So the Mail and other right-wing outlets publishing hate pieces about how sneaky Soros has been orchestrating a secret plot with his dirty money and attempting to influence global politics isn't fanning the flames of antisemitism, despite those all being antisemitic tropes, but people correctly pointing out how these slurs, from outlets that have a track record of antisemitism or xenophobia, could be perceived as a dogwhistle to those who easily fall for such stereotypes of rich Jewish businessmen, is fanning the flames.
Also, let's be honest, the only reason you hate everyone who is making an effort to stop Brexit is because you are anti-EU, as opposed to any wider noble goal to uphold democracy. Hence why you always use negative terminology such as foreign, interfering, elite, cabal etc to describe prominent Remainers yet you have given all the rich pro-Brexit people who undermine our democracy with their money a pass because they are promoting an agenda, no matter how nasty, you support.
So the Mail and other right-wing outlets publishing hate pieces about how sneaky Soros has been orchestrating a secret plot with his dirty money and attempting to influence global politics isn't fanning the flames of antisemitism, despite those all being antisemitic tropes, but people correctly pointing out how these slurs, from outlets that have a track record of antisemitism or xenophobia, could be perceived as a dogwhistle to those who easily fall for such stereotypes of rich Jewish businessmen, is fanning the flames.
Also, let's be honest, the only reason you hate everyone who is making an effort to stop Brexit is because you are anti-EU, as opposed to any wider noble goal to uphold democracy. Hence why you always use negative terminology such as foreign, interfering, elite, cabal etc to describe prominent Remainers yet you have given all the rich pro-Brexit people who undermine our democracy with their money a pass because they are promoting an agenda, no matter how nasty, you support.
I was a soft Leaver until the referendum. I now believe that overturning it would be the worst thing that could happen to our democracy, as I have argued before on these pages and elsewhere. Also, I did not start the attack on Soros, I responded to a post here which implied that Brexiteers were anti-semitic. So please get your facts straight.
Like you, I would prefer a democratic state where wealth did not influence results unduly. However we live in the real world and it was one in which virtually the entirety of the wealthy and powerful people in the western world, not just in the UK, supported Remain and still do. For Leavers to single out Banks and others merely demonstrates what a small relatively unimportant group they make up compared with the massed ranks of wealthy Remainers. It is ironic surely that you are now defending the right of powerful and wealthy people who are not British to continue to try to overturn the result. It is now Remainers who have introduced anti-semitism into this issue, having run their course with racism, ageism, lack of education and all the other insults they have aimed at the majority of people in this country who voted.
The most important group as far as I am concerned is the 17.4 million people who were asked if they wanted to stay in the EU and answered no, and the 16.1 million who took the issue seriously enough and understood the importance of democracy enough and voted to Remain. The rich in this country have one vote, and that should be the limit of their involvement. The rich overseas have no vote and should stay out of it.
Soros is acting with the best intentions and I don't think it will make an awful lot of difference to the strength or otherwise of the Stop Brexit lobby. But reading what he said:
Politically, Europe without Britain will be weakened in its ability to defend and promote democratic values. - Is this an admission that Europe isn't very strong on democratic values, but the UK is? Not according to many on here.
Europe will suffer from the absence of British pressure for the necessary institutional reforms. Is this saying the EU is not able to effect necessary institutional reforms without the help of the UK? Everyone knows what reforms are needed, but without a consensus supported by 27 states no reform can even make an agenda. Pressure is all well and good but is futile if there isn't the capacity to reach a consensus requiring 27 sovereign states to set aside self interests to achieve them. The UK voices the reforms needed and gets tarred as a trouble maker.
Economically, Europe will lose its third-largest economy and its strongest advocate of liberal economic policies. Is this saying the EU favours illiberal economic policies? That's Soros' biggest fear, a squeeze on his global financial interests.
Sounds like Soros thinks it's the future of the EU that's the basket case and wants the UK to save it from annihilation.
Reinforces what I believed already, feel better for reading it, good on Soros.
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.
Everybody can see that @Southbank has considered your post and replied. In summary wot you did on your holibobs in Hungry / Czech republic has been dismissed as irrelevant. One tends to agree!
What actually is really happening is that Anna Soubry is running a campaign supported by Ummuna and the likes of Best for Britain.
