FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Arron Banks
Arron Banks
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though?" Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote?" Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain " Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. " Ok, so Banks £6 million swayed the public more than the governments £9 million? Why is that? | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. " Oh, and Banks must have thought it was worth spending £6m on. | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. " Maybe the select committee have an inflated view of their own self importance. | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. Maybe the select committee have an inflated view of their own self importance. " Then they would be interviewing each other, rather than Banks. | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. Ok, so Banks £6 million swayed the public more than the governments £9 million? Why is that?" To play devils advocate ... because he was willing to play faster and looser with the rules ? | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks." Aaron Banks Leave.EU campaign wasn't the official leave campaign though. This has been explained to you many times on many different threads. Only one campaign was given official status by the electoral commission and that was the 'Vote Leave' campaign. As Vote Leave was the official leave campaign it was Vote Leave that got all the television coverage and news media coverage. Aaron Banks Leave.EU campaign was a bit of a sideshow. Even Nigel Farage didn't join Leave.EU as Farage joined another leave campaign called 'Grassroots Out' or the 'Go' campaign for short. When the electoral commission was selecting which campaign to designate as the official leave campaign Leave.EU didn't even make the final stage. The final stage of the selection process was between Vote Leave and Grassroot Out, which Vote Leave won. On all of the EU referendum televised debates not a single Leave.EU representative got to take part, Vote Leave got all of the available slots bar one, which went to Nigel Farage on Itv when he went up against David Cameron. For the Itv appearance Farage was representing the Grassroots out campaign. | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks. Aaron Banks Leave.EU campaign wasn't the official leave campaign though. This has been explained to you many times on many different threads. Only one campaign was given official status by the electoral commission and that was the 'Vote Leave' campaign. As Vote Leave was the official leave campaign it was Vote Leave that got all the television coverage and news media coverage. Aaron Banks Leave.EU campaign was a bit of a sideshow. Even Nigel Farage didn't join Leave.EU as Farage joined another leave campaign called 'Grassroots Out' or the 'Go' campaign for short. When the electoral commission was selecting which campaign to designate as the official leave campaign Leave.EU didn't even make the final stage. The final stage of the selection process was between Vote Leave and Grassroot Out, which Vote Leave won. On all of the EU referendum televised debates not a single Leave.EU representative got to take part, Vote Leave got all of the available slots bar one, which went to Nigel Farage on Itv when he went up against David Cameron. For the Itv appearance Farage was representing the Grassroots out campaign. " It's ok Centaur. We are all well aware of the impressive mental gymnastics that you are capable to protect your pysche. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company ...." And? The Remain campaign got £9 million quid of taxpayers cash for a pro EU propaganda leaflet that was delivered to every house in the Uk. Did you think that was fair or was it an attempt by Cameron and Osborne to stack the deck in Remain's favour? | |||
| |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company ...." I watched some of the proceedings and Banks said at some point that they were consulting on different names because of the change in wording the referendum would be using. Also mentioned was a consolidation and collaboration of some leave-supporting campaigns. | |||
| |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company .... And? The Remain campaign got £9 million quid of taxpayers cash for a pro EU propaganda leaflet that was delivered to every house in the Uk. Did you think that was fair or was it an attempt by Cameron and Osborne to stack the deck in Remain's favour? " So we're swayed by propaganda not facts... Hmmmm. | |||
 | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks." This Banks whoever he is has not lead anybody to ruin it is just your blinkered view of leaving the EU and that you are a defeatist I doubt many know who this guy is | |||
"I doubt most Brexit voters even knew who Arron Banks was ! I vaguely knew he had funded UKIP . I think you will find that like Myself most Brexit Voters made thier own minds up !"  | |||
| |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company .... And? The Remain campaign got £9 million quid of taxpayers cash for a pro EU propaganda leaflet that was delivered to every house in the Uk. Did you think that was fair or was it an attempt by Cameron and Osborne to stack the deck in Remain's favour? " you said even Farage didn’t go for .eu but was part of GO. But banks funded both. Im not playing whataboutary, just addressing one of your points directly. | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks." I think one of the most important admissions/revelations came by Wigmore, a little after he talked about being a provocateur and how they exaggerated things. Right after Banks described how they analysed the Remain campaign in order to come up with an effective strategy for *their* campaign, Wigmore said that one of the first pieces of advice they got, from all those companies they used, was "remember, this is referendum. It's not about facts, it's about emotion. You've got to tap in to that emotion" and then Banks continued to describe in some detail about how the Remain campaign was throwing around all sorts of figures and statistics, in effect choosing the wrong strategy because all that was "white noise" to people. Based on that, they tailored *their* campaign in such a way as to not make that mistake and instead, as Wigmore said, to lead more based on emotion rather than fact. And you know what? They got it spot on, so it was money well spent to the company that gave them that advice (I think it was a marketing company). I mean, you've got a country full of disenfranchised people. You tell them stick with the status quo or doom and gloom (which in effect is what the status quo was too!). Or, blame it all on this EU boogeyman, and tell them thar all their problems will disappear if they got rid of him. As someone mentioned on another thread, people felt they were already in the shit and they had nothing to lose by taking a risk, rather than choosing to stay as is. If you've had a noose around your neck for ages (in the form of being forgotten as a person/community and suffering hardship on a daily basis) and someone tells you "don't do anything to change things because the chair will be kicked from under you" but someone else tells you "do this and the noose will disappear", it's dead obvious what you'd choose. It was clever and it worked. Who cares if the noose wasn't the EU? People bought it anyway. | |||
