Also in the news

[Nick]

1 minute ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I do actually hope it's Boris, whatever gets closer to leaving is what we need right now it's gone on far too long

Do you still really think we'll leave? 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Long term China are a much scarier proposition than Russia 

In terms of actually being able to project fearful authoritarianism? Absolutely.

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

Do you still really think we'll leave? 

probably another 4 years of limbo but **** me just leave

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Do you still really think we'll leave? 

 

Welcome to the Hotel California...

[bovril]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Welcome to the Hotel California...

It's our own parliament who voted against leaving, including Brexiters themselves.

[What the Fuchs?]

2 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Holocaust denier, unknowingly being in the same place as one does not make him one.

 

Corbyn did not lay wreaths for terrorists, but for Palestinians killed by Israel in 1985.

 

Corbyn suggested the idea of inviting Hamas and Hezbollah to be part of a PEACE process through parliament in 2009. Why is that so bad?

 

Chris Williamson was absolutely right, the party has taken a lot of criticism on what evidence? Some people don't like the fact that a leader of a major political party has the opinion that some of Israel's policies are bad, rather than just blindly accepting them as America do. if criticism of Israel makes you anti-Semitic, why doesn't criticism of Saudi Arabia make you Islamophobic?

 

All people seem to want are good old character assassinations in their favourite cheap right wing tabloid, and stories about how Corbyn didn't sing the national anthem, or how his remembrance poppy wasn't big enough.

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Agree with you on poppy/national anthem stuff. Irrelevant. 

 

First point - Never said he was, but company you keep etc. If Boris suddenly started turning at meetings with Tommy Robinson he'd have questions to anwer. 

 

Second point - He did - if he didn't who are the "others" he speaks of in this article?

 

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-98de-palestine-united-1

 

Third point - Hizbollah doesn't have any commitment to a peaceful solution and never has - although if this genuinely was in the interest of peace, who did he speak to from the Israeli side?

He attended a meeting of the group as it was pro-Palestine, and distanced himself from it once he was aware of the personal views of some of its members.

 

There is no evidence that he laid any wreath for any terrorists, just a lot of hot air at the time from Netanyahu (no surprise) to deflect from the fact that 160 Palestinians had recently been killed by Israeli forces.

 

And I don’t know who spoke to whom in 2009 as I’m not JC, but I’m sure you could find out some stuff online. All I’m saying is people read into things looking for evidence to support their predetermined perception of him, regardless of whether any such evidence is viable or even exists. Historians will write in the future about how unfairly he was treated in the media, with no platform to defend himself. Don’t believe everything you read in the Telegraph without serious thought as to why it is being written, and what has been deliberately left out.

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Well as long as your viewpoint isn't compromised by prejudice

 

How did the media manage to get the pictures and video footage of Corbyn sat with holocaust deniers and laying wreaths at the graves of Black September terrorists though if he didn't do it? 

 

How did the right wing media and the tories force him into inviting undoubtedly antisemitic groups into parliament like Hamas and Hizbollah?

 

How did they make Chris Williamson stand on a stage and say the party had given too much ground on antisemitism? 

 

oops, sorry, that's a holocaust Dornier.

Edited 29 May 2019 by Trav Le Bleu

[Legend_in_blue]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

I didn't vote leave based on the bus slogan. I voted leave because I didn't believe a word of project fear. Biggest pack of lies i'd ever heard.

 

Many people respond to a simple message.  The bus slogan was a simple message.  Farage and his line "of immigrants" was a simple message.  A very, very simple untruth in essence.  What's democratic about that?

 

Interesting article:

 

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-modern-democracy-be-based-upon-lies

 

 

What sticks out in people's minds when they think back to the leave campain 3 years later?  Without a doubt, the majority of people will say the bus and the line of people.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Many people respond to a simple message.  The bus slogan was a simple message.  Farage and his line "of immigrants" was a simple message.  A very, very simple untruth in essence.  What's democratic about that?

 

Interesting article:

 

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-modern-democracy-be-based-upon-lies

 

 

What sticks out in people's minds when they think back to the leave campain 3 years later?  Without a doubt, the majority of people will say the bus and the line of people.

 

Yes people respond to a simple message - the message being that we send a lot of money to the EU, that has an opportunity cost. The lie was the £350m (and a bit of semantics) but the exact figure didn't really matter. If it had been the actual figure £252m, those potentially swayed by it wouldn't have thought "that figure seems pretty reasonable if only it was £350m then it would be so unreasonable I'll vote to Leave".

 

 

 

I'm all for exposing politicians and their lies but this case is just plain daft. Dragging the courts into political controversy offers fuel for the populist fire and eventually, in extremis, leads to actual fascism. Instead of turning to the courts, we must seek a way to strengthen the routes to accountability for elected officials (ofc the referendum broke the usual routes to accountability).

