imperial fantasy.

[Thorodin]

Farage’s revival is about to throw a massive spanner in. He undoubtedly, in his well worn habit, will poke his finger in the balloon that has since 2017 been studiously ignored by those mutton eared clods in HoC.

The reason why there is no support in parliament for any particular option that has been offered is because everybody knew the PM’s deal was a non-starter and supported by nobody. In fact it wasn't her deal at all, it was dictated by the EU. Even worse than a no-deal. Translate the pretence that they pretend they are all about finding an alternative they can agree on? No, they are not. They are determined to stop the whole thing by whatever means they can. Farage will expose that and huge numbers will support it.

Whether you like him, or not, he is telling the truth. The figures go a long way to support it. The web site: in only 2 weeks and already £750,000 in small donations with the largest being £150. That’s entirely from ‘ordinary’ people who can least afford it. Ground swell.

[wc98]

Thorodin said:

Farage’s revival is about to throw a massive spanner in. He undoubtedly, in his well worn habit, will poke his finger in the balloon that has since 2017 been studiously ignored by those mutton eared clods in HoC.

The reason why there is no support in parliament for any particular option that has been offered is because everybody knew the PM’s deal was a non-starter and supported by nobody. In fact it wasn't her deal at all, it was dictated by the EU. Even worse than a no-deal. Translate the pretence that they pretend they are all about finding an alternative they can agree on? No, they are not. They are determined to stop the whole thing by whatever means they can. Farage will expose that and huge numbers will support it.

Whether you like him, or not, he is telling the truth. The figures go a long way to support it. The web site: in only 2 weeks and already £750,000 in small donations with the largest being £150. That’s entirely from ‘ordinary’ people who can least afford it. Ground swell.

the shortsightedness of parliament is incredible. i am sure they really all did think it would just go away if they could stall leaving long enough. given fixed term parliaments any new party has plenty time for fundraising and organisation to make sure they have a meaningful presence come election time. politics has never been so interesting