FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Leave.eu found guilty
Leave.eu found guilty
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
There is more to this though as the commission said there was also no CA involvement in the Leave EU campaign. I find this hard to believe as the CA scandal only broke due to a whistle blower. A whistle blower who said he worked on vote leave campaigns and advised of other companies doing the same. The databases haven't been looked at yet and I doubt the commission has the capacity or had the time to look at the terabytes involved. The CA CEO has only just been asked to appear before Parliament, so how the electoral commission can say Leave EU is free from CA involvement (if only finance wise), seems very odd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aaron Banks statement on it is just as bonkers as we've come to expect from these delusional idiots. Saying the ruling was an attack on Brexit and the 17 million who voted for it. "
Because he's a first class racist cunt . Standard from him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aaron Banks statement on it is just as bonkers as we've come to expect from these delusional idiots. Saying the ruling was an attack on Brexit and the 17 million who voted for it.
Because he's a first class racist cunt . Standard from him."
Is he a racist ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aaron Banks statement on it is just as bonkers as we've come to expect from these delusional idiots. Saying the ruling was an attack on Brexit and the 17 million who voted for it.
Because he's a first class racist cunt . Standard from him.
Is he a racist ?"
You'll have to decide that for yourself monkey.I just said he was.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet."
 The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets. "
You forget that we have only just found out from notes in Aaron Bank's company accounts he gave £12.5m to Leave EU. At least the government leaflets were transparent. So stop spouting about the £9m when it was £3.5m less! Given Bank's finances were questionable only a few years ago - where has all the money come from? There's a lot more shit to hit the fan on this! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets.
You forget that we have only just found out from notes in Aaron Bank's company accounts he gave £12.5m to Leave EU. At least the government leaflets were transparent. So stop spouting about the £9m when it was £3.5m less! Given Bank's finances were questionable only a few years ago - where has all the money come from? There's a lot more shit to hit the fan on this!"
Aaron Banks was allowed to donate a certain amount legally. Sky news is reporting today that Leave.EU overspent by £77,000 according to the electoral commission findings and Aaron Banks has been fined £70,000 pounds for the overspend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets.
You forget that we have only just found out from notes in Aaron Bank's company accounts he gave £12.5m to Leave EU. At least the government leaflets were transparent. So stop spouting about the £9m when it was £3.5m less! Given Bank's finances were questionable only a few years ago - where has all the money come from? There's a lot more shit to hit the fan on this!
Aaron Banks was allowed to donate a certain amount legally. Sky news is reporting today that Leave.EU overspent by £77,000 according to the electoral commission findings and Aaron Banks has been fined £70,000 pounds for the overspend. "
His insurance company spent £12.5m fact. This was on various adverts, leaflets and mailshots etc. This was before the cut off date as was the government leaflet so don't come moaning the other side didn't play fair because both stretched the inadequate laws and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's the tip of the iceberg and if it had been the other side which had done this, brexit folk wouldn't be satisfied with the result, nor the will of the people.
Sentences should carry significant jail time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the tip of the iceberg and if it had been the other side which had done this, brexit folk wouldn't be satisfied with the result, nor the will of the people.
Sentences should carry significant jail time. "
Does that jail time also apply to the Liberal Democrats then, who were found guilty of overspending at the general election and were fined £18,000 by the electoral commission. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets. "
the "£77,000" pound figure you are quoting is actually disengenious... because what the electoral commision actually said in their report was that they "unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns."
they also said.... the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher.
The commission also found that Leave.EU inaccurately reported three loans it had received from companies controlled by Banks.
“This included a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate."
Finally, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224.
.......
over to you centy...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets.
the "£77,000" pound figure you are quoting is actually disengenious... because what the electoral commision actually said in their report was that they "unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns."
they also said.... the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher.
The commission also found that Leave.EU inaccurately reported three loans it had received from companies controlled by Banks.
“This included a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate."
Finally, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224.
.......
over to you centy......"
