Oh dear lord. If he didn't live in Huntingdon I'd swear he posts this nonsense on my local rags forum. There's certainly enough like him posting on there. It's a bit frightening to think these people genuinely hold views like the EU are going to turn the Houses of Parliament into posh flats and get rid of the Queen.
@TellyTubby and @PragueAddick a name not listed above is Frank Field and his work on the Balanced Migration group would be the politician I would align with in my decision to vote leave. His role on the Work and Pensions Committee has generally impressed me and also his earlier work in the pensions area.
The bullying narrative is being invented by our right-wing media to try and divert attention away from the fact that the agenda they are trying to promote is totally fucking bonkers. And unfortunately there are enough poor fools gullible enough to believe it for them to carry on this falsehood.
I’ve already got people I know that voted brexit murmuring about the fact the gvt haven’t handled it well as if it will be their get out clause if it all goes tits up
Feeble imo. As if you could trust the current gvt to negotiate a discount at a boot fair, let alone unraveling 40 years of union and the diplomacy needed to engage with 27 other united states
Screw all this fault of the EU bollocks and them playing hardball etc. If they want to threaten sanctions and gang up on us then that’s like picking a fight with a bigger kid at school and then crying when he decides to carry on punching us whilst losing the fight
So you would dispute that the government have handled negotiations badly?
Why should leaving a club necessitate a fight with the bullying committee?
They have handled it badly but the people I know and have been speaking to have been positioning it as if it’s their way of abdicating responsibility for their vote. Not saying that’s all people who voted out, just some I know that want to have their cake and eat it
As per the 2nd point, leaving shouldn’t necessitate a fight, but it seems like (metaphorically) we are going down that route, and if we are, it is what it is.
The bullying narrative is being invented by our right-wing media to try and divert attention away from the fact that the agenda they are trying to promote is totally fucking bonkers. And unfortunately there are enough poor fools gullible enough to believe it for them to carry on this falsehood.
I’ve already got people I know that voted brexit murmuring about the fact the gvt haven’t handled it well as if it will be their get out clause if it all goes tits up
Feeble imo. As if you could trust the current gvt to negotiate a discount at a boot fair, let alone unraveling 40 years of union and the diplomacy needed to engage with 27 other united states
Screw all this fault of the EU bollocks and them playing hardball etc. If they want to threaten sanctions and gang up on us then that’s like picking a fight with a bigger kid at school and then crying when he decides to carry on punching us whilst losing the fight
So you would dispute that the government have handled negotiations badly?
Why should leaving a club necessitate a fight with the bullying committee?
Leaving this particular club requires the member to decide which bits of the club it wants to leave.
Do we want to resign membership of the golf club? Yes.
Do we want to compete in next year's golf day? No.
Do we want to give up rights to use the car park? Yes.
So the club ask us when we will be handing in our car park badge. So we scream and shout and call them bullies.
Now, I know that there are some flaky, incompetent and amateurish officials negotiating on our behalf, so this type of name-calling is as predictable as it is unhelpful. The problem is that there are none that are professional, calm and trustworthy.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
Come now, Prague. Even you must surely admit that staying in the Single Market and Customs Union but having no say over the rule-making is the worst option of all. We Leavers know that Remainers arguing for this outcome are doing it vecause they hope that if this becomes the only option then Leavers will say, we may as well stay in. This is the strategy that the Remain Tory government has been pursuing all along. They never wanted to leave. This is why the 'negotiation' is so pointless and absurd. There have only ever been 2 options, Leave the EU lock, stock and barrel or stay in it. 'Soft' Brexit is Remain, however it is finessed.
So why in the fucking hell did every prominent Brexiter and the official Leave campaigns in the run up to the vote promise we would stay in the SM/CU and get a Norway/Switzerland style deal?
Campaigning on something so fundamental, then campaigning for the exact opposite after you win is simply not legitimate in any way shape or form. If we can't get Brexit on the terms promised by the official Leave campaign, then the voters were misled and we should not proceed until there is actually a legitimate mandate for Hard Brexit (for which there currently is none).
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
Come now, Prague. Even you must surely admit that staying in the Single Market and Customs Union but having no say over the rule-making is the worst option of all. We Leavers know that Remainers arguing for this outcome are doing it vecause they hope that if this becomes the only option then Leavers will say, we may as well stay in. This is the strategy that the Remain Tory government has been pursuing all along. They never wanted to leave. This is why the 'negotiation' is so pointless and absurd. There have only ever been 2 options, Leave the EU lock, stock and barrel or stay in it. 'Soft' Brexit is Remain, however it is finessed.
Erm...
If remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union was the Government's intention, the Prime Minister would not have made leaving both her preferred option in all of her relevant public utterances.
Nor, in fairness, would she have felt the need for a General Election last year. If it was the Government policy to remain with both, it is likely that all, bar a right wing rump, of the Conservative MPs would have been content, particularly because it would have put greater pressure on Labour.
The Government need for the election, whilst hoping to increase their majority, was to have Brexit and Free Trade negotiations completed "successfully" before the next General Election, which would be won by a landslide because of Labour disarray and Mrs May's well-earned reputation for calm competence...