And their intention is to block the Alt-right from getting their way on leaving the CU and SM - this issue most certainly was not clear cut in the referendum. On the opposite side Dan Hannan and others quote the will of the people. And so we finally get to the blue on blue attacks which Cameron swerved back in 2016.
It appears May will sway with whatever keeps her in a job. Thus Soubry and others are voting against the government on occasion, aiming to block a hard Brexit.
There is nothing anti-democratic in this activity since it is all about Parliamentary process. Given that I've been peddling this same line for 12 months it's clear there is some understanding. I could add that Varoufakis backs my line of thinking but that might come across as somewhat narcissistic!
The reality is that some including myself have quoted his analysis for he has shown a clear path since last April, namely the Norway plus CU option. That's the line which keeps the UK connected to Europe on a semi-detached basis and has majority support with the electorate.
Those over-reaching and pushing for a second referendum threaten that coalition of remain and soft-brexit support. They allow their distrust/dislike of Corbyn and McDonnell to colour their judgement.
In a simple world Corbyn and McDonnell would follow the Varoufakis line. Best for Britain is attempting to reach out into the trades union movement but the likes of Len McCluskey might have a say in that!
PS just to add that my support for views expressed by @Southbank is not a complete endorsement. People know I was a remainer. The point as stated above is that soft leavers and remainers need to work together. And that means with the overall majority as opposed driving down a path to another divisive referendum.
Do you think that by keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again it will somehow gain traction ? Overturning, overturn, overturning, strong and stable.
So the Mail and other right-wing outlets publishing hate pieces about how sneaky Soros has been orchestrating a secret plot with his dirty money and attempting to influence global politics isn't fanning the flames of antisemitism, despite those all being antisemitic tropes, but people correctly pointing out how these slurs, from outlets that have a track record of antisemitism or xenophobia, could be perceived as a dogwhistle to those who easily fall for such stereotypes of rich Jewish businessmen, is fanning the flames.
Also, let's be honest, the only reason you hate everyone who is making an effort to stop Brexit is because you are anti-EU, as opposed to any wider noble goal to uphold democracy. Hence why you always use negative terminology such as foreign, interfering, elite, cabal etc to describe prominent Remainers yet you have given all the rich pro-Brexit people who undermine our democracy with their money a pass because they are promoting an agenda, no matter how nasty, you support.
I was a soft Leaver until the referendum. I now believe that overturning it would be the worst thing that could happen to our democracy, as I have argued before on these pages and elsewhere. Also, I did not start the attack on Soros, I responded to a post here which implied that Brexiteers were anti-semitic. So please get your facts straight.
Like you, I would prefer a democratic state where wealth did not influence results unduly. However we live in the real world and it was one in which virtually the entirety of the wealthy and powerful people in the western world, not just in the UK, supported Remain and still do. For Leavers to single out Banks and others merely demonstrates what a small relatively unimportant group they make up compared with the massed ranks of wealthy Remainers. It is ironic surely that you are now defending the right of powerful and wealthy people who are not British to continue to try to overturn the result. It is now Remainers who have introduced anti-semitism into this issue, having run their course with racism, ageism, lack of education and all the other insults they have aimed at the majority of people in this country who voted.
The most important group as far as I am concerned is the 17.4 million people who were asked if they wanted to stay in the EU and answered no, and the 16.1 million who took the issue seriously enough and understood the importance of democracy enough and voted to Remain. The rich in this country have one vote, and that should be the limit of their involvement. The rich overseas have no vote and should stay out of it.
Are you going to post anything about the substantive issues that Soros is raising, without bringing up anti-Semitism?
Do you think that by keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again it will somehow gain traction ? Overturning, overturn, overturning, strong and stable.
Fiiish nailed you several post ago.
Not really!
The real issue is those who choose to ignore the referendum or question it's legitimacy. It's obvious that this just pours petrol on the embers.
It will take a coalition of leave and remain to sort this mess out and @Southbank makes some legitimate points.
Soros is acting with the best intentions and I don't think it will make an awful lot of difference to the strength or otherwise of the Stop Brexit lobby. But reading what he said:
Politically, Europe without Britain will be weakened in its ability to defend and promote democratic values. - Is this an admission that Europe isn't very strong on democratic values, but the UK is? Not according to many on here.
Europe will suffer from the absence of British pressure for the necessary institutional reforms. Is this saying the EU is not able to effect necessary institutional reforms without the help of the UK? Everyone knows what reforms are needed, but without a consensus supported by 27 states no reform can even make an agenda. Pressure is all well and good but is futile if there isn't the capacity to reach a consensus requiring 27 sovereign states to set aside self interests to achieve them. The UK voices the reforms needed and gets tarred as a trouble maker.