'May well have been' considerably higher is a very vague statement. Arsenal 'may well have been' playing champions league football next season had they signed better players this year but they didn't so they won't be in the champions league next year!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets. "
So what youre saying is, youre upset as not as many corporations would throw money into something which seems to them like a bad idea. Then because so few membersof our government thought leaving was the most effective choice, you couldnt lobby in parliment to levelthe playing field. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets.
the "£77,000" pound figure you are quoting is actually disengenious... because what the electoral commision actually said in their report was that they "unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns."
they also said.... the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher.
The commission also found that Leave.EU inaccurately reported three loans it had received from companies controlled by Banks.
“This included a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate."
Finally, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224.
.......
over to you centy......
'May well have been' considerably higher is a very vague statement. Arsenal 'may well have been' playing champions league football next season had they signed better players this year but they didn't so they won't be in the champions league next year! "
Good analogy for how your political campaign is fracturing and splintering now.
If only they had been more transparent,hired better lawyers, they wouldnt be under all this scruttony right now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the tip of the iceberg and if it had been the other side which had done this, brexit folk wouldn't be satisfied with the result, nor the will of the people.
Sentences should carry significant jail time.
Does that jail time also apply to the Liberal Democrats then, who were found guilty of overspending at the general election and were fined £18,000 by the electoral commission. "
Yep. Apply the law equally and fairly.
Though I wonder if in any of these cases there is sn individual to hold to account? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The Remain campaign got an extra £9 million in taxpayers cash from Cameron and Osborne for pro EU government leaflets that they sent to every house in the UK. £9 million of taxpayers cash was not given to the Leave side from the government and no anti EU leaflets funded by taxpayers money was sent to every house in the UK. This was deeply unfair and went against British values of fair play. I'm not defending Aaron Banks but if he did overspend on Leave.EU's campaign then maybe it went some way to redress the balance after Cameron authorised £9 million of taxpayers cash to help Remain. The electoral commission could only find £77,000 overspent by Leave.EU which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £9 million Cameron's government gave to remain for those leaflets.
You forget that we have only just found out from notes in Aaron Bank's company accounts he gave £12.5m to Leave EU. At least the government leaflets were transparent. So stop spouting about the £9m when it was £3.5m less! Given Bank's finances were questionable only a few years ago - where has all the money come from? There's a lot more shit to hit the fan on this!
Aaron Banks was allowed to donate a certain amount legally. Sky news is reporting today that Leave.EU overspent by £77,000 according to the electoral commission findings and Aaron Banks has been fined £70,000 pounds for the overspend.
His insurance company spent £12.5m fact. This was on various adverts, leaflets and mailshots etc. This was before the cut off date as was the government leaflet so don't come moaning the other side didn't play fair because both stretched the inadequate laws and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet."
The government position was to remain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The government position was to remain. "
If their position had been leave would you have been happy at taxpayers money being spent on leaflets? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The government position was to remain.
If their position had been leave would you have been happy at taxpayers money being spent on leaflets?"
I wouldn't have been surprised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The government position was to remain.
If their position had been leave would you have been happy at taxpayers money being spent on leaflets?"
It would have been an equal footing for government spending, whichever way the UK government chose to inform its citizens of the reasons for doing A or B. I'm not sure this expenditure was particularly influential in terms of Brexit, as people were confronted with so many other information sources.
It would also have been helpful if the government had plans for what would happen after both scenarios, so that the public were educated and there would be less reasons for expectations of 'leave immediately', just walk-away etc, based upon ignorance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The government position was to remain.
If their position had been leave would you have been happy at taxpayers money being spent on leaflets?"
No. Like I said, it should have been neutral. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not defending them...but the govt had a nerve using my taxes towards a remain campaign leaflet. They should have given out a neutral stance leaflet.
The government position was to remain.
If their position had been leave would you have been happy at taxpayers money being spent on leaflets?
It would have been an equal footing for government spending, whichever way the UK government chose to inform its citizens of the reasons for doing A or B. I'm not sure this expenditure was particularly influential in terms of Brexit, as people were confronted with so many other information sources.