"Can you see what it looks like yet? Joe on the dole in Whitehaven might have thought this was about Igor from Bulgaria nicking his job, and Sharon in Sussex thought she’d never get a council house when all the Turks invaded. They were played. We all were. By people who wanted to smash up what we took for granted. Look at them. What do they all have in common? Disgust for “human rights”, that’s what. All thrive on fear - scapegoating minorities, or rousing you to resist the foreigners who are out to bring you down. Authoritarianism is on the march. Banks, with his deep pockets and extremist ideology, is part of it. It has infiltrated the Conservative Party, too. Welcome to the new militant tendency. " That's exactly right. As I said above, they played on emotions, not facts. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Everyone seems obsessed about the Russians interfering? What about America interfering? Cameron had a meeting with Obama and then Obama interfered and threatened the UK public that we better do as he says and vote Remain like good little children otherwise we'll be at the back of his queue. "Like I said Centaur, we know you are too sensitive to deal with this topic, that's why you are trying to change the subject, instead of talking about the money behind the campaign openly telling you that he lied to you, openly telling you that he lead you up the garden path, you are talking about the Russians. The Russians are an important part of the overall story, but that's not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about people still staying 'I wasn't lied to', to the person saying 'yes, I lied to you' to protect themselves from the psychological impact of being duped. | |||
"Can you see what it looks like yet? Joe on the dole in Whitehaven might have thought this was about Igor from Bulgaria nicking his job, and Sharon in Sussex thought she’d never get a council house when all the Turks invaded. They were played. We all were. By people who wanted to smash up what we took for granted. Look at them. What do they all have in common? Disgust for “human rights”, that’s what. All thrive on fear - scapegoating minorities, or rousing you to resist the foreigners who are out to bring you down. Authoritarianism is on the march. Banks, with his deep pockets and extremist ideology, is part of it. It has infiltrated the Conservative Party, too. Welcome to the new militant tendency. That's exactly right. As I said above, they played on emotions, not facts. " Well that's one thing coming from a poster on fab, but let's look at the actual testimony from today: Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said "the piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion and you have got to tap into that emotion". | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks. I think one of the most important admissions/revelations came by Wigmore, a little after he talked about being a provocateur and how they exaggerated things. Right after Banks described how they analysed the Remain campaign in order to come up with an effective strategy for *their* campaign, Wigmore said that one of the first pieces of advice they got, from all those companies they used, was "remember, this is referendum. It's not about facts, it's about emotion. You've got to tap in to that emotion" and then Banks continued to describe in some detail about how the Remain campaign was throwing around all sorts of figures and statistics, in effect choosing the wrong strategy because all that was "white noise" to people. Based on that, they tailored *their* campaign in such a way as to not make that mistake and instead, as Wigmore said, to lead more based on emotion rather than fact. And you know what? They got it spot on, so it was money well spent to the company that gave them that advice (I think it was a marketing company). I mean, you've got a country full of disenfranchised people. You tell them stick with the status quo or doom and gloom (which in effect is what the status quo was too!). Or, blame it all on this EU boogeyman, and tell them thar all their problems will disappear if they got rid of him. As someone mentioned on another thread, people felt they were already in the shit and they had nothing to lose by taking a risk, rather than choosing to stay as is. If you've had a noose around your neck for ages (in the form of being forgotten as a person/community and suffering hardship on a daily basis) and someone tells you "don't do anything to change things because the chair will be kicked from under you" but someone else tells you "do this and the noose will disappear", it's dead obvious what you'd choose. It was clever and it worked. Who cares if the noose wasn't the EU? People bought it anyway." During the campaign every single voter had more than enough information to make an informed decision. I would think that a lot of people had already made their minds up before the campaign even started. The most misleading information during the campaign was project fear and the threat of an immediate recession. Imagine how much higher the winning margin would have been were it not for this prediction. Given the choice between listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Aaron Banks ( most people would have no idea who he is ) the majority would opt for the opinion of the Chancellor . | |||
"Everyone seems obsessed about the Russians interfering? What about America interfering? Cameron had a meeting with Obama and then Obama interfered and threatened the UK public that we better do as he says and vote Remain like good little children otherwise we'll be at the back of his queue.
Like I said Centaur, we know you are too sensitive to deal with this topic, that's why you are trying to change the subject, instead of talking about the money behind the campaign openly telling you that he lied to you, openly telling you that he lead you up the garden path, you are talking about the Russians.