[Bryn]

4 hours ago, simFox said:

I didn't vote leave based on the bus slogan. I voted leave because I didn't believe a word of project fear. Biggest pack of lies i'd ever heard.

 

 

On the one hand you've got the Leave campaign, demonstrable liars with a leading member literally being taken to court charged with lying.

On the other, the Remain campaign, who said we'd be staring down the barrel of a gun and it'd be a total cluster**** if we tried to leave?

 

Utterly pathetic, it's been three years and I'm STILL yet to see anyone be able to articulate and substantiate why leaving the EU is a good idea.

[simFox]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Yes people respond to a simple message - the message being that we send a lot of money to the EU, that has an opportunity cost. The lie was the £350m (and a bit of semantics) but the exact figure didn't really matter. If it had been the actual figure £252m, those potentially swayed by it wouldn't have thought "that figure seems pretty reasonable if only it was £350m then it would be so unreasonable I'll vote to Leave".

 

 

 

I'm all for exposing politicians and their lies but this case is just plain daft. Dragging the courts into political controversy offers fuel for the populist fire and eventually, in extremis, leads to actual fascism. Instead of turning to the courts, we must seek a way to strengthen the routes to accountability for elected officials (ofc the referendum broke the usual routes to accountability).

 

[simFox]

365 gross. 350 written on the bus.

 

Not sure what the case is about.

[urban.spaceman]

David Cameron was the only person in 2016 in any position of power to implement the result of the referendum. When he called the snap referendum he created a situation where absolutely everyone other than him could suggest, or promise, absolutely anything, and not have to be held accountable for it. And then when it all goes wrong he ****s off. It’s him who should be being prosecuted for gross negligence in high office. The pig raping ****. 

[simFox]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

David Cameron was the only person in 2016 in any position of power to implement the result of the referendum. When he called the snap referendum he created a situation where absolutely everyone other than him could suggest, or promise, absolutely anything, and not have to be held accountable for it. And then when it all goes wrong he ****s off. It’s him who should be being prosecuted for gross negligence in high office. The pig raping ****. 

It wasn't a snap referendum, it was part of his manifesto that won the election, that took the UKIP vote. He kept his promise.

 

But yes, he ****ed off. But he still kept his promise, which does him some credit.

[urban.spaceman]

6 minutes ago, simFox said:

It wasn't a snap referendum, it was part of his manifesto that won the election, that took the UKIP vote. He kept his promise.

 

But yes, he ****ed off. But he still kept his promise, which does him some credit.

I appreciate that but I’d still argue it was a snap referendum, especially when you compare it to the Scottish referendum which essentially had 2 years after it was called to hold the necessary debates. The SNP therefore had time to work on their plan, which was shit, but at least they had something to offer - all the ‘Naw’ side had was the status quo until they panicked the weekend before based on one poll in one newspaper.

 

For Brexit, the announcement of the June 23rd referendum date came on Feb 20th. Four months for the whole country to prepare for a life changing decision.

[simFox]

Eh? He made his pledge at the election! If you didn't believe him fair enough, but he did what he said he was going to do BEFORE he was elected!

[Facecloth]

20 minutes ago, simFox said:

Eh? He made his pledge at the election! If you didn't believe him fair enough, but he did what he said he was going to do BEFORE he was elected!

The point is he called it too close to when they held it. He could have given a years warning and still kept his promise, but he called it 4 months prior to the date.

[Buce]

Brexit party in talks to join far-right group in EU parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/brexit-party-said-talks-to-join-far-right-group-in-eu-parliament

[What the Fuchs?]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

The point is he called it too close to when they held it. He could have given a years warning and still kept his promise, but he called it 4 months prior to the date.

He only did it in his own self-interest to take votes from UKIP, but then his own hubris caught up with him. Easily one of the worst prime ministers of modern times.

[simFox]

7 minutes ago, What the Fuchs? said:

He only did it in his own self-interest to take votes from UKIP, but then his own hubris caught up with him. Easily one of the worst prime ministers of modern times.

Until you consider Gordon Brown.

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Many people respond to a simple message.  The bus slogan was a simple message.  Farage and his line "of immigrants" was a simple message.  A very, very simple untruth in essence.  What's democratic about that?

 

Interesting article:

 

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-modern-democracy-be-based-upon-lies

 

 

What sticks out in people's minds when they think back to the leave campain 3 years later?  Without a doubt, the majority of people will say the bus and the line of people.

Does it matter if it is £350m or £270m? Vast amount of money

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, What the Fuchs? said:

He only did it in his own self-interest to take votes from UKIP, but then his own hubris caught up with him. Easily one of the worst prime ministers of modern times.

Oh yeah, I know why he called it. I don't like the reasons, it was reckless, selfish and only had his and his partys interests in it, and **** the country. I didn't like it, but he isn't the first and won't be the last politician to do the same. But the way it was called, the timing of the announcement prior to the date was stupid. 