Economically, Europe will lose its third-largest economy and its strongest advocate of liberal economic policies. Is this saying the EU favours illiberal economic policies? That's Soros' biggest fear, a squeeze on his global financial interests.
Sounds like Soros thinks it's the future of the EU that's the basket case and wants the UK to save it from annihilation.
Reinforces what I believed already, feel better for reading it, good on Soros.
The first bit about democracy is about Britain participating in the collective EU democracy. The EU is not structured where whenever they need a bit of democracy they have to ask the UK how it's done. Wasn't Ancient Greece the wellspring of the concept, and Scandinavian countries way ahead of the UK in votes for women, as well as pioneering democratic tropes like proportional representation? Arguably (for me anyway) the EU has better models of democracy in many areas, and the UK could learn from them. This issue is less about opinion more about preference, but it is sad that one side frequently supports it's case by attempting to sound authoritative when repeating that the EU is 'undemocratic'. It isn't.
The only reason you think overturning the result would be "the worst thing that could happen to democracy" is 100% to do with the fact you support Brexit as opposed to any underlying principles of upholding democracy. The referendum result was in statistical terms a dead heat, not a definite statement of what the population wants or what it should do. If we implement the referendum result then we are ignoring 2 thirds of the electorate. Not sure how that can be described as democracy.
The referendum happened. No one is trying to overturn the result. What Remainers want is to use the clear evidence that the public was misled during the referendum and not try to proceed on a path that is now impossible to fulfil. The pledges and promises made by the Brexit campaigners have been abandoned and no one voted for the Brexit we are now heading towards.
Furthermore, you may think that the vast majority of rich people are Remainers, although we already dispelled this myth a few months ago. But the fact is the vast majority of rich people who also have power, whether that be political or media influence, are Brexiters. And they were the ones who funded the Vote Leave campaign that lied to and misled the public to secure their a victory.
Finally, stop peddling your lie that it is the Remainers who introduced the antisemitism into this. The Brexit media were the ones using clear dogwhistle terminology to smear Soros in a way they simply wouldn't a Remainer with a different background. If the Brexit media had just reported on Soros fairly and not used phrases like "dirty money", "secret plot" etc. then there would not be any grounds to accuse them of having ulterior motives for their particularly venomous attack on Soros (in the same way Gina Miller received particularly hateful headlines and comments on her origin that simply have not been repeated against white British Remainers). The Brexit media is using age old dirty tricks to smear people of good character by using hateful euphemisms used only against people from non-white non-British backgrounds and you clearly keep falling for these hate pieces hook line and sinker.
Do you think that by keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again it will somehow gain traction ? Overturning, overturn, overturning, strong and stable.
Fiiish nailed you several post ago.
Not really!
The real issue is those who choose to ignore the referendum or question it's legitimacy. It's obvious that this just pours petrol on the embers.
It will take a coalition of leave and remain to sort this mess out and @Southbank makes some legitimate points.
The real issue is the people who refuse to acknowledge the utter stupidity of holding the referendum in the first place and refuse to accept the irrefutable evidence of the catastrophic consequences that will result from trying implement a hard or soft Brexit simply because they are afraid of being labelled undemocratic. To adopt such a massive change to our path based on the wishes of 37% of the electorate and a non binding referendum that was affected by dark money and Russian trolls (we had a few on here) is undemocratic. I welcome the efforts of people like Soros and Blair etc. The evidence can't be ignored. The choice is not between a soft and hard Brexit. There is a third choice and that is no Brexit at all.
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.
Tony Blair hasn't been PM for over 10 years - sadly you're just invoking his name as someone who's unpopular to add further poison to the Remain position. You could just as easily provided the name of any other living PM as being a Remain supporter but Major doesn't stir up the same feelings does is?
Suggesting Soros should stay out of the EU debate as a non-Brit' might have more credit as a concept if our biggest selling daily newspaper, that's been pumping out anti-Eu crap for decades, wasn't owned by a flipping Australian. In fact I think the figures are that over 50% of the print and online news media in the UK is owned by just Murdoch and Lord Rothermere. Factor in the Brexit supporting Barclay brothers, and the rest, and that's a very powerful "cabal" that pretty much had/has the media sewn up. Not only during the campaign but for years before had been dripping hate, thinly veiled racism and total nonsense into the EU debate.