The Russians are an important part of the overall story, but that's not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about people still staying 'I wasn't lied to', to the person saying 'yes, I lied to you' to protect themselves from the psychological impact of being duped. "But as I already pointed out to you Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign. It didn't even come 2nd in the electoral commission selection process. Leave.EU was a bit part player and a sideshow which no one really cares about (apart from the likes of you). | |||
"Who listened to Banks? I assume you listened to the Tories though? Is your premise that Bank's £6m didn't translate into a single vote? Probably not. Let’s be honest here, I would imagine that 99.9% of the population, who were bothered, already held their view of the EU amd whether we should stay or remain long before the ‘campaigns’ started. And it was only a natural fear of change and the unknown that led to so many people reluctantly voting to remain Ok, that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. The select committee obviously have taken a different view, otherwise they wouldn't have called him. I agree with them. " 5 of them didn't bother turnimg up | |||
"So it was fear of change and the unknown that people reluctantly reluctantly voted to remain and nothing to do with them thinking it would turn out to be a disaster? A lot were turned due to the downright lies that were told, even Nasty Nigel has on numerous ocassions "I never said that" when he clearly told lie after lie as did Boris and co. " As did the remain campaign. | |||
"Can you see what it looks like yet? Joe on the dole in Whitehaven might have thought this was about Igor from Bulgaria nicking his job, and Sharon in Sussex thought she’d never get a council house when all the Turks invaded. They were played. We all were. By people who wanted to smash up what we took for granted. Look at them. What do they all have in common? Disgust for “human rights”, that’s what. All thrive on fear - scapegoating minorities, or rousing you to resist the foreigners who are out to bring you down. Authoritarianism is on the march. Banks, with his deep pockets and extremist ideology, is part of it. It has infiltrated the Conservative Party, too. Welcome to the new militant tendency. That's exactly right. As I said above, they played on emotions, not facts. Well that's one thing coming from a poster on fab, but let's look at the actual testimony from today: Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said "the piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion and you have got to tap into that emotion"." I know. I quoted that in my post  | |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks. I think one of the most important admissions/revelations came by Wigmore, a little after he talked about being a provocateur and how they exaggerated things. Right after Banks described how they analysed the Remain campaign in order to come up with an effective strategy for *their* campaign, Wigmore said that one of the first pieces of advice they got, from all those companies they used, was "remember, this is referendum. It's not about facts, it's about emotion. You've got to tap in to that emotion" and then Banks continued to describe in some detail about how the Remain campaign was throwing around all sorts of figures and statistics, in effect choosing the wrong strategy because all that was "white noise" to people. Based on that, they tailored *their* campaign in such a way as to not make that mistake and instead, as Wigmore said, to lead more based on emotion rather than fact. And you know what? They got it spot on, so it was money well spent to the company that gave them that advice (I think it was a marketing company). I mean, you've got a country full of disenfranchised people. You tell them stick with the status quo or doom and gloom (which in effect is what the status quo was too!). Or, blame it all on this EU boogeyman, and tell them thar all their problems will disappear if they got rid of him. As someone mentioned on another thread, people felt they were already in the shit and they had nothing to lose by taking a risk, rather than choosing to stay as is. If you've had a noose around your neck for ages (in the form of being forgotten as a person/community and suffering hardship on a daily basis) and someone tells you "don't do anything to change things because the chair will be kicked from under you" but someone else tells you "do this and the noose will disappear", it's dead obvious what you'd choose. It was clever and it worked. Who cares if the noose wasn't the EU? People bought it anyway. During the campaign every single voter had more than enough information to make an informed decision. I would think that a lot of people had already made their minds up before the campaign even started. The most misleading information during the campaign was project fear and the threat of an immediate recession. Imagine how much higher the winning margin would have been were it not for this prediction. Given the choice between listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Aaron Banks ( most people would have no idea who he is ) the majority would opt for the opinion of the Chancellor ." If people had already made their mind up before the campaign even started, neither side would have spent all those millions *to* campaign. Maybe the politicians are stupid and didn't care because they were spending *our* money. But I'm sure that Banks would have found much better uses for his millions rather than throwing them away on something that was already, in effect, decided, as you say. With regards to the 2nd paragraph of your post, *that* was the thing I was pointing out in my post that you quoted: people were more likely to vote based on emotion rather than information and that's where the Leave side got it right in their campaigns. If the message resonated, it didn't matter who it came from. Anyway, that's my view and you have yours. We'll have to agree to disagree on how much different the margin would have been and who for, but it's all done now. The autopsy never brings the person back to life. It simply identifies (or tries to) the cause of death. Ultimately, it makes little difference. The person is and will remain dead. | |||
| |||
"So, 17.4 million people bought it? Ah, no, you will say. Just enough to swing the vote. So why did the majority of voters who voted to leave vote to leave?" If I reply, will we have a civilised exchange and discuss things like adults or are you just gonna use sarcasm etc again? Because (and, I assure you, no disrespect), if you do, I'd rather not waste my time. | |||
| |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks." A bit like feminists. Facts. Optional. | |||
"Everyone seems obsessed about the Russians interfering? What about America interfering? Cameron had a meeting with Obama and then Obama interfered and threatened the UK public that we better do as he says and vote Remain like good little children otherwise we'll be at the back of his queue.
Like I said Centaur, we know you are too sensitive to deal with this topic, that's why you are trying to change the subject, instead of talking about the money behind the campaign openly telling you that he lied to you, openly telling you that he lead you up the garden path, you are talking about the Russians.
The Russians are an important part of the overall story, but that's not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about people still staying 'I wasn't lied to', to the person saying 'yes, I lied to you' to protect themselves from the psychological impact of being duped.
But as I already pointed out to you Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign. It didn't even come 2nd in the electoral commission selection process. Leave.EU was a bit part player and a sideshow which no one really cares about (apart from the likes of you). "And obviously the select committee that he was giving evidence to today Centaur. Again, well done you for such amazing mental gymnastics, you believe that no one cares and it made no difference at all, and yet it's important enough to be investigated by parliament. | |||
"Can you see what it looks like yet? Joe on the dole in Whitehaven might have thought this was about Igor from Bulgaria nicking his job, and Sharon in Sussex thought she’d never get a council house when all the Turks invaded. They were played. We all were. By people who wanted to smash up what we took for granted. Look at them. What do they all have in common? Disgust for “human rights”, that’s what. All thrive on fear - scapegoating minorities, or rousing you to resist the foreigners who are out to bring you down. Authoritarianism is on the march. Banks, with his deep pockets and extremist ideology, is part of it. It has infiltrated the Conservative Party, too. Welcome to the new militant tendency. That's exactly right. As I said above, they played on emotions, not facts. Well that's one thing coming from a poster on fab, but let's look at the actual testimony from today: Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said "the piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion and you have got to tap into that emotion". I know. I quoted that in my post "Yes, you did, my mistake. I do apologise. | |||
| |||
"Everyone seems obsessed about the Russians interfering? What about America interfering? Cameron had a meeting with Obama and then Obama interfered and threatened the UK public that we better do as he says and vote Remain like good little children otherwise we'll be at the back of his queue.