It would also have been helpful if the government had plans for what would happen after both scenarios, so that the public were educated and there would be less reasons for expectations of 'leave immediately', just walk-away etc, based upon ignorance."
Now now! That sounds a littlr too sensible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the people of Britain can be turned by one or two leaflets which land on their doorstep, then the whole will of the people feels a little flimsy. We’re told people knew what they were voting for. But it’s staring to sound they did less thinking for this than they spend on who wants to be a millionaire. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
...not to mention the 1BN of taxpayers money that Mrs May spent to buy DUP's support after the election in order to try and fulfil the Tory manifesto's promises about brexit, promises that the brexiteers themselves made during the campaign. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
Just seen a letter from Facebook to the Electoral Commission released by @commonCMS on twitter. It shows that Vote Leave and BeLeave were coordinating their campaigns.
So that's an oversimplified question. An asymmetric campaign that favoured leave from the start, a morally questionable campaign, collusion between leave campaigns, overspending. Did I miss anything?
But hey, taking back our democracy and all that.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Breaching election law with regards to illegal spending during the eu referendum
So... centy.... defend ya boys!!!! "
Nothing to defend both sides lied and cheating,the remainers are cheating now trying to subvert democracy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns."
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Breaching election law with regards to illegal spending during the eu referendum
So... centy.... defend ya boys!!!! Nothing to defend both sides lied and cheating,the remainers are cheating now trying to subvert democracy"
So stopping people thinking, talking and debating is now called "subverting democracy"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
"
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
"
if people had already decided, then remain started (and finished) marginally behind leave. So was a slight underdog based on that POV. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
"
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies! "
They couldn't, because those things were the fault of the EU! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies!
They couldn't, because those things were the fault of the EU!"
can we see your workings out ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Shit jobs:
Production of many of the skilled jobs has moved to the new EU countries because of massive EU grants that we paid for. We were net contributors. The former Eastern Bloc are net receivers.
Too many foreigners:
Free movement of people. The EU insisted upon it. The EU also insisted that a man could come from Poland to the UK and claim benefits that were not even available in Poland, and at rates not paid in Poland, even for children who were not in the UK and send then back to Poland, and for him to use the free NHS, having contributed nothing to the UK.
Expensive prices:
The EU sets import duties to protect EU goods. Agriculture in particular. We cannot enter into free trade deals ourselves outside the EU, and so prices are artificially expensive.
Red tape - the EU loves it, and it all has to be paid for. Shapes of bananas; whether you can call sparking wine champagne; power rating on vacuum cleaners that no one asked for and so on.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies! "
Actually it's much easier to persuade people to stick with the status quo, rather than voting for change. People are creatures of habit and more often than not prefer to stick with what they know rather than be moved outside of their comfort zone. The Leave side were always at a disadvantage in this regard and Remain were always the favourites to win at the bookies. All the odds at the bookies and betting shops put Remain as the odds on favourite to win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
@ Andy. Thx. Appreciated.
At one level there’s a difference in philosophy between us. I’m okay with subsidies to support wealth distribution. We do it intra UK already.
But to pick up on specifics.
Jobs. Must admit I’m not familiar with which industries you’re seeing a Bain drain from. The rhetoric is slightly incongruent with the increase in employment etc people point to.
Foreigners. I’m not convinced the scrounges is a huge number or drain. We have controls to manage this already. I’d be suprised if it’s the same order of magnitude as the 1m permie unemployed someone has pointed to on one of these threads. I also recall seeing immigrants as being net contributors when I looked at this pre brexit.
Prices. Given we have free trade with the Eu and Africa I’m not sure which produces are being talked about here. Nor am I convinced the benefit of a Fta with India say offsets any loss of FTa. It’s one to watch for sure.
Red tape. I wonder what red tape will come from leaving the CU. I also tend to lean towards the red tape being to maintain standards. I’d rather be under GDPR than out if it as an example ....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You mean wealth RE-distribution. I think that concept is wrong.