Lastly, and once again, I think it's completely disingenuous of you to promote Leave as the furtherance of democracy when you yourself support the proposed Henry VIII powers. The use of those powers are the very antithesis of a functioning democracy and are completely at odds with your views as someone who now claims to have moved from a soft Brexit to the hardest of Brexits in an attempt to ensure democratic process is followed.
As well as Soros, the Daily Mail has been also running negative headlines against a less obvious target: Brendan Cox, husband of murdered MP Jo Cox which became a grim warning of the effect the right wing media and in particular anti-EU coverage was having on the national psyche.
The Mail in particular faced criticism for both its coverage of Jo's murder as well as the trial of her murderer, being the only newspaper not to consider the verdict of the trial worthy of the front page. Yet it has clearly been digging around into her husband's past to try and find something to smear him with. And that managed to make its way onto the front page.
Some food for thought for those who continue to protest that the right-wing Brexit media coverage is in anyway objective or fair reporting, or that they are above using personal backgrounds to make hateful attacks for political purposes.
It is nothing short of a culture war. I won't be happy until The Mail is completely destroyed. And that is not a free speech issue. It is a matter of urgent national interest
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 know you like a good book. Not sure if you have come across Maskerado by Tivadar Soros the father of George Soros. If not be sure to get hold of a copy. The truly inspiring story of how the Soros family survived in Nazi Hungary.
George Soros has seen what happens when we allow nationalism and selfishness to pull us all apart. There are bigger issues at stake here than just Brexit and nobody should be looking to celebrate the EU falling apart. Putin aside that is.
The only reason you think overturning the result would be "the worst thing that could happen to democracy" is 100% to do with the fact you support Brexit as opposed to any underlying principles of upholding democracy. The referendum result was in statistical terms a dead heat, not a definite statement of what the population wants or what it should do. If we implement the referendum result then we are ignoring 2 thirds of the electorate. Not sure how that can be described as democracy.
The referendum happened. No one is trying to overturn the result. What Remainers want is to use the clear evidence that the public was misled during the referendum and not try to proceed on a path that is now impossible to fulfil. The pledges and promises made by the Brexit campaigners have been abandoned and no one voted for the Brexit we are now heading towards.
Furthermore, you may think that the vast majority of rich people are Remainers, although we already dispelled this myth a few months ago. But the fact is the vast majority of rich people who also have power, whether that be political or media influence, are Brexiters. And they were the ones who funded the Vote Leave campaign that lied to and misled the public to secure their a victory.
Finally, stop peddling your lie that it is the Remainers who introduced the antisemitism into this. The Brexit media were the ones using clear dogwhistle terminology to smear Soros in a way they simply wouldn't a Remainer with a different background. If the Brexit media had just reported on Soros fairly and not used phrases like "dirty money", "secret plot" etc. then there would not be any grounds to accuse them of having ulterior motives for their particularly venomous attack on Soros (in the same way Gina Miller received particularly hateful headlines and comments on her origin that simply have not been repeated against white British Remainers). The Brexit media is using age old dirty tricks to smear people of good character by using hateful euphemisms used only against people from non-white non-British backgrounds and you clearly keep falling for these hate pieces hook line and sinker.
Overturning any result through democracy cannot be the worst thing for democracy by pure common sense and reason. I know that lets a lot of rabid Brexiters out!
As for Barnier and his pals, yes they are bullying the government. We mistakenly think that because it makes sense for French wine producers and German car makers to sort out a fair trade deal, that it is inevitable. If it was the wine producers and car makers doing the negotiating, I'd say a good deal was very likely. But we are not going to have a good deal because Euro beaurocrats are doing the negotiating. Their task is to protect the EU which is best served by humiliating the UK - they would rather not, but the UK can't leave and thrive. They can only do it, because the government is in an impossible position with its internal splits.
There is a simple solution, which for me is the great difference between the Conservative policy and the Labour policy of Brexit when people who should know better are saying it is the same. Why not delay the finaL deal for a few more years? - say 6 to 10. In that time adopt a Norway transitional deal - easy to do and impossible for the EU to argue against and it would kick the problem in the long grass as far as the EU is concerned and lessen the economic impact that whilst the EU is willing to suffer it, it would rather not - and it would buy both sides time to do this right. It would also effectively mean we are out of the EU, but still in the single market and it would resolve the northern Ireland border issue.