Like I said Centaur, we know you are too sensitive to deal with this topic, that's why you are trying to change the subject, instead of talking about the money behind the campaign openly telling you that he lied to you, openly telling you that he lead you up the garden path, you are talking about the Russians.
The Russians are an important part of the overall story, but that's not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about people still staying 'I wasn't lied to', to the person saying 'yes, I lied to you' to protect themselves from the psychological impact of being duped.
But as I already pointed out to you Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign. It didn't even come 2nd in the electoral commission selection process. Leave.EU was a bit part player and a sideshow which no one really cares about (apart from the likes of you).
And obviously the select committee that he was giving evidence to today Centaur. Again, well done you for such amazing mental gymnastics, you believe that no one cares and it made no difference at all, and yet it's important enough to be investigated by parliament. "So important to them that 5 of them couldn't be bothered turning up.  | |||
"Everyone seems obsessed about the Russians interfering? What about America interfering? Cameron had a meeting with Obama and then Obama interfered and threatened the UK public that we better do as he says and vote Remain like good little children otherwise we'll be at the back of his queue.
Like I said Centaur, we know you are too sensitive to deal with this topic, that's why you are trying to change the subject, instead of talking about the money behind the campaign openly telling you that he lied to you, openly telling you that he lead you up the garden path, you are talking about the Russians.
The Russians are an important part of the overall story, but that's not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about people still staying 'I wasn't lied to', to the person saying 'yes, I lied to you' to protect themselves from the psychological impact of being duped.
But as I already pointed out to you Leave.EU wasn't the official leave campaign. It didn't even come 2nd in the electoral commission selection process. Leave.EU was a bit part player and a sideshow which no one really cares about (apart from the likes of you).
And obviously the select committee that he was giving evidence to today Centaur. Again, well done you for such amazing mental gymnastics, you believe that no one cares and it made no difference at all, and yet it's important enough to be investigated by parliament.
So important to them that 5 of them couldn't be bothered turning up. "Yep....5 out of 11 didn't bother turning up. | |||
"I doubt most Brexit voters even knew who Arron Banks was ! I vaguely knew he had funded UKIP . I think you will find that like Myself most Brexit Voters made thier own minds up !" I think you'll imagine that most people never know who crafted advertisements etc that influenced their tastes and behavior ever. Banks seems yet another unsavory character that was in the Brexit slime, pumping money in, directing influence and manipulating pliable minds. | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"?" None I would imagine. No point. Maybe you have time to find one and you can tell us what it is? | |||
"Can you see what it looks like yet? Joe on the dole in Whitehaven might have thought this was about Igor from Bulgaria nicking his job, and Sharon in Sussex thought she’d never get a council house when all the Turks invaded. They were played. We all were. By people who wanted to smash up what we took for granted. Look at them. What do they all have in common? Disgust for “human rights”, that’s what. All thrive on fear - scapegoating minorities, or rousing you to resist the foreigners who are out to bring you down. Authoritarianism is on the march. Banks, with his deep pockets and extremist ideology, is part of it. It has infiltrated the Conservative Party, too. Welcome to the new militant tendency. " Sara not often I disagree with you but you have a very biased view of northern people and a very narrow view on why people voted for brexit you really need to open minded about peoples views and why they exist | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? None I would imagine. No point. Maybe you have time to find one and you can tell us what it is?" Well it would show that they are not denying that he lied. At the moment all they are doing is saying "he didn't lie" when he is saying "yes I did!" | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"?" How many remain lies were there? | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"?" That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?  | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey? "I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I also heard every key figure on the remain side talking about staying in a 'reformed EU'...not one remainer on here can say what that looks like...in fact, they all have different ideas of what needs reforming. " i think most people who aren’t blinkered would say neither side *knew* exactly what they were voting for over the long term and both sides could make *promises* which suited the view of those they were addressing at the time. The biggest difference was remain could say with more creativity what their starting point was from which they could reform, and therefore one can judge the degree and likelihood of the reform needed to get to where was being promised. | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey? "Countryfile? Honestly, LOL!
Not really a dedicated politics programme is it?
The BBC Andrew Marr show on the other hand though is a dedicated politics programme 100%.
Michael Gove who was one of the leading figures of the official vote leave campaign, appeared on the Andrew Marr show during the EU referendum campaign, and when asked straight by Andrew Marr, "Should we leave the single market?" Gove replied, "Yes, we should leave the single market."
Then after the Marr interview Boris Johnson was asked live on one of the news channels (can't remember if it was sky news or BBC news), "Michael Gove said on Andrew Marr we should leave the single market, is he right? "
Boris replied, "Yes Michael is right".
No ambiguity, no confusion, just clear straight forward answers.
There were also a series of dedicated live televised debates during the EU referendum on sky news, the BBC and Itv. The then Prime minister David Cameron appeared on most of them and said repeatedly when asked about the single market, "A vote to leave would mean leaving the single market". Again no ambiguity and a clear straight answer from the most important figure in the country at the time being the then Prime Minister. | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh? "I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post "No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post? | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?"If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU. | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU."And now we don’t need any of them | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU."And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ? And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!! | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
"I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area. If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years. Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain. Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path. Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie". | |||
| |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie"."So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge... So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union..... | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
"Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in? | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in?"Are you agreeing with him now that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the customs union and the single market? | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in?
Are you agreeing with him now that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the customs union and the single market?"That's how the government are interpreting it. | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in?
Are you agreeing with him now that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the customs union and the single market?
That's how the government are interpreting it."And what is your interpretation of it? | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in?
Are you agreeing with him now that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the customs union and the single market?