It is a measure of her political nous that things are going so well.
@TellyTubby and @PragueAddick a name not listed above is Frank Field and his work on the Balanced Migration group would be the politician I would align with in my decision to vote leave. His role on the Work and Pensions Committee has generally impressed me and also his earlier work in the pensions area.
I agree that Frank Field is an interesting and thoughtful politician, and obviously independent of thought. I didn't list him, for exactly those reasons.
I genuinely cannot think of another significant elected politician who is in the Leave camp, about whom I could dredge up anything positive that I feel about them. And to underline my point, that's unusual when there are politicians from both right and left in the same camp.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
Yes. I agree. From your posts across the entire board I take you to be a reasonable person with moderate honourable views on what kind of country and what kind of football club we should aspire to be part of.
In the early stages of this debate on CL, I urged reasonable people like you to look carefully at the people most pushing Brexit, and ask yourself whether you associate with their other political stances and general values. If that answer is "no" then at the very least, a person of moderate political views should ask themselves how and why they found themselves being 'represented' by Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, Aaron Banks, Nigel Lawson, Corbyn, McDonnell, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, the UK Communist Party and the SWP (yes, both still exist).
I would urge a moderate thoughtful Brexiteer like you, and several others on here, to look carefully at that motley crew I have listed above, and ask yourself how you fell in with that crowd. And then to conclude that for you the best form of Brexit is the one being promoted by moderate politicians. Not extremists.
Come now, Prague. Even you must surely admit that staying in the Single Market and Customs Union but having no say over the rule-making is the worst option of all. We Leavers know that Remainers arguing for this outcome are doing it vecause they hope that if this becomes the only option then Leavers will say, we may as well stay in. This is the strategy that the Remain Tory government has been pursuing all along. They never wanted to leave. This is why the 'negotiation' is so pointless and absurd. There have only ever been 2 options, Leave the EU lock, stock and barrel or stay in it. 'Soft' Brexit is Remain, however it is finessed.
Erm...
If remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union was the Government's intention, the Prime Minister would not have made leaving both her preferred option in all of her relevant public utterances.
Nor, in fairness, would she have felt the need for a General Election last year. If it was the Government policy to remain with both, it is likely that all, bar a right wing rump, of the Conservative MPs would have been content, particularly because it would have put greater pressure on Labour.
The Government need for the election, whilst hoping to increase their majority, was to have Brexit and Free Trade negotiations completed "successfully" before the next General Election, which would be won by a landslide because of Labour disarray and Mrs May's well-earned reputation for calm competence...
It is a measure of her political nous that things are going so well.
May's weakness stems from her inability to face down either the 52%, whom she opposed, or the EU, which she does notwant a clean break from. She is hoping that if things can be drawn out for long enough there will be a compromise which would be acceptable to enough people to save the Tories. This is a strategy born out of desperation.
The narrow victory for leave was the worst possible result for the incumbent government. Stats show that in the 2 years since the vote, far more leaver voters have died than remain voters. And of all the 16 and 17 year old too young to vote in the referendum, a higher percentage are remainers than leavers.
This puts the government in the impossible position of trying to appease what was the majority (of votes cast if not of the population) whilst knowing everything they do to appease those voters is damaging their future electability as by the time of the next election, unless Brexit goes amazingly well (chances look slim to say the least) they will be going to the polls having pissed of the 55-60% (as it will be) who did, or would have, voted remain, and also pissed off the now minority who voted for an undefined Brexit that won't have been delivered (and is in fact impossible to deliver as what it means is different to each voter).
My Jewish family members who voted Leave may be surprised that objecting to a foreign billionaire trying to overturn the British referendum is now 'anti-semitic'. But given that we are already all apparently old, stupid and racist, I suppose we should not be shocked at this latest disgusting insult.
Except he isn't trying to overturn the British referendum is he? And he certainly isn't acting secretively or underhandedly. He openly donated to an already established pressure group that is seeking through legitimate democratic means to limit the damage of the referendum result.
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
Except he isn't trying to overturn the British referendum is he? And he certainly isn't acting secretively or underhandedly. He openly donated to an already established pressure group that is seeking through legitimate democratic means to limit the damage of the referendum result.
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
Well you might not think that Soros is trying to overturn Brexit but he does and says so unequivocally.
My Jewish family members who voted Leave may be surprised that objecting to a foreign billionaire trying to overturn the British referendum is now 'anti-semitic'. But given that we are already all apparently old, stupid and racist, I suppose we should not be shocked at this latest disgusting insult.
But no problem with foreign billionaires like Murdoch influencing the British public for years.
Try reading the article, or you play up to the stereotypes of being a thick leaver
Except he isn't trying to overturn the British referendum is he? And he certainly isn't acting secretively or underhandedly. He openly donated to an already established pressure group that is seeking through legitimate democratic means to limit the damage of the referendum result.
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
Well you might not think that Soros is trying to overturn Brexit but he does and says so unequivocally.
Not what I posted though. He isn't trying to overturn the referendum. He has made a donation to a group that is using democratic means to stop Brexit.