The hard line Brexiters won't like it, nor possibly the hard line Remainers, because it would mean leaving the EU. But it is the best way out of this mess (May is never going to get an acceptable deal - that should be blindingly obvious). Who knows, a lot can happen in that time and the EU could change and its position could change to our benefit. I think this is the sort of solution Labour could deliver where the Conservatives can't even though on paper their policies on Brexit look similar.
The idea leavers wouldn't have been lobbying hard for a third referendum, if the result was 52% Remain, is a liberty. Of course they would have. The sense of grievance (the government campaign too hard, etc etc), and the feeling that one last push would give them the utopia of supposed freedom, would have spured these nutters on.
The worst thing about leavers, is that they've been wanking on about this for 30 years, and not one has a constructive plan of how to leave, what Britain would look like in the future, or an idea of how to deal with a massive market in the EU once we're a third country.
The idea leavers wouldn't have been lobbying hard for a third referendum, if the result was 52% Remain, is a liberty. Of course they would have. The sense of grievance (the government campaign too hard, etc etc), and the feeling that one last push would give them the utopia of supposed freedom, would have spured these nutters on.
The worst thing about leavers, is that they've been wanking on about this for 30 years, and not one has a constructive plan of how to leave, what Britain would look like in the future, or an idea of how to deal with a massive market in the EU once we're a third country.
When Farage thought leave had lost the referendum, he vowed to carry on the fight! You are definitely right and we all know it.
But we did vote to leave and the leavers are terrified it could be overturned, so they throw up all this democracy rubbish which is nonsense, but what would you expect them to do? They don't want democracy to play out again, they want to freeze the democracy to a point in 2016 because it provided them with the result they wanted! Seeing as there is a half decent chance the decision would be overturned in another referendum, Brexiters will be fighting against it with all their hearts. This is why it is all going to blow up in the Tory party.
I voted Brexit and I'd have no problem with another referendum. I think a lot of Brexit voters may silently change their vote (or be too dead to vote again). Not sure what I'd do though.
I was on the fence then and went with a hope that we'd save more money being out of the EU than we piss up the wall being part of it.
I understand that the EU had to be created to stop European nations from declaring further wars amongst themselves.
Churchill the 'father' of the EU never wanted the UK to be a part of it, I think he knew.
In this day and age we seem to all be close enough as nations to no longer need the EU banner to declare that we're all friends.
I think in a second referendum Brexit would lose. This backtrack though would leave us at the mercy of Juncker. A man who clearly hates the UK, who was not democratically elected \nd who seems intent to see one of the founding nations, not only singled out but punished for making a democratic move in the will of its people.
It's a sad place to be, but makes me want to be part of the EU even less.
I have never liked cliques after all. I often find myself disagreeing with the in-crowd for that very reason.
I voted Brexit and I'd have no problem with another referendum. I think a lot of Brexit voters may silently change their vote (or be too dead to vote again). Not sure what I'd do though.
I was on the fence then and went with a hope that we'd save more money being out of the EU than we piss up the wall being part of it.
I understand that the EU had to be created to stop European nations from declaring further wars amongst themselves.
Churchill the 'father' of the EU never wanted the UK to be a part of it, I think he knew.
In this day and age we seem to all be close enough as nations to no longer need the EU banner to declare that we're all friends.
I think in a second referendum Brexit would lose. This backtrack though would leave us at the mercy of Juncker. A man who clearly hates the UK, who was not democratically elected \nd who seems intent to see one of the founding nations, not only singled out but punished for making a democratic move in the will of its people.
It's a sad place to be, but makes me want to be part of the EU even less.
I have never liked cliques after all. I often find myself disagreeing with the in-crowd for that very reason.
Junker doesn't hate the UK. He wants us to stay in the EU. He is protecting the EU project which I think is flawed. But it exists and we can't pretend otherwise and it can harm us, even though that will damage them too.
I voted Brexit and I'd have no problem with another referendum. I think a lot of Brexit voters may silently change their vote (or be too dead to vote again). Not sure what I'd do though.
I was on the fence then and went with a hope that we'd save more money being out of the EU than we piss up the wall being part of it.
I understand that the EU had to be created to stop European nations from declaring further wars amongst themselves.
Churchill the 'father' of the EU never wanted the UK to be a part of it, I think he knew.