That's how the government are interpreting it.
And what is your interpretation of it?"That that is what seems to be happening. | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said, but from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?"Yes. Absolutely. And you know why? Unlike many Brexiteers, my reasons for supporting remain are *not* ideological. They are logical/pragmatic (and, fair enough, logic/pragmatism, on this issue at least, is subjective). But, from my point of view, remain would have been better for the country. Had I noticed something that had influenced my desicion to vote, or even just support, Remain, you bet your ass I'd have pointed it out. Thankfully, I did not listen to any of the arguments from either side of the campaign. I did my own research and came to my decision based on that. Had I heard, for example, "remaining in the EU, will make us all live 10 years longer" I'd have called "bullshit!", even *before* the result was announced. But I know what politicians are like, which is exactly why I paid no attention to their promises/predictions during the campaign. My point, in the post quoted, wasn't that the "wrong" side won. It was merely that, there was *a lot* of ambiguity and confusion from both sides. You'd have 1 person saying X and another saying Y. Some people thought X meant Y. Or X could lead to Y. Or that X wasn't necessarily opposite to Y. Etc etc. And this is where the subjective logic I was talking about at the beginning, comes in. For some people, it was almost wishful thinking, in the sense that they were hearing what they wanted to hear or they interpreted what was said as *their* preferred version of truth. That's the beauty of ambiguity. You can confirm and deny everything, when, after some time, it starts to become more clear *exactly* what X and Y is. All you need is a good spin  | |||
"So we know that Bank's lied, how many Brexiters are willing to find one of the "facts" from his campaign and say "Yes, this is a lie"? That's not from his campaign (and I know it's slightly off topic) but I was watching an old Gogglebox episode the other day (filmed around the referendum campaign time) and they showed a clip from a special edition of Countryfile. On it, was Cameron, who said that we'd lose *automatic* access to the single market if we voted to leave and then, later, in a separate interview, when asked "if we vote to leave, will we remain, or not, a member of the single market?" Boris replied "we would *have access to the single market* but we wouldn't remain part of the whole empire of EU law-making. That's a crucial point to understand" and then he continues saying "what some people might say is 'well, what if they decide that they wanna put tariffs up?' and that is *not* going to happen". It'd be interesting to watch that Countryfile episode in full, to see what else was said. But, from that little snipet, *how* could the *average* person, at that point of the campaign (when we weren't so clued up on what's what - compared to now) actually have been able to make sense about *what* leaving the EU meant, in real terms? Boris' statement was ambiguous at best and, as we now know, definitely *not* the case. I'm not saying that there weren't lots of things said by both sides but it's interesting to watch old programs, from around that time, and notice how much ambiguity and confusion there was about *everything*. I don't think a lot of people knew *exactly* what they were voting for (unless they listened to *nothing* the politicians, etc said, and just done their own research) and how could they, if that's the kind of "cleverly worded" (at best) information they were given? I wish the vote was in two parts (or something like that), *not* to change the result but to help people make a fully informed decision either way once they had time to see exactly what the situation was and, also, to discredit/prevent politicians etc from making false claims (on *either* side). This would also settle the "people didn't know what they were voting for!" - "yes, they did. We voted to leave the eu. Now let's leave!" argument. Hindsight hey?
I bet they would have known what they were voting for if Remain had won eh?
I think my excessive use of * again has made you miss the repeated "either/both side(s)" mentions within my post
No. But if Remain had won would you have written that post?
If remain won, there would be a British commissioner who could influence change. There would have been British MEPs who's job is to represent British views. Also there would have been a British PM who be able to veto and treaty changes to the EU.
And what exactly needs to change in the EU? What needs to be reformed? And reformed to what? What do you see the EU looking like in 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?
And is what you answer the same for all remainers? Or will opinions and thoughts differ?
And are you really sayimg that the remain campaign didn't lie?!!!
I dont see any major changes needed in the EU, apart from I would say they need to be really clear on what they spend their money on. Itwas clear during the referendum that the places that has received the most amount of money, were ignorant of the fact that money had been spent in their area.
If we remained, the EU would look the way that British commissioners, MEPs and MPs wanted it to look over the next X number of years.
Do all Remainers think the same, no, that's politics for you. Not all members of the parliamentary Tory party, or hell even the cabinet agree with each other, and that is a tiny number of people in the same party, compared to the millions of people who voted remain.
Did the remain campaign lie? No, not to my knowledge, they gave opinions on the outcome based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum, because that's what Cameron said would happen. I can tell you one thing for certain, no one from any Remain campaign has, to my knowledge, testified to parliament that they lied. On the other hand, a leader of a Leave campaign has testified to parliament that they lied. That they lead British voters up the garden path.
Despite you being told by a leader of a campaign that at least some of what they said was lies, not a single brexiter on the forum has been able to distinguish a lie from the truth, has been able to point to the lie and say "Yup, this one that they said was a lie".
So you say the remain campaign didn't lie to your knowledge...
So Cameron et al were telling the truth when they said that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union.....
Are you saying that he was lying and we are staying in?
Are you agreeing with him now that a vote to leave is a vote to leave the customs union and the single market?
That's how the government are interpreting it.
And what is your interpretation of it?