The referendum happened. But we do not have to leave the EU because of it because there was never any legal stipulation on the back of the result. The only thing we know from it is 17.4m people think we should leave the EU. As far as I can see Soros isn't trying to quash that turnout. He, like many people, simply thinks the UK would be better off cancelling Brexit now it is becoming abundantly clear what an absolute disaster it is going to be and is using legitimate democratic means to express that. Nothing shady or dirty about it.
Except he isn't trying to overturn the British referendum is he? And he certainly isn't acting secretively or underhandedly. He openly donated to an already established pressure group that is seeking through legitimate democratic means to limit the damage of the referendum result.
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
Well you might not think that Soros is trying to overturn Brexit but he does and says so unequivocally.
Not what I posted though. He isn't trying to overturn the referendum. He has made a donation to a group that is using democratic means to stop Brexit.
The referendum happened. But we do not have to leave the EU because of it because there was never any legal stipulation on the back of the result. The only thing we know from it is 17.4m people think we should leave the EU. As far as I can see Soros isn't trying to quash that turnout. He, like many people, simply thinks the UK would be better off cancelling Brexit now it is becoming abundantly clear what an absolute disaster it is going to be and is using legitimate democratic means to express that. Nothing shady or dirty about it.
Haha. Had I tried to argue the same double talk you would probably have called me a liar once again.
Just read back to yourself what you have written.
I would however dispute the disaster that is abundantly clear as we still have no idea what will be negotiated.
I won't bother debating beyond this point as I don't want an argument. Had too many on here over Brexit.
Except he isn't trying to overturn the British referendum is he? And he certainly isn't acting secretively or underhandedly. He openly donated to an already established pressure group that is seeking through legitimate democratic means to limit the damage of the referendum result.
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
Well you might not think that Soros is trying to overturn Brexit but he does and says so unequivocally.
Not what I posted though. He isn't trying to overturn the referendum. He has made a donation to a group that is using democratic means to stop Brexit.
The referendum happened. But we do not have to leave the EU because of it because there was never any legal stipulation on the back of the result. The only thing we know from it is 17.4m people think we should leave the EU. As far as I can see Soros isn't trying to quash that turnout. He, like many people, simply thinks the UK would be better off cancelling Brexit now it is becoming abundantly clear what an absolute disaster it is going to be and is using legitimate democratic means to express that. Nothing shady or dirty about it.
Haha. Had I tried to argue the same double talk you would probably have called me a liar once again.
Just read back to yourself what you have written.
I would however dispute the disaster that is abundantly clear as we still have no idea what will be negotiated.
I won't bother debating beyond this point as I don't want an argument. Had too many on here over Brexit.
Haha I didn't actually call you a liar, I just pointed out something you had posted was a lie and later conceded you didn't actually invent it, you were just repeating something you thought was true.
I'm quite happy with what I've written because it's true.
I reckon if there was a second referendum Remain would win. And I reckon if there was a third referendum Leave would win again.
When boiled down to its root, the spirit of Brexit - its central sacrament, if you will - is a desire to wield actual political power. We are a people starved of the ability to change things. So when a big, concrete thing like Brexit comes along, with hifalutin promises and an openly xenophobic hook (let's not ignore the decades of anti-immigration propaganda that paved the way for this - moderate Brexiters, you are the exceptions), of course the people are going to go for it. Compared to this golden egg, the AV referendum was a pointless fudge. Here, in black and white: CHANGE HISTORY FOREVER (and get rid of the Romanians). With increasingly moribund political choices elsewhere, here's at last was something - no matter how tragically misguided.
Of course, a second referendum would CHANGE HISTORY once again. I reckon the people would buy Remain. Not because they suddenly trust experts or love Eastern Europeans, but because it contradicts the status quo.
I'm personally hoping that the other great reaction against neoliberal ennui - Corbynism - prevails before Brexit can really take hold, but for all you despairing centrists out there who want neither, my advice: offer a tangible difference.
First a refusal to accept the referendum is essentially anti-democratic. Second what makes anybody think it would be any different?! We've seen Trump and the alt-right in action - any expert forecasts would be trashed and Farage, Gove and the Daily Mail would run riot. We'd have yet another rachetting up of islamophobia, xenophobia and naked racism. My guess is that the death toll might be higher than one northern MP!
A referendum and will of the people bollocks was a mistake first time round so WTF are we doing looking to repeat.
At the same time there are people trying to deny it. The neoliberal core has been hollowed out with 30 Tory MPs, a handful of Lib Dems and a few Blairites. The lib dems secure precisely 8% - and liberals have been ousted from power in the red and the blue party.
There might only be a few on this board that support Brexit with a passion but there are millions out there in the country.
The only solution which meets all the criteria and might secure majority support in Parliament is a Norway style solution. The alt-right can bitch about what brexit means but leaving the Customs Union was not on the ballot paper nor part of the campaign.
WE ARE LEAVING THE EU!
Get used to it and work with the angles. Having seen McDonnell on TV yesterday morning he talks of uniting the country, told Campbell where to get off (calling him divisive) and talked of "a" customs union not "the" customs union.