In this day and age we seem to all be close enough as nations to no longer need the EU banner to declare that we're all friends.
I think in a second referendum Brexit would lose. This backtrack though would leave us at the mercy of Juncker. A man who clearly hates the UK, who was not democratically elected \nd who seems intent to see one of the founding nations, not only singled out but punished for making a democratic move in the will of its people.
It's a sad place to be, but makes me want to be part of the EU even less.
I have never liked cliques after all. I often find myself disagreeing with the in-crowd for that very reason.
Junker doesn't hate the UK. He wants us to stay in the EU. He is protecting the EU project which I think is flawed. But it exists and we can't pretend otherwise and it can harm us, even though that will damage them too.
Furthermore, Juncker's 5 year term ends in 2019, and he has said he won't stand again.
Brexit will harm both GB and the 27. That much is certain. It’s hardly a surprise that the 27 will look to minimise the harm Brexit does to them at the expense of Great Britain. That can’t legitimately be seen as the EU looking to punish Great Britain. It’s doing exactly what it’s members states would expect of them. Looking after the interests of the members not trying to cut some fantasy land deal that is being pursued by May and Davis.
May has promised a good trade deal, the end of free movement and no hard border between the Irish Republic and Nothern Ireland. If she can pull that off, I'd vote for her. But even a village idiot must realise that she can't. The clock is ticking and the best solution is to say, well that has been a total balls up - lets postpone negotiating, agree a transition based on Norway for 6 years and buy us all time to negotiate this right! The EU is very likely to agree to that as it is going to be somebody else's problem. But it isn't about that - it buys everybody time to find workable solutions rather than falling off a cliff!
May has promised a good trade deal, the end of free movement and no hard border between the Irish Republic and Nothern Ireland. If she can pull that off, I'd vote for her. But even a village idiot must realise that she can't. The clock is ticking and the best solution is to say, well that has been a total balls up - lets postpone negotiating, agree a transition based on Norway for 6 years and buy us all time to negotiate this right! The EU is very likely to agree to that as it is going to be somebody else's problem. But it isn't about that - it buys everybody time to find workable solutions rather than falling off a cliff!
I think that scenario would only happen if the government collapsed, which I don't think it will. It seems to me as though May has sided with the more ardent Brexiteers over the more moderate voices in her government/party and as such the chances of a hard Brexit are much greater than they were back in December.
The three promises of the leave campaign were, more money for public services, less foreigners and no damage at all to the economy, they can't deliver it, so it seems they want to burn the whole place down.
And still no one has found me a mortgage that'll accept sovereignty as a payment.
Actually, the worst thing about the leave elite, is their inability to take any responsibility for the current mess, instead they blame 'remoaners' or George Soros.
The right used to be strong on personal responsibility, now its shifts blame like the left
Comments
Also, let's be honest, the only reason you hate everyone who is making an effort to stop Brexit is because you are anti-EU, as opposed to any wider noble goal to uphold democracy. Hence why you always use negative terminology such as foreign, interfering, elite, cabal etc to describe prominent Remainers yet you have given all the rich pro-Brexit people who undermine our democracy with their money a pass because they are promoting an agenda, no matter how nasty, you support.
Lets hope at least some people can see the dangers.
Like you, I would prefer a democratic state where wealth did not influence results unduly. However we live in the real world and it was one in which virtually the entirety of the wealthy and powerful people in the western world, not just in the UK, supported Remain and still do. For Leavers to single out Banks and others merely demonstrates what a small relatively unimportant group they make up compared with the massed ranks of wealthy Remainers. It is ironic surely that you are now defending the right of powerful and wealthy people who are not British to continue to try to overturn the result. It is now Remainers who have introduced anti-semitism into this issue, having run their course with racism, ageism, lack of education and all the other insults they have aimed at the majority of people in this country who voted.
The most important group as far as I am concerned is the 17.4 million people who were asked if they wanted to stay in the EU and answered no, and the 16.1 million who took the issue seriously enough and understood the importance of democracy enough and voted to Remain. The rich in this country have one vote, and that should be the limit of their involvement. The rich overseas have no vote and should stay out of it.
Politically, Europe without Britain will be weakened in its ability to defend and promote democratic values. - Is this an admission that Europe isn't very strong on democratic values, but the UK is? Not according to many on here.