That that is what seems to be happening. "So from day 1 you have known and agreed that we cannot leave the EU without leaving the single market and the customs union. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. | |||
| |||
"Odd line of argument this. Did DC forecast leaving the EU would result is in leaving the SM. Seems like he was right. Did he say it was inevitable and we couldn’t leave the EU any other way. No. Maybe he just saw those who were brexiteering wanted full dislocation. Did those who vote leave *know* they were voting for leaving the SU based on DC ? Maybe. Maybe not. Given project fear it’s hard to tell what leavers believed from the remain camp. " He didn't 'forecast' it....his words were "a vote to leave is a vote to leave the single market and the customs union". | |||
"Odd line of argument this. Did DC forecast leaving the EU would result is in leaving the SM. Seems like he was right. Did he say it was inevitable and we couldn’t leave the EU any other way. No. Maybe he just saw those who were brexiteering wanted full dislocation. Did those who vote leave *know* they were voting for leaving the SU based on DC ? Maybe. Maybe not. Given project fear it’s hard to tell what leavers believed from the remain camp. " Wasn't just David Cameron saying it though. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also said repeatedly during the referendum campaign that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market. | |||
"Odd line of argument this. Did DC forecast leaving the EU would result is in leaving the SM. Seems like he was right. Did he say it was inevitable and we couldn’t leave the EU any other way. No. Maybe he just saw those who were brexiteering wanted full dislocation. Did those who vote leave *know* they were voting for leaving the SU based on DC ? Maybe. Maybe not. Given project fear it’s hard to tell what leavers believed from the remain camp. Wasn't just David Cameron saying it though. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also said repeatedly during the referendum campaign that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market. " “What is so bad about being like Norway?” “No one is suggesting that our position in the Single Market is under threat.” | |||
| |||
"Not a single brexiter has been able to find a lie yet, despite being told it's a lie! What delicate little psyches these snowflakes have! " I can’t find any lies. Then again I can’t find anything he said either. Maybe the ‘lie’ was a lie to wind the losers like yourself up | |||
"Odd line of argument this. Did DC forecast leaving the EU would result is in leaving the SM. Seems like he was right. Did he say it was inevitable and we couldn’t leave the EU any other way. No. Maybe he just saw those who were brexiteering wanted full dislocation. Did those who vote leave *know* they were voting for leaving the SU based on DC ? Maybe. Maybe not. Given project fear it’s hard to tell what leavers believed from the remain camp. Wasn't just David Cameron saying it though. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also said repeatedly during the referendum campaign that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market. " And you’re happy to take him at his word ? The leader of project fear ? Could we have left the Eu without leaving the SM? If so, anything said about the manner of the exit is a prediction as it could have gone another way.... | |||
  | |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company .... And? The Remain campaign got £9 million quid of taxpayers cash for a pro EU propaganda leaflet that was delivered to every house in the Uk. Did you think that was fair or was it an attempt by Cameron and Osborne to stack the deck in Remain's favour? " It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is fair. It does matter what the law says is legally or illegal. However I won't worry too much about it as, as I've always said, the referendum was only advisory and only parliament can actually take us out of the EU. So even if the referendum is declared null and void it would make no difference to the legal legitimacy of BREXIT one way or the other. However it would remove the moral mandate and make often quoted phrase "Will of the people" sound even less convincing than it does already. | |||
"Anything else you'd like to admit Mr Banks? "How many times did he meet with the Russian ambassador? | |||
"Anything else you'd like to admit Mr Banks?
How many times did he meet with the Russian ambassador?"11 is being reported. A simple question - considering Banks has spent £20m on the leave campaign (£6m + £14m which the electoral commission are investigating - hidden in company accounts ), how when the regulators were worried about his insurance company being able to meet potential claims only a few years ago? Where has the money come from? | |||
"There are reports Grassroots out received 2mil from a Bank’s owned company .... And? The Remain campaign got £9 million quid of taxpayers cash for a pro EU propaganda leaflet that was delivered to every house in the Uk. Did you think that was fair or was it an attempt by Cameron and Osborne to stack the deck in Remain's favour? It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is fair. It does matter what the law says is legally or illegal. However I won't worry too much about it as, as I've always said, the referendum was only advisory and only parliament can actually take us out of the EU. So even if the referendum is declared null and void it would make no difference to the legal legitimacy of BREXIT one way or the other. However it would remove the moral mandate and make often quoted phrase "Will of the people" sound even less convincing than it does already." Brexit is now legal. The EU Withdrawal bill was voted for by majority in Parliament and has been given Royal ascent from the Queen. The EU Withdrawal bill is now part of UK law. | |||
"Anything else you'd like to admit Mr Banks?
How many times did he meet with the Russian ambassador?
11 is being reported. A simple question - considering Banks has spent £20m on the leave campaign (£6m + £14m which the electoral commission are investigating - hidden in company accounts ), how when the regulators were worried about his insurance company being able to meet potential claims only a few years ago? Where has the money come from?"How many times did Davis meet Barnier this year? It only equated to 4 hrs. | |||
"Anything else you'd like to admit Mr Banks?
How many times did he meet with the Russian ambassador?
11 is being reported. A simple question - considering Banks has spent £20m on the leave campaign (£6m + £14m which the electoral commission are investigating - hidden in company accounts ), how when the regulators were worried about his insurance company being able to meet potential claims only a few years ago? Where has the money come from?
How many times did Davis meet Barnier this year? It only equated to 4 hrs. "Does that mean Barnier has only met Davis for a total of 4 hours this year? | |||
"Anything else you'd like to admit Mr Banks?
How many times did he meet with the Russian ambassador?
11 is being reported. A simple question - considering Banks has spent £20m on the leave campaign (£6m + £14m which the electoral commission are investigating - hidden in company accounts ), how when the regulators were worried about his insurance company being able to meet potential claims only a few years ago? Where has the money come from?
How many times did Davis meet Barnier this year? It only equated to 4 hrs.