I'm not close enough to know whether this is a gambit or a genuine play but what he is saying crystal clear is "keep all of the options on the table"
Until this is resolved over a generation the UK will be in no position to rejoin the EU. But we might remain in the CU/SM for economic and political reasons. That is what the alt-right is fighting against.
The answer is another general election on all of the issues and that's what Corbyn and McDonnell are playing for. That's the prize to move on from the neoliberal period and govern for the "many not the few"! Brexit is simply the pivot... or perhaps the steak to drive through the blue party.
Regarding George Soros, I have a message from Central Europe, which I hope even @Southbank will allow to get past his "defences".
This will be long but I implore everyone to please take a minute to read this.
George Soros is originally from Hungary. In Hungary, PM Orban has been running a really foul political campaign which accuses Soros of funding "foreign" NGOs which seek to somehow subvert Hungarian national sovereignty. Thy feature huge billboards with Soros' photo selected to emphasise his Jewish genes, there is no other way to put that.
What exactly are these foreign NGOs, and what do they do? Well early in the 90s Soros set up the Central European University in Budapest, at a time when the heritage State unis in the region were struggling to adapt to the demands of the new democracies. The Czechs in particular begged Soros to make Prague the HQ but he, understandably showed favour to his home country.For many years it provided a great education and no one had a problem with it.
Most well known of his other NGOs is the Open Society Foundation. What, pray, does it do? Well for example it funds the development of websites like WhatDoTheyKnow.com. Yes, the website I used to help extract the unredacted Olympic Stadium contract. What a terrible, subversive organisation, with its family of similar websites like WritettoThem, or FixMyStreet.
So inspired was I by these sinister, democracy-destroying websites, that I set up WDTK in the Czech Republic. Our single biggest user is a reporter on the Czech eqivalent of Panorama, a programme which for some unaccountable reason upsets a lot of powerful people with its exposures of corruption and incompetence. I received an initial grant from the local OSF to set it up. €1500 of "Soros' money" and I am extremely proud to say so, although this is not an "NGO", my wife and I and a few others run it as volunteers. Doing something for society we tell ourselves. So far, no one has come after us.
I wish i could say the same for our colleagues in Hungary. When we reps of such websites from 21 countries all met up in 2015 in Madrid, we were appalled to hear from our Hungarian colleague of State intimidation in the form of police raids with confiscation of computers and bogus tax inspections, for no reason and with no charges brought. Even the Ukrainians, who set up in the middle of the Maidan had received no such pressure.
It is now noticeable that the anti-Soros shit in Hungary has spread into the Czech Republic. The people spreading it are anti- EU populists, and they promote the same tropes and memes as you see in Hungary. They are often run by the same Russian backed disinformation websites that operate in plain sight here. The anti-Soros shit that is now surfacing in Britain uses the same content. It is almost as if someone has a global template....
George Soros of course is old enough to know what happened to Europe's Jews and why. That is why he is, at 87, standing up to face down this new wave of anti-Semitism. He is a brave man,and I will defend him to the hilt against anyone. I hope that those on here who snipe complacently while the attacks on him gather pace, will quickly educate themselves, so that i don't have to waste too much energy defending him on here.
Regarding George Soros, I have a message from Central Europe, which I hope even @Southbank will allow to get past his "defences".
This will be long but I implore everyone to please take a minute to read this.
George Soros is originally from Hungary. In Hungary, PM Orban has been running a really foul political campaign which accuses Soros of funding "foreign" NGOs which seek to somehow subvert Hungarian national sovereignty. Thy feature huge billboards with Soros' photo selected to emphasise his Jewish genes, there is no other way to put that.
What exactly are these foreign NGOs, and what do they do? Well early in the 90s Soros set up the Central European University in Budapest, at a time when the heritage State unis in the region were struggling to adapt to the demands of the new democracies. The Czechs in particular begged Soros to make Prague the HQ but he, understandably showed favour to his home country.For many years it provided a great education and no one had a problem with it.
Most well known of his other NGOs is the Open Society Foundation. What, pray, does it do? Well for example it funds the development of websites like WhatDoTheyKnow.com. Yes, the website I used to help extract the unredacted Olympic Stadium contract. What a terrible, subversive organisation, with its family of similar websites like WritettoThem, or FixMyStreet.
So inspired was I by these sinister, democracy-destroying websites, that I set up WDTK in the Czech Republic. Our single biggest user is a reporter on the Czech eqivalent of Panorama, a programme which for some unaccountable reason upsets a lot of powerful people with its exposures of corruption and incompetence. I received an initial grant from the local OSF to set it up. €1500 of "Soros' money" and I am extremely proud to say so, although this is not an "NGO", my wife and I and a few others run it as volunteers. Doing something for society we tell ourselves. So far, no one has come after us.
I wish i could say the same for our colleagues in Hungary. When we reps of such websites from 21 countries all met up in 2015 in Madrid, we were appalled to hear from our Hungarian colleague of State intimidation in the form of police raids with confiscation of computers and bogus tax inspections, for no reason and with no charges brought. Even the Ukrainians, who set up in the middle of the Maidan had received no such pressure.