Europe will suffer from the absence of British pressure for the necessary institutional reforms. Is this saying the EU is not able to effect necessary institutional reforms without the help of the UK? Everyone knows what reforms are needed, but without a consensus supported by 27 states no reform can even make an agenda. Pressure is all well and good but is futile if there isn't the capacity to reach a consensus requiring 27 sovereign states to set aside self interests to achieve them. The UK voices the reforms needed and gets tarred as a trouble maker.
Economically, Europe will lose its third-largest economy and its strongest advocate of liberal economic policies. Is this saying the EU favours illiberal economic policies? That's Soros' biggest fear, a squeeze on his global financial interests.
Sounds like Soros thinks it's the future of the EU that's the basket case and wants the UK to save it from annihilation.
Reinforces what I believed already, feel better for reading it, good on Soros.
What actually is really happening is that Anna Soubry is running a campaign supported by Ummuna and the likes of Best for Britain.
And their intention is to block the Alt-right from getting their way on leaving the CU and SM - this issue most certainly was not clear cut in the referendum. On the opposite side Dan Hannan and others quote the will of the people. And so we finally get to the blue on blue attacks which Cameron swerved back in 2016.
It appears May will sway with whatever keeps her in a job. Thus Soubry and others are voting against the government on occasion, aiming to block a hard Brexit.
There is nothing anti-democratic in this activity since it is all about Parliamentary process. Given that I've been peddling this same line for 12 months it's clear there is some understanding. I could add that Varoufakis backs my line of thinking but that might come across as somewhat narcissistic!
The reality is that some including myself have quoted his analysis for he has shown a clear path since last April, namely the Norway plus CU option. That's the line which keeps the UK connected to Europe on a semi-detached basis and has majority support with the electorate.
Those over-reaching and pushing for a second referendum threaten that coalition of remain and soft-brexit support. They allow their distrust/dislike of Corbyn and McDonnell to colour their judgement.
In a simple world Corbyn and McDonnell would follow the Varoufakis line. Best for Britain is attempting to reach out into the trades union movement but the likes of Len McCluskey might have a say in that!
PS just to add that my support for views expressed by @Southbank is not a complete endorsement. People know I was a remainer. The point as stated above is that soft leavers and remainers need to work together. And that means with the overall majority as opposed driving down a path to another divisive referendum.
Parliament has to take back control!
Do you think that by keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again it will somehow gain traction ? Overturning, overturn, overturning, strong and stable.
Fiiish nailed you several post ago.
The real issue is those who choose to ignore the referendum or question it's legitimacy. It's obvious that this just pours petrol on the embers.
It will take a coalition of leave and remain to sort this mess out and @Southbank makes some legitimate points.
Arguably (for me anyway) the EU has better models of democracy in many areas, and the UK could learn from them. This issue is less about opinion more about preference, but it is sad that one side frequently supports it's case by attempting to sound authoritative when repeating that the EU is 'undemocratic'. It isn't.
The referendum happened. No one is trying to overturn the result. What Remainers want is to use the clear evidence that the public was misled during the referendum and not try to proceed on a path that is now impossible to fulfil. The pledges and promises made by the Brexit campaigners have been abandoned and no one voted for the Brexit we are now heading towards.
Furthermore, you may think that the vast majority of rich people are Remainers, although we already dispelled this myth a few months ago. But the fact is the vast majority of rich people who also have power, whether that be political or media influence, are Brexiters. And they were the ones who funded the Vote Leave campaign that lied to and misled the public to secure their a victory.
Finally, stop peddling your lie that it is the Remainers who introduced the antisemitism into this. The Brexit media were the ones using clear dogwhistle terminology to smear Soros in a way they simply wouldn't a Remainer with a different background. If the Brexit media had just reported on Soros fairly and not used phrases like "dirty money", "secret plot" etc. then there would not be any grounds to accuse them of having ulterior motives for their particularly venomous attack on Soros (in the same way Gina Miller received particularly hateful headlines and comments on her origin that simply have not been repeated against white British Remainers). The Brexit media is using age old dirty tricks to smear people of good character by using hateful euphemisms used only against people from non-white non-British backgrounds and you clearly keep falling for these hate pieces hook line and sinker.