Does that mean Barnier has only met Davis for a total of 4 hours this year?"https://www.ft.com/content/9e3aacf0-7b9c-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d | |||
| |||
"Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl with Aspergers, sets sail from Plymouth to attend a climate change conference in the US. Caroline Lucas tweets: " Bon Voyage." Banks: "Freak yachting accidents do happen in August . . ." That is the mindset of a sociopath, to put it kindly." Its no fun this time of year done it a few times,she will love it or hate it be interesting to see if she sails back. | |||
| |||
"Banks has admitted to parliament that his campaign lied, and that they "lead people up the garden path". My guess is that despite being told this by the person who bankrolled the campaign, people will still claim the opposite, so strong is the human desire to deny they are wrong and have been duped. It would be too much for their pysche to take. It's ironic that these so called patriots are happy to see their country and fellow citizens suffer, rather than admit they have been lied to and lead up the garden path by people like Banks." they do it because they believe it is for the best and they are true pastriots,do you know what the word means? | |||
"Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl with Aspergers, sets sail from Plymouth to attend a climate change conference in the US. Caroline Lucas tweets: " Bon Voyage." Banks: "Freak yachting accidents do happen in August . . ." That is the mindset of a sociopath, to put it kindly." Somebody who cares very much | |||
"Not a single brexiter has been able to find a lie yet, despite being told it's a lie! What delicate little psyches these snowflakes have! " Oh dear what about the lies of Osbourne? | |||
" they are true pastriots, do you know what the word means?" I don't know to be honest but is it a person that likes pasties? | |||
"Not a single brexiter has been able to find a lie yet, despite being told it's a lie! What delicate little psyches these snowflakes have! Oh dear what about the lies of Osbourne?" On the remain side the 2 main falsehoods were gideon and his emergency budget. He might have believed that one would be needed after the vote but of course he never got the chance to have one as he got the boot after the ref. The other main one was from alan johnson who said 2/3 of exports are down to European demand. Which obviously not true but blame it on idiocy rather than dishonesty. Obviously a lot more untruths on the leave side but that is probably to be expected due the nature of the campaign. The leave side all wanted different things from brexit and had different ideas of what brexit would be. | |||
" they are true pastriots, do you know what the word means? I don't know to be honest but is it a person that likes pasties? " Lol  | |||
" they are true pastriots, do you know what the word means? I don't know to be honest but is it a person that likes pasties? " I'm a pastriot. | |||
| |||
"Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl with Aspergers, sets sail from Plymouth to attend a climate change conference in the US. Caroline Lucas tweets: " Bon Voyage." Banks: "Freak yachting accidents do happen in August . . ." That is the mindset of a sociopath, to put it kindly." . What's she even attending for, don't tell me she's got a PhD in paleo climatology already?. I suspect she'll be given a Nobel prize for some unknown reason. | |||
| |||
| |||
" She is more than capable of complaining about the Banks comment and does not need someone to assume that she would be offended by it." You don't have to be the subject of the abuse in order to be offended by it. | |||
| |||
" I suspect she'll be given a Nobel prize for some unknown reason." Get with the kids, dude | |||
" they are true pastriots, do you know what the word means? I don't know to be honest but is it a person that likes pasties? " | |||
"I think the comment was crass but it is up to the person concerned to com0lain, surely? Caroline Lucas complained to Twitter. Greta T is outspoken, but literate, whether you agree or disagree with what she says. She is more than capable of complaining about the Banks comment and does not need someone to assume that she would be offended by it." Will she have reception on her boat? | |||
"I think the comment was crass but it is up to the person concerned to com0lain, surely? Caroline Lucas complained to Twitter. Greta T is outspoken, but literate, whether you agree or disagree with what she says. She is more than capable of complaining about the Banks comment and does not need someone to assume that she would be offended by it. Will she have reception on her boat? " That depends on the system they have on it. | |||
| |||
"Yes, I posted it because, to me, it said a lot about the character of Banks. I read research that entrepreneurs tend to have unusually high sociopathic traits. Their obsessession with generating cash makes them immune to the suffering that can cause along the way. Banks tweet went beyond that. This is a 16-year-old girl with Aspergers. Inviting some great misfortune to befall her suggests a bit more than sociopathy. " People who like Aaron Banks are unlikely to change their mind about him even after he makes a joke about a 16 year old girl with Asperger's potentially drowning at sea. | |||
" She is more than capable of complaining about the Banks comment and does not need someone to assume that she would be offended by it. You don't have to be the subject of the abuse in order to be offended by it." ....and if she regards it as a pitiful statement by a sad old git, but is not offended by it, then who are any of us to take offence on her behalf? I think that it is wrong to suppose what she might think. You are imposing your level of offence on someone else surely? If she is offended....let her complain. If it breached the Twatter T&Cs, then let them act. However, it is wrong to impose on a personal comment. "I would be offended so you should be" perhaps? | |||
| |||
| |||
" Will she have reception on her boat? " Her last post on Facebook was 23 hours ago: "Day 2. 100 nautical miles west of Cape Finisterre. A very bumpy night but I slept surprisingly well. Some dolphins showed up and swam along the boat last night!" | |||
| |||
" Will she have reception on her boat? Her last post on Facebook was 23 hours ago: "Day 2. 100 nautical miles west of Cape Finisterre. A very bumpy night but I slept surprisingly well. Some dolphins showed up and swam along the boat last night!"" Not all they are made out to be i swam wuth them once but found them to clicky | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep "Count me in as a sheep, then. I'm one of 1 million who follow her on Facebook. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep "Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"? | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Count me in as a sheep, then. I'm one of 1 million who follow her on Facebook.
"No suprise there. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
"Yes | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
". What have you done?. | |||
. I'm pretty sure every kid that age would like a trip like that!
At least she's trying not too be a hypocrite I guess. Not like some of the virtue signaling celebs.
Racing yachts are pretty sparse in the comfort department and I can guarantee they sail extremely close to the wind at steep angles. It's hard going even for a crew member, shifting body weight from one side to the other. That's not exactly a picture of fun, adrenaline rush, yes, but fun no! racing yachts are highly tuned pieces of kit for racing. Hardly a good mode of transport for a jolly!
Nothing worse than sea sickness, it's horrible. Even hardened racing crews get sea sick.
Two weeks in the Atlantic, this time of year, jolly good luck with that one! my recollection at this time of year, seas can look like mountain ranges and rogue waves are common.
Is this really the future of travel? | |||
" Is this really the future of travel? " The future is electric aeroplanes. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Yes"Fair enough | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?."What have I done with regards to following her on social media? I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her. Or what did you mean, and I will answer. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer.". Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"? Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?. | |||
" Is this really the future of travel? The future is electric aeroplanes. " . I don't think so, do you happen to know anything about physics?, how much energy is required for a 1000 mile trip with 250 passengers plus luggage on board. Maybe in a hundred years but not 12. The near future is not flying if we're going to be honest isn't it?. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?."Oh I see. Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years. Does that answer your question? | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?". What you don't drink your own piss!! Your a disgrace. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?"What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace? A large office site. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?.
What you don't drink your own piss!!
Your a disgrace. "Haha. I wouldn't, not even if I was in a Bear Grylls type scenario. | |||
" Oh I see. Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years. Does that answer your question?" sock it to 'em | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. "There's lots available. It 100% depends on the budget available. And if you can demonstrate that it offsets as significant enough to be worthwhile. To use as branding (sector dependent). If you can save money through bills by figuring out how to use less energy (and prove it), you can get some budget there to add into an offset scheme. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. ". Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
"What would you suggest is the solution? | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
What would you suggest is the solution?". Go back to the iron age, stop producing c02, don't move more than 3 miles from where you born, don't holiday more than 20 miles away, eat meat on a Sunday, grow your own veg, die earlier, do more manual work, go back to commuting by horse, let nature go wild. Not sure it's a vote winner though | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
What would you suggest is the solution?.
Go back to the iron age, stop producing c02, don't move more than 3 miles from where you born, don't holiday more than 20 miles away, eat meat on a Sunday, grow your own veg, die earlier, do more manual work, go back to commuting by horse, let nature go wild.
Not sure it's a vote winner though "Ha. How about some kind of compromise? Realistically we don't need to go back to living off the land and shorter lifespans. | |||
| |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
What would you suggest is the solution?.
Go back to the iron age, stop producing c02, don't move more than 3 miles from where you born, don't holiday more than 20 miles away, eat meat on a Sunday, grow your own veg, die earlier, do more manual work, go back to commuting by horse, let nature go wild.
Not sure it's a vote winner though
Ha.
How about some kind of compromise? Realistically we don't need to go back to living off the land and shorter lifespans. ". Are you sure that's what your science says?. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
What would you suggest is the solution?.
Go back to the iron age, stop producing c02, don't move more than 3 miles from where you born, don't holiday more than 20 miles away, eat meat on a Sunday, grow your own veg, die earlier, do more manual work, go back to commuting by horse, let nature go wild.
Not sure it's a vote winner though
Ha.
How about some kind of compromise? Realistically we don't need to go back to living off the land and shorter lifespans. .
Are you sure that's what your science says?."100% sure. | |||
"How great that the dolphins turned up to follow her ... will make a change from the sheep
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
.
What have you done?.
What have I done with regards to following her on social media?
I don't really use Instagram, Twitter etc. So I'm not "following" her.
Or what did you mean, and I will answer..
Are you suggesting that people who follow her and who want to stand up to do something about man made climate change are "sheep"?
Standing up is easy, what have you done except hold on to this young girls coattails?.
Oh I see.
Well I put myself through university and took a 3 year bachelor's degree in environmental science. Where I learned everything I can do to reduce my own and others around me's impact on the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Aside from my own actions, I have implemented energy reduction and carbon off set schemes in every place I've worked. And I've worked as a volunteer on tree replating schemes for around the past twenty years.
Does that answer your question?
What’s a great carbon offset scheme to implement in the workplace?
A large office site. .
Don't bother, it's just a load of bollocks that make wealthy people and wealthy companies seem virtuous.
What would you suggest is the solution?.
Go back to the iron age, stop producing c02, don't move more than 3 miles from where you born, don't holiday more than 20 miles away, eat meat on a Sunday, grow your own veg, die earlier, do more manual work, go back to commuting by horse, let nature go wild.
Not sure it's a vote winner though
Ha.
How about some kind of compromise? Realistically we don't need to go back to living off the land and shorter lifespans. .
Are you sure that's what your science says?.
100% sure.". It's an interesting one because the EUs goal is a 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 but according to science that's not going to do it hence the line "come together every 5 years to set more aggressive targets as dictated by science". Now I had a few hours so I looked and the best I could find was that science says it's more like an 80% reduction in 12 years and 100% by 2050(this also goes along by predicting the future in which we've invented a cheap industrial scale carbon capture technology) as it would seem that we've already reached more c02 than what allows for 1.5c increase but a lag means we're yet to see it's warming?. I mean don't get me wrong, those electric planes sure will be good in 40 or 50 years along with electric power cargo ships, electric powered cars, bikes, trains, trams, steel works, cement factories but first we need the electric as last time I looked we hardly develop enough to supply what we currently use and the infrastructure runs at 95% capacity now, I mean just think we're going to have put another entire electrical distribution network in that's twice as big as the one we've got now!. All those steel pylons, copper subtransformers and aluminium cables could tip us over that 1.5c limit. Maybe we could make them all out of plastic, wait no that's oil based | |||