It is now noticeable that the anti-Soros shit in Hungary has spread into the Czech Republic. The people spreading it are anti- EU populists, and they promote the same tropes and memes as you see in Hungary. They are often run by the same Russian backed disinformation websites that operate in plain sight here. The anti-Soros shit that is now surfacing in Britain uses the same content. It is almost as if someone has a global template....
George Soros of course is old enough to know what happened to Europe's Jews and why. That is why he is, at 87, standing up to face down this new wave of anti-Semitism. He is a brave man,and I will defend him to the hilt against anyone. I hope that those on here who snipe complacently while the attacks on him gather pace, will quickly educate themselves, so that i don't have to waste too much energy defending him on here.
I am no expert on Central Europe, Prague, but by attempting to conflate Britain with Hungary and stirring in anti-semitism you and others are playing a dangerous game. Anti-semitism is undoubtedly present in the UK. You can see it very clearly in the Labour Party, as Momentum's Jon Lansman himself has pointed out. You can see it in the way the media singled out Philip Green for special treatment. But, by tarring Brexiteers with the anti-semitic brush you are in danger of fanning the flame of anti-semitism. The far right and anti-Jewish Islamists will be delighted that 17 million Brexit voters are being smeared with anti-semitism. It plays into their narrative that Jews control the media and manipulate the establishment. I am against Soros because he is using his wealth to overturn the referendum-as are Blair and others behind the scenes. To attempt to censor Brexiteers opposition and brand it anrti-semitic can only devalue the fight against anti-semitism.
This money is likely to have come from either Russia or Saudi sources and they did their best to cover their tracks (and succeeded until it was too late). In contrast George Soros openly donated money to an organisation that is open about it's goals and not connected to any political party.
Now I am all for Internationalism but you can't tell me that either Russia and Saudi Arabia or open, equal and democratic countries. I would struggle to think of any other regimes that I would like us involved with less.
@NornIrishAddick shared some excellent stuff on this recently which would be better for those interested than me sharing it from memory.
Regarding George Soros, I have a message from Central Europe, which I hope even @Southbank will allow to get past his "defences".
This will be long but I implore everyone to please take a minute to read this.
George Soros is originally from Hungary. In Hungary, PM Orban has been running a really foul political campaign which accuses Soros of funding "foreign" NGOs which seek to somehow subvert Hungarian national sovereignty. Thy feature huge billboards with Soros' photo selected to emphasise his Jewish genes, there is no other way to put that.
What exactly are these foreign NGOs, and what do they do? Well early in the 90s Soros set up the Central European University in Budapest, at a time when the heritage State unis in the region were struggling to adapt to the demands of the new democracies. The Czechs in particular begged Soros to make Prague the HQ but he, understandably showed favour to his home country.For many years it provided a great education and no one had a problem with it.
Most well known of his other NGOs is the Open Society Foundation. What, pray, does it do? Well for example it funds the development of websites like WhatDoTheyKnow.com. Yes, the website I used to help extract the unredacted Olympic Stadium contract. What a terrible, subversive organisation, with its family of similar websites like WritettoThem, or FixMyStreet.
So inspired was I by these sinister, democracy-destroying websites, that I set up WDTK in the Czech Republic. Our single biggest user is a reporter on the Czech eqivalent of Panorama, a programme which for some unaccountable reason upsets a lot of powerful people with its exposures of corruption and incompetence. I received an initial grant from the local OSF to set it up. €1500 of "Soros' money" and I am extremely proud to say so, although this is not an "NGO", my wife and I and a few others run it as volunteers. Doing something for society we tell ourselves. So far, no one has come after us.
I wish i could say the same for our colleagues in Hungary. When we reps of such websites from 21 countries all met up in 2015 in Madrid, we were appalled to hear from our Hungarian colleague of State intimidation in the form of police raids with confiscation of computers and bogus tax inspections, for no reason and with no charges brought. Even the Ukrainians, who set up in the middle of the Maidan had received no such pressure.
It is now noticeable that the anti-Soros shit in Hungary has spread into the Czech Republic. The people spreading it are anti- EU populists, and they promote the same tropes and memes as you see in Hungary. They are often run by the same Russian backed disinformation websites that operate in plain sight here. The anti-Soros shit that is now surfacing in Britain uses the same content. It is almost as if someone has a global template....
George Soros of course is old enough to know what happened to Europe's Jews and why. That is why he is, at 87, standing up to face down this new wave of anti-Semitism. He is a brave man,and I will defend him to the hilt against anyone. I hope that those on here who snipe complacently while the attacks on him gather pace, will quickly educate themselves, so that i don't have to waste too much energy defending him on here.