The subsidies are there to help the lazy French farmers, because the French agricultural economy is massive. The EU would tell us or the Greeks to go to hell if it was our agriculture, but they dare not with the French. And if the USA or New Zealand is prepared to supply at less cost, why should I pay more to prop-up the greedy Frogs?
Jobs - Ask Jaguar Land-Rover about the job losses here and the plant in Slovenia.
Foreigners - Do a Freedom of Information Act request and find out how many non UK EU nationals were treated by the NHS, and find out how many £millions in benefits are paid to non UK EU nationals not living in the UK, and prepare to be shocked.
Prices - We do not have free trade! The EU sets the tariffs and negotiates the deals.
Red-Tape - There will be less. Most of it is pointless - jobs for the boys. Ask the Canadians about it and it delaying and nearly scuppering a trade deal with the EU. And just let us make our own decisions. If I want a 10,000 watt vacuum cleaner, because I think it cleans better than a 200 watt one, then let me have it. It's my money and my electricity bill.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A quick reply before bed.
All things being equal subsidies reduce direct prices. However I agree money has to come from somewhere so could be argued it’s an indirect price.
While we don’t have the ability to agree FtA by ourselves we do benefit from the free trade within the EU. And the FTa the Eu has entered into. Eg Africa.
A quick fact check has EU nhs costs as being low hundred of millions. Which isn’t much in the scheme of things. Not eye watering. Especially when the same source showed estimates to be that EU are net contributors to taxes.
Will go look at rover. Bed time now tho. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"You mean wealth RE-distribution. I think that concept is wrong.
The subsidies are there to help the lazy French farmers, because the French agricultural economy is massive. The EU would tell us or the Greeks to go to hell if it was our agriculture, but they dare not with the French. And if the USA or New Zealand is prepared to supply at less cost, why should I pay more to prop-up the greedy Frogs?
Jobs - Ask Jaguar Land-Rover about the job losses here and the plant in Slovenia.
Foreigners - Do a Freedom of Information Act request and find out how many non UK EU nationals were treated by the NHS, and find out how many £millions in benefits are paid to non UK EU nationals not living in the UK, and prepare to be shocked.
Prices - We do not have free trade! The EU sets the tariffs and negotiates the deals.
Red-Tape - There will be less. Most of it is pointless - jobs for the boys. Ask the Canadians about it and it delaying and nearly scuppering a trade deal with the EU. And just let us make our own decisions. If I want a 10,000 watt vacuum cleaner, because I think it cleans better than a 200 watt one, then let me have it. It's my money and my electricity bill.
"
Just can't argue with that level of ignorance and misinformation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies!
Actually it's much easier to persuade people to stick with the status quo, rather than voting for change. People are creatures of habit and more often than not prefer to stick with what they know rather than be moved outside of their comfort zone. The Leave side were always at a disadvantage in this regard and Remain were always the favourites to win at the bookies. All the odds at the bookies and betting shops put Remain as the odds on favourite to win. "
I'd agree with you that it was about habit if we were talking about which restaurant takeaway to use. Or which car brand to buy.
But this was a decision about our futures, lead by emotions like hatred, greed and jealousy. Emotions stoked very well by the Leave campaigns but to which the Remain campaign couldn't really appeal to or match. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?"
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
"
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You missed the fact that people had already made their minds up before the campaigning even started and no-one took a blind bit of notice of any of the campaigns.
No not really. If you take the UKIP voting figure at the 2015 general election as 4million-ish, then for starters there were at least 4 million votes in the bag for leave before campaigning even started. Not to mention Tory and labour Eurosceptics.
Remain had the uphill campaign as it had to prove we were better off in, which it simply could not do. The best it could muster is that things would stay the same as now.
Whereas leave just had to make up the as many lies as it could, like the bus, pictures of migrants with questionable slogans under them, trade deals will be done before we leave, and say to remain "you're wrong" on anything they said.
So totally asymmetric.
What rubbish! As if Remain were ever the "underdog"!
And as if the campaigns made any difference. People had decided before they started.