Suggesting Soros should stay out of the EU debate as a non-Brit' might have more credit as a concept if our biggest selling daily newspaper, that's been pumping out anti-Eu crap for decades, wasn't owned by a flipping Australian. In fact I think the figures are that over 50% of the print and online news media in the UK is owned by just Murdoch and Lord Rothermere. Factor in the Brexit supporting Barclay brothers, and the rest, and that's a very powerful "cabal" that pretty much had/has the media sewn up. Not only during the campaign but for years before had been dripping hate, thinly veiled racism and total nonsense into the EU debate.
Lastly, and once again, I think it's completely disingenuous of you to promote Leave as the furtherance of democracy when you yourself support the proposed Henry VIII powers. The use of those powers are the very antithesis of a functioning democracy and are completely at odds with your views as someone who now claims to have moved from a soft Brexit to the hardest of Brexits in an attempt to ensure democratic process is followed.
The Mail in particular faced criticism for both its coverage of Jo's murder as well as the trial of her murderer, being the only newspaper not to consider the verdict of the trial worthy of the front page. Yet it has clearly been digging around into her husband's past to try and find something to smear him with. And that managed to make its way onto the front page.
Some food for thought for those who continue to protest that the right-wing Brexit media coverage is in anyway objective or fair reporting, or that they are above using personal backgrounds to make hateful attacks for political purposes.
George Soros has seen what happens when we allow nationalism and selfishness to pull us all apart. There are bigger issues at stake here than just Brexit and nobody should be looking to celebrate the EU falling apart. Putin aside that is.
As for Barnier and his pals, yes they are bullying the government. We mistakenly think that because it makes sense for French wine producers and German car makers to sort out a fair trade deal, that it is inevitable. If it was the wine producers and car makers doing the negotiating, I'd say a good deal was very likely. But we are not going to have a good deal because Euro beaurocrats are doing the negotiating. Their task is to protect the EU which is best served by humiliating the UK - they would rather not, but the UK can't leave and thrive. They can only do it, because the government is in an impossible position with its internal splits.
There is a simple solution, which for me is the great difference between the Conservative policy and the Labour policy of Brexit when people who should know better are saying it is the same. Why not delay the finaL deal for a few more years? - say 6 to 10. In that time adopt a Norway transitional deal - easy to do and impossible for the EU to argue against and it would kick the problem in the long grass as far as the EU is concerned and lessen the economic impact that whilst the EU is willing to suffer it, it would rather not - and it would buy both sides time to do this right. It would also effectively mean we are out of the EU, but still in the single market and it would resolve the northern Ireland border issue.
The hard line Brexiters won't like it, nor possibly the hard line Remainers, because it would mean leaving the EU. But it is the best way out of this mess (May is never going to get an acceptable deal - that should be blindingly obvious). Who knows, a lot can happen in that time and the EU could change and its position could change to our benefit. I think this is the sort of solution Labour could deliver where the Conservatives can't even though on paper their policies on Brexit look similar.
The worst thing about leavers, is that they've been wanking on about this for 30 years, and not one has a constructive plan of how to leave, what Britain would look like in the future, or an idea of how to deal with a massive market in the EU once we're a third country.
But we did vote to leave and the leavers are terrified it could be overturned, so they throw up all this democracy rubbish which is nonsense, but what would you expect them to do? They don't want democracy to play out again, they want to freeze the democracy to a point in 2016 because it provided them with the result they wanted! Seeing as there is a half decent chance the decision would be overturned in another referendum, Brexiters will be fighting against it with all their hearts. This is why it is all going to blow up in the Tory party.
I was on the fence then and went with a hope that we'd save more money being out of the EU than we piss up the wall being part of it.
I understand that the EU had to be created to stop European nations from declaring further wars amongst themselves.
Churchill the 'father' of the EU never wanted the UK to be a part of it, I think he knew.
In this day and age we seem to all be close enough as nations to no longer need the EU banner to declare that we're all friends.
I think in a second referendum Brexit would lose. This backtrack though would leave us at the mercy of Juncker. A man who clearly hates the UK, who was not democratically elected \nd who seems intent to see one of the founding nations, not only singled out but punished for making a democratic move in the will of its people.
It's a sad place to be, but makes me want to be part of the EU even less.
I have never liked cliques after all. I often find myself disagreeing with the in-crowd for that very reason.
The three promises of the leave campaign were, more money for public services, less foreigners and no damage at all to the economy, they can't deliver it, so it seems they want to burn the whole place down.
And still no one has found me a mortgage that'll accept sovereignty as a payment.
The right used to be strong on personal responsibility, now its shifts blame like the left