I am no expert on Central Europe, Prague, but by attempting to conflate Britain with Hungary and stirring in anti-semitism you and others are playing a dangerous game. Anti-semitism is undoubtedly present in the UK. You can see it very clearly in the Labour Party, as Momentum's Jon Lansman himself has pointed out. You can see it in the way the media singled out Philip Green for special treatment. But, by tarring Brexiteers with the anti-semitic brush you are in danger of fanning the flame of anti-semitism. The far right and anti-Jewish Islamists will be delighted that 17 million Brexit voters are being smeared with anti-semitism. It plays into their narrative that Jews control the media and manipulate the establishment. I am against Soros because he is using his wealth to overturn the referendum-as are Blair and others behind the scenes. To attempt to censor Brexiteers opposition and brand it anrti-semitic can only devalue the fight against anti-semitism.
I don’t see why you keep saying “overturn the referendum”. You know full well that the referendum was non binding and even though the current government have a will to adhere to the in / out nature of that ridiculously nieve vote there is nothing in our democracy which prevents lawful pressure and lobby groups the right to try to influence and right what they perceive as a wrong.
Fine, condemn Soros because you disagree with him but don’t try to paint his activity as some kind of un democratic action and affront to the people.
As for anti-semitism. I’m afraid it’s endemic in every aspect of life all over the world and has been for millennia. It’s been used as a weapon in practically every circumstance known to man. All the time someone can see mileage in using it for their ends someone will.
Very telling that Soutbank only dislikes rich people who are pro-Remain and has zero problem with all the rich people who used their money to engineer the referendum and the result.
Also, it isn't Brexit voters who are being smeared as antisemitic, it is specifically those who have been espousing antisemitic tropes to smear Soros and those who he has donated to.
You don't have to be an expert in Central Europe. You can just consider my post, fact-check it to your own satisfaction and then decide whether or not I make substantive points which might give you pause for thought. I am not holding my breath in your case, although I hope a few other more open minded people may take note.
It's already been pointed out to you that he isn't attempting to "overturn the referendum", and that Aaron Banks for one has put in far more money to the Vote Leave campaign (despite being considerably less wealthy," in business terms he's a pygmy compared with Soros.). But that is also to ignore that a number of other wealthy people have put money into both pro and anti Brexit campaigns and groups. In some cases they are substantial. But you can't name them, can you? That's because Soros is the only one that certain media channels have brought to your attention. Why him? It does not make you anti-semitic for highlighting his contribution. It does not mean that all 17mill Brexiteers are anti-semitic. It does mean though that the message is being pushed, deliberately, by certain types of people, and with a consistency that crosses European borders. That is what is fanning flames, not me for pointing that out.
You don't have to be an expert in Central Europe. You can just consider my post, fact-check it to your own satisfaction and then decide whether or not I make substantive points which might give you pause for thought. I am not holding my breath in your case, although I hope a few other more open minded people may take note.
It's already been pointed out to you that he isn't attempting to "overturn the referendum", and that Aaron Banks for one has put in far more money to the Vote Leave campaign (despite being considerably less wealthy," in business terms he's a pygmy compared with Soros.). But that is also to ignore that a number of other wealthy people have put money into both pro and anti Brexit campaigns and groups. In some cases they are substantial. But you can't name them, can you? That's because Soros is the only one that certain media channels have brought to your attention. Why him? It does not make you anti-semitic for highlighting his contribution. It does not mean that all 17mill Brexiteers are anti-semitic. It does mean though that the message is being pushed, deliberately, by certain types of people, and with a consistency that crosses European borders. That is what is fanning flames, not me for pointing that out.
As you know, I have been opposed to all attempts to overturn the referendum. There is a cabal around Tony Blair and there is now Lord Malloch-Brown's organisation which is determined to reverse it. Of course this is their right, just as it is my right to challenge them.
Soros is an egregious case in these campaigns, not because he is Jewish but because he is not British and should stay out of it or risk being accused of interfering in national sovereignty, in which matter he is of course joined by and part of the EU elite. To make this about his Jewishness, which Remainers have done, not Leavers, is to fan the flame of anti-semitism and risk making things far worse than they are already.
Comments
As per the 2nd point, leaving shouldn’t necessitate a fight, but it seems like (metaphorically) we are going down that route, and if we are, it is what it is.
Do we want to resign membership of the golf club? Yes.
Do we want to compete in next year's golf day? No.
Do we want to give up rights to use the car park? Yes.
So the club ask us when we will be handing in our car park badge. So we scream and shout and call them bullies.
Now, I know that there are some flaky, incompetent and amateurish officials negotiating on our behalf, so this type of name-calling is as predictable as it is unhelpful. The problem is that there are none that are professional, calm and trustworthy.
This is the strategy that the Remain Tory government has been pursuing all along. They never wanted to leave. This is why the 'negotiation' is so pointless and absurd.
There have only ever been 2 options, Leave the EU lock, stock and barrel or stay in it. 'Soft' Brexit is Remain, however it is finessed.
So why in the fucking hell did every prominent Brexiter and the official Leave campaigns in the run up to the vote promise we would stay in the SM/CU and get a Norway/Switzerland style deal?
Campaigning on something so fundamental, then campaigning for the exact opposite after you win is simply not legitimate in any way shape or form. If we can't get Brexit on the terms promised by the official Leave campaign, then the voters were misled and we should not proceed until there is actually a legitimate mandate for Hard Brexit (for which there currently is none).
If remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union was the Government's intention, the Prime Minister would not have made leaving both her preferred option in all of her relevant public utterances.
Nor, in fairness, would she have felt the need for a General Election last year. If it was the Government policy to remain with both, it is likely that all, bar a right wing rump, of the Conservative MPs would have been content, particularly because it would have put greater pressure on Labour.
The Government need for the election, whilst hoping to increase their majority, was to have Brexit and Free Trade negotiations completed "successfully" before the next General Election, which would be won by a landslide because of Labour disarray and Mrs May's well-earned reputation for calm competence...
It is a measure of her political nous that things are going so well.
I genuinely cannot think of another significant elected politician who is in the Leave camp, about whom I could dredge up anything positive that I feel about them. And to underline my point, that's unusual when there are politicians from both right and left in the same camp.
This is a strategy born out of desperation.
This puts the government in the impossible position of trying to appease what was the majority (of votes cast if not of the population) whilst knowing everything they do to appease those voters is damaging their future electability as by the time of the next election, unless Brexit goes amazingly well (chances look slim to say the least) they will be going to the polls having pissed of the 55-60% (as it will be) who did, or would have, voted remain, and also pissed off the now minority who voted for an undefined Brexit that won't have been delivered (and is in fact impossible to deliver as what it means is different to each voter).
The antisemitic charge is being levelled at headlines (printed in newspapers owned by, ironically, foreign-based billionaires who used their money to subvert democracy by publishing fraudulent headlines in order to promote the Leave campaign) that used tropes commonly associated with antisemitic slurs such as "dirty money", "secret plot" and "conspiracy".
You may dislike that Soros has donated to a legitimate campaign group, as anyone can in a healthy democracy. But you don't really have a good reason to do so beyond that you really want to leave the EU and you don't think anyone who doesn't want to leave the EU should get to voice their opinion.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/11/george-soros-proud-donating-anti-brexit-campaign
Try reading the article, or you play up to the stereotypes of being a thick leaver
The referendum happened. But we do not have to leave the EU because of it because there was never any legal stipulation on the back of the result. The only thing we know from it is 17.4m people think we should leave the EU. As far as I can see Soros isn't trying to quash that turnout. He, like many people, simply thinks the UK would be better off cancelling Brexit now it is becoming abundantly clear what an absolute disaster it is going to be and is using legitimate democratic means to express that. Nothing shady or dirty about it.
Just read back to yourself what you have written.
I would however dispute the disaster that is abundantly clear as we still have no idea what will be negotiated.
I won't bother debating beyond this point as I don't want an argument. Had too many on here over Brexit.
I'm quite happy with what I've written because it's true.
Second what makes anybody think it would be any different?! We've seen Trump and the alt-right in action - any expert forecasts would be trashed and Farage, Gove and the Daily Mail would run riot. We'd have yet another rachetting up of islamophobia, xenophobia and naked racism. My guess is that the death toll might be higher than one northern MP!
A referendum and will of the people bollocks was a mistake first time round so WTF are we doing looking to repeat.
At the same time there are people trying to deny it. The neoliberal core has been hollowed out with 30 Tory MPs, a handful of Lib Dems and a few Blairites. The lib dems secure precisely 8% - and liberals have been ousted from power in the red and the blue party.
There might only be a few on this board that support Brexit with a passion but there are millions out there in the country.
The only solution which meets all the criteria and might secure majority support in Parliament is a Norway style solution. The alt-right can bitch about what brexit means but leaving the Customs Union was not on the ballot paper nor part of the campaign.
WE ARE LEAVING THE EU!
Get used to it and work with the angles. Having seen McDonnell on TV yesterday morning he talks of uniting the country, told Campbell where to get off (calling him divisive) and talked of "a" customs union not "the" customs union.
I'm not close enough to know whether this is a gambit or a genuine play but what he is saying crystal clear is "keep all of the options on the table"
Until this is resolved over a generation the UK will be in no position to rejoin the EU. But we might remain in the CU/SM for economic and political reasons. That is what the alt-right is fighting against.
The answer is another general election on all of the issues and that's what Corbyn and McDonnell are playing for. That's the prize to move on from the neoliberal period and govern for the "many not the few"! Brexit is simply the pivot... or perhaps the steak to drive through the blue party.
This will be long but I implore everyone to please take a minute to read this.
George Soros is originally from Hungary. In Hungary, PM Orban has been running a really foul political campaign which accuses Soros of funding "foreign" NGOs which seek to somehow subvert Hungarian national sovereignty. Thy feature huge billboards with Soros' photo selected to emphasise his Jewish genes, there is no other way to put that.
What exactly are these foreign NGOs, and what do they do? Well early in the 90s Soros set up the Central European University in Budapest, at a time when the heritage State unis in the region were struggling to adapt to the demands of the new democracies. The Czechs in particular begged Soros to make Prague the HQ but he, understandably showed favour to his home country.For many years it provided a great education and no one had a problem with it.