Didn't say they were the underdog. Said they had the uphill task of persuading floaters compared to Leave who could just say whatever they liked without burden of proof.
And they already had a measured voter base and I suppose technically their campaign had been going since the formation of that one trick pony UKIP, whereas remain didn't.
Shit Job-EUs fault
Too many foreigners-EUs fault
Things too expensive-EUs fault
And Remain was hardly going to turn round and say "Errrr....actually those things are our fault, your own government" by way of a rebuttal to those lies!
Actually it's much easier to persuade people to stick with the status quo, rather than voting for change. People are creatures of habit and more often than not prefer to stick with what they know rather than be moved outside of their comfort zone. The Leave side were always at a disadvantage in this regard and Remain were always the favourites to win at the bookies. All the odds at the bookies and betting shops put Remain as the odds on favourite to win. "
The cards were always heavily loaded against the leave campaign. This makes the success of their campaign a remarkable achievement.
Anyone with common sense would have though carefully about project fear and the warnings of an immediate recession if we voted to leave .
These warnings must have cost the leave campaign a lot of votes.
Just think how much higher the winning margin would have been without project fear . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
"
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy? "
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy?
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
"
So subsidised french farmers are rich and lazy, and subsidised British ones are hard pressed hard working. Gotcha. No hate there, no.
And that article you read on politico was nicely copied out there too. Down to the word taboo.
Trouble is, when you quoted about 80% of the money going to 20% of the farms, you made the the mistake of assuming they were all French. Not your fault, it was the way the article was leaning. What it should have said was that large farms, that make up 20% of the total, take 80% of the subsidy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy?
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
So subsidised french farmers are rich and lazy, and subsidised British ones are hard pressed hard working. Gotcha. No hate there, no.
And that article you read on politico was nicely copied out there too. Down to the word taboo.
Trouble is, when you quoted about 80% of the money going to 20% of the farms, you made the the mistake of assuming they were all French. Not your fault, it was the way the article was leaning. What it should have said was that large farms, that make up 20% of the total, take 80% of the subsidy. "
Read the facts. The French get 9 billion euros in subsidies. The budget for the whole of Europe is only 58 billion. They get the most by far.
They are the laziest. That are the most militant.
Macron is now daring to do what no other president has dared do - take them on - because he needs to.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy?
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
So subsidised french farmers are rich and lazy, and subsidised British ones are hard pressed hard working. Gotcha. No hate there, no.
And that article you read on politico was nicely copied out there too. Down to the word taboo.
Trouble is, when you quoted about 80% of the money going to 20% of the farms, you made the the mistake of assuming they were all French. Not your fault, it was the way the article was leaning. What it should have said was that large farms, that make up 20% of the total, take 80% of the subsidy.
Read the facts. The French get 9 billion euros in subsidies. The budget for the whole of Europe is only 58 billion. They get the most by far.
They are the laziest. That are the most militant.
Macron is now daring to do what no other president has dared do - take them on - because he needs to.
"
I have read it, from several sources. You read one article and repeated it verbatim without understanding.
I'd like to see the laziness statistics you're quoting from, do I google Gammon.com/casualracism or what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy?
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
So subsidised french farmers are rich and lazy, and subsidised British ones are hard pressed hard working. Gotcha. No hate there, no.
And that article you read on politico was nicely copied out there too. Down to the word taboo.
Trouble is, when you quoted about 80% of the money going to 20% of the farms, you made the the mistake of assuming they were all French. Not your fault, it was the way the article was leaning. What it should have said was that large farms, that make up 20% of the total, take 80% of the subsidy.
Read the facts. The French get 9 billion euros in subsidies. The budget for the whole of Europe is only 58 billion. They get the most by far.
They are the laziest. That are the most militant.
Macron is now daring to do what no other president has dared do - take them on - because he needs to.
I have read it, from several sources. You read one article and repeated it verbatim without understanding.
I'd like to see the laziness statistics you're quoting from, do I google Gammon.com/casualracism or what? "
You don't need statistics. Just watch what happens in the next few months as Macron takes on the French farmers. Watch them riot, blockade ports, burn sheep and the rest as he tries to end their cosy arrangement. They know that the game is up for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"What hatred, greed, jealousy?
Seriously?
Are gammons unaware of their emotions?
Like the post you put up earlier, calling french farmers lazy. That could be construed as hate. I'll let you fill in the rest.
They are lazy, because they are subsidised, but saying so isn't hate.
And people who voted for Brexit don't need the likes of you patronising us, and saying that it was all an emotional over-reaction, because it wasn't.
Our farmers are subsidised. Are they lazy?
The subsidies that come here are peanuts, that is why our farmers work hard and are struggling.
Whereas 9 billion euros goes to France every year. 80% of the subsidy budget goes to the same 20% of farms, and you can guess where they all are!
It is why they strike and blockade ports. They have been receiving this handout since 1962!
Macron is now daring to tackle this taboo subject, because our departure has blown a 12 billion euro hole in the annual budget for farm subsidies from 2021!
So subsidised french farmers are rich and lazy, and subsidised British ones are hard pressed hard working. Gotcha. No hate there, no.
And that article you read on politico was nicely copied out there too. Down to the word taboo.
Trouble is, when you quoted about 80% of the money going to 20% of the farms, you made the the mistake of assuming they were all French. Not your fault, it was the way the article was leaning. What it should have said was that large farms, that make up 20% of the total, take 80% of the subsidy.
Read the facts. The French get 9 billion euros in subsidies. The budget for the whole of Europe is only 58 billion. They get the most by far.
They are the laziest. That are the most militant.
Macron is now daring to do what no other president has dared do - take them on - because he needs to.
I have read it, from several sources. You read one article and repeated it verbatim without understanding.
I'd like to see the laziness statistics you're quoting from, do I google Gammon.com/casualracism or what?
You don't need statistics. Just watch what happens in the next few months as Macron takes on the French farmers. Watch them riot, blockade ports, burn sheep and the rest as he tries to end their cosy arrangement. They know that the game is up for them."
Think I'll be too busy watching the chaos this side of the channel as we hard Brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There will be no chaos here. Only in France as Macron gambles his career by taking on the lazy French farmers."
Can you highlight the ways in which french farmers are lazy and what their arrangement is.
Genuinely curious |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on."
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests "
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
"
You will be suprised how hot French beaurocracy can be - and that's based on coming up against it, as opposed to just pontificating! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
"
So you've no argument here, just the casual racism again?
You misinterpreted the one article you read on the subject, repeated it, and now everyone else is wrong.
I can't think of a more fitting face for Brexit. You should replace Farage.
And before you start gammoning, I agree, the CAP is shit and should have been renegotiated years ago. With pressure from everyone overriding the French lobby groups.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
So you've no argument here, just the casual racism again?
You misinterpreted the one article you read on the subject, repeated it, and now everyone else is wrong.
I can't think of a more fitting face for Brexit. You should replace Farage.
And before you start gammoning, I agree, the CAP is shit and should have been renegotiated years ago. With pressure from everyone overriding the French lobby groups.
"
It's the truth, not racism. And I have not misinterpreted anything.
Go over to France and help Macron fight the lazy French farmers if you love them so much. The fact that he needs to take them on is all the evidence anyone needs.
And some of us are patriotic, and actually like this country and have travelled the world, and spoken to people. The UK is the only country that appears to hate itself and seemingly loves anywhere else but here.
You are just a bitter remoaner.
Go to rural, peasant France as a TV/TS as you describe yourself, and see how accepting of you they are. You are in for a big shock. The rural communities are pretty old fashioned, not accepting and very Catholic.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustJ0dieTV/TS
over a year ago
Burton-on-Trent |
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
So you've no argument here, just the casual racism again?
You misinterpreted the one article you read on the subject, repeated it, and now everyone else is wrong.
I can't think of a more fitting face for Brexit. You should replace Farage.
And before you start gammoning, I agree, the CAP is shit and should have been renegotiated years ago. With pressure from everyone overriding the French lobby groups.
It's the truth, not racism. And I have not misinterpreted anything.
Go over to France and help Macron fight the lazy French farmers if you love them so much. The fact that he needs to take them on is all the evidence anyone needs.
And some of us are patriotic, and actually like this country and have travelled the world, and spoken to people. The UK is the only country that appears to hate itself and seemingly loves anywhere else but here.
You are just a bitter remoaner.
Go to rural, peasant France as a TV/TS as you describe yourself, and see how accepting of you they are. You are in for a big shock. The rural communities are pretty old fashioned, not accepting and very Catholic.
"
It's funny, but I thought that travel broadened the mind. Apparently not.
And what the actual fuck has me identifying as anything got to do with this. There are villages in this country who haven't seen someone like me.
Which would suggest YOU need to get out more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
So you've no argument here, just the casual racism again?
You misinterpreted the one article you read on the subject, repeated it, and now everyone else is wrong.
I can't think of a more fitting face for Brexit. You should replace Farage.
And before you start gammoning, I agree, the CAP is shit and should have been renegotiated years ago. With pressure from everyone overriding the French lobby groups.
It's the truth, not racism. And I have not misinterpreted anything.
Go over to France and help Macron fight the lazy French farmers if you love them so much. The fact that he needs to take them on is all the evidence anyone needs.
And some of us are patriotic, and actually like this country and have travelled the world, and spoken to people. The UK is the only country that appears to hate itself and seemingly loves anywhere else but here.
You are just a bitter remoaner.
Go to rural, peasant France as a TV/TS as you describe yourself, and see how accepting of you they are. You are in for a big shock. The rural communities are pretty old fashioned, not accepting and very Catholic.
It's funny, but I thought that travel broadened the mind. Apparently not.
And what the actual fuck has me identifying as anything got to do with this. There are villages in this country who haven't seen someone like me.
Which would suggest YOU need to get out more. "
Have you ever been abroad? Do you have a passport?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read the thread, do some research. Look at why Macron is taking them on.
Well you write that the frunch farmers are the most militant in getting their government to act on their behalf, yet the most subsidised by EU funds, thus they are lazy.
One thing I know is that the french state expects french farmers to be actively engaged in cultural and environmental conservation projects on tbeir land. These are expensive and need subsidising (note, I except that some people are industrial farmers and could pay out of their own packet).
To my first paragraph. Honestly maybe our farmers need to follow suit, maybe they need to be more aggressive in getting our government to act in their interests
French farmers complying with government requirements? Environmental and cultural projects? In rural France?
Who are you kidding! Only the Germans and us ever comply, the rest just laugh off the requirements.
So you've no argument here, just the casual racism again?
You misinterpreted the one article you read on the subject, repeated it, and now everyone else is wrong.
I can't think of a more fitting face for Brexit. You should replace Farage.
And before you start gammoning, I agree, the CAP is shit and should have been renegotiated years ago. With pressure from everyone overriding the French lobby groups.
It's the truth, not racism. And I have not misinterpreted anything.
Go over to France and help Macron fight the lazy French farmers if you love them so much. The fact that he needs to take them on is all the evidence anyone needs.
And some of us are patriotic, and actually like this country and have travelled the world, and spoken to people. The UK is the only country that appears to hate itself and seemingly loves anywhere else but here.
You are just a bitter remoaner.
Go to rural, peasant France as a TV/TS as you describe yourself, and see how accepting of you they are. You are in for a big shock. The rural communities are pretty old fashioned, not accepting and very Catholic.
It's funny, but I thought that travel broadened the mind. Apparently not.
And what the actual fuck has me identifying as anything got to do with this. There are villages in this country who haven't seen someone like me.
Which would suggest YOU need to get out more.
Have you ever been abroad? Do you have a passport?
"
Since when have you been an expert on France?
The gay community is well accepted here - in fact sex is much more open than in the UK! Perhaps you can enlighten us on your expertise? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just been looking at some CAP stats, it looks like the cap per hectare for France isn’t much higher than the uk. And neither look to be anywhere close to the highest. Could France have the most subsidy because they have most farm land ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Shit jobs:
Production of many of the skilled jobs has moved to the new EU countries because of massive EU grants that we paid for. We were net contributors. The former Eastern Bloc are net receivers."
the bit just above you andy, North East England, is a Net receiver.... the EU have also put there massive Grants into Skilled jobs here...
The Nissan Factory in Sunderland, that use to make Micra's and now making all those lovely Dukes and Quashai's is a beneficary of EU money...
The Hitachi Train Factory, making all those lovely new Next gen intercity trains, is a beneficary of EU money....
do you begrudge them as much you seem to brudge those outside the UK?
"Too many foreigners:
Free movement of people. The EU insisted upon it. The EU also insisted that a man could come from Poland to the UK and claim benefits that were not even available in Poland, and at rates not paid in Poland, even for children who were not in the UK and send then back to Poland, and for him to use the free NHS, having contributed nothing to the UK."
so many pieces of "wrong" here.... lets deal with them backwards:
1) any person who needs health treatment in another country, that treatment is billed back to their health service... so all those holidaymakers who get too d*unk and have accidents, or like to fight, gets billed back to the NHS!
2) people can't claim benefits until they have been in the Uk for 3 years. the only exception to that is child benefit, but the children must be here
3) you forget about the approx 2 million uk citizens who are living and working in the EU taking advantage of the same "freedom of movement".. or are they not spongers because they go in the other direction.....
"Expensive prices:
The EU sets import duties to protect EU goods. Agriculture in particular. We cannot enter into free trade deals ourselves outside the EU, and so prices are artificially expensive.
Red tape - the EU loves it, and it all has to be paid for. Shapes of bananas; whether you can call sparking wine champagne; power rating on vacuum cleaners that no one asked for and so on.
"
sure we could have cheaper agriculture produce, if the trade off you want is lower animal welfare... so if want chlorine washed chicken who have taken antibiotics... or beef that has been injected with steroids.... then cool! but i'd rather not!
all countries set import duties to protect there own industries.. the us have just taken to doing it with steel and aluminum for example!
oh and the "shape of banana's" thing.... thats a myth!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"There will be no chaos here. Only in France as Macron gambles his career by taking on the lazy French farmers."
Weren't you calling for the overthrow of parliament if Brexit wasn't delivered?
Sounds like chaos to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Breaching election law with regards to illegal spending during the eu referendum
So... centy.... defend ya boys!!!! "
On BBC News today.
Brexit: 'No evidence' of crimes by Leave.EU and Arron Banks
The National Crime Agency has found "no evidence" of criminal offences after allegations against Leave.EU and its founder Arron Banks.
The agency launched an investigation into the pro-Brexit campaign group after it was fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission in May last year.
But the NCA said it would not take any further action against Leave.EU, its chief executive Liz Bilney or Mr Banks.
Tweeting after the ruling, Mr Banks said: "Victory is sweet."
Earlier this month, a criminal investigation into Leave.EU was also dropped by the Metropolitan Police as there was "insufficient evidence" to justify any further inquiry.
In response to the NCA decision, the Electoral Commission said it stood by the need for the investigations to ensure "voters have transparency" over political funding.
In a May 2018 report, the commission said Leave.EU had exceeded the spending limit for "non-party registered campaigners" by at least 10% by failing to include at least £77,380 in its spending return.
It also referred Ms Bilney to the police, saying its investigation found she had committed four offences, including submitting an inaccurate spending return and exceeding the spending limit.
But she claimed the investigations had stemmed from Remain-backing MPs "desperately trying to overturn the result of the referendum".
Brexit Party leader and former Leave.EU campaigner Nigel Farage said he was "pleased" the NCA had dropped its investigation, but "heads must roll" at the Electoral Commission.
Leave-backing Labour MP Kate Hoey called for those who "condemned Leave.EU to apologise". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've not followed this story but I guess Leave overspent breaking electoral rules, they've been fined already but this was an investigation into other criminal activities... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