Most well known of his other NGOs is the Open Society Foundation. What, pray, does it do? Well for example it funds the development of websites like WhatDoTheyKnow.com. Yes, the website I used to help extract the unredacted Olympic Stadium contract. What a terrible, subversive organisation, with its family of similar websites like WritettoThem, or FixMyStreet.
So inspired was I by these sinister, democracy-destroying websites, that I set up WDTK in the Czech Republic. Our single biggest user is a reporter on the Czech eqivalent of Panorama, a programme which for some unaccountable reason upsets a lot of powerful people with its exposures of corruption and incompetence. I received an initial grant from the local OSF to set it up. €1500 of "Soros' money" and I am extremely proud to say so, although this is not an "NGO", my wife and I and a few others run it as volunteers. Doing something for society we tell ourselves. So far, no one has come after us.
I wish i could say the same for our colleagues in Hungary. When we reps of such websites from 21 countries all met up in 2015 in Madrid, we were appalled to hear from our Hungarian colleague of State intimidation in the form of police raids with confiscation of computers and bogus tax inspections, for no reason and with no charges brought. Even the Ukrainians, who set up in the middle of the Maidan had received no such pressure.
It is now noticeable that the anti-Soros shit in Hungary has spread into the Czech Republic. The people spreading it are anti- EU populists, and they promote the same tropes and memes as you see in Hungary. They are often run by the same Russian backed disinformation websites that operate in plain sight here. The anti-Soros shit that is now surfacing in Britain uses the same content. It is almost as if someone has a global template....
George Soros of course is old enough to know what happened to Europe's Jews and why. That is why he is, at 87, standing up to face down this new wave of anti-Semitism. He is a brave man,and I will defend him to the hilt against anyone. I hope that those on here who snipe complacently while the attacks on him gather pace, will quickly educate themselves, so that i don't have to waste too much energy defending him on here.
Anti-semitism is undoubtedly present in the UK. You can see it very clearly in the Labour Party, as Momentum's Jon Lansman himself has pointed out. You can see it in the way the media singled out Philip Green for special treatment.
But, by tarring Brexiteers with the anti-semitic brush you are in danger of fanning the flame of anti-semitism. The far right and anti-Jewish Islamists will be delighted that 17 million Brexit voters are being smeared with anti-semitism. It plays into their narrative that Jews control the media and manipulate the establishment.
I am against Soros because he is using his wealth to overturn the referendum-as are Blair and others behind the scenes. To attempt to censor Brexiteers opposition and brand it anrti-semitic can only devalue the fight against anti-semitism.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-brexit-donations-saudi-arabia-tale-tories-theresa-may-a7782681.html
This money is likely to have come from either Russia or Saudi sources and they did their best to cover their tracks (and succeeded until it was too late). In contrast George Soros openly donated money to an organisation that is open about it's goals and not connected to any political party.
Now I am all for Internationalism but you can't tell me that either Russia and Saudi Arabia or open, equal and democratic countries. I would struggle to think of any other regimes that I would like us involved with less.
@NornIrishAddick shared some excellent stuff on this recently which would be better for those interested than me sharing it from memory.
Fine, condemn Soros because you disagree with him but don’t try to paint his activity as some kind of un democratic action and affront to the people.
As for anti-semitism. I’m afraid it’s endemic in every aspect of life all over the world and has been for millennia. It’s been used as a weapon in practically every circumstance known to man. All the time someone can see mileage in using it for their ends someone will.
Also, it isn't Brexit voters who are being smeared as antisemitic, it is specifically those who have been espousing antisemitic tropes to smear Soros and those who he has donated to.
You don't have to be an expert in Central Europe. You can just consider my post, fact-check it to your own satisfaction and then decide whether or not I make substantive points which might give you pause for thought. I am not holding my breath in your case, although I hope a few other more open minded people may take note.
It's already been pointed out to you that he isn't attempting to "overturn the referendum", and that Aaron Banks for one has put in far more money to the Vote Leave campaign (despite being considerably less wealthy," in business terms he's a pygmy compared with Soros.). But that is also to ignore that a number of other wealthy people have put money into both pro and anti Brexit campaigns and groups. In some cases they are substantial. But you can't name them, can you? That's because Soros is the only one that certain media channels have brought to your attention. Why him? It does not make you anti-semitic for highlighting his contribution. It does not mean that all 17mill Brexiteers are anti-semitic. It does mean though that the message is being pushed, deliberately, by certain types of people, and with a consistency that crosses European borders. That is what is fanning flames, not me for pointing that out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5377025/GEORGE-SOROS-love-Britain-hate-Brexit.html
As you know, I have been opposed to all attempts to overturn the referendum. There is a cabal around Tony Blair and there is now Lord Malloch-Brown's organisation which is determined to reverse it. Of course this is their right, just as it is my right to challenge them.
Soros is an egregious case in these campaigns, not because he is Jewish but because he is not British and should stay out of it or risk being accused of interfering in national sovereignty, in which matter he is of course joined by and part of the EU elite. To make this about his Jewishness, which Remainers have done, not Leavers, is to fan the flame of anti-semitism and risk making things far worse than they are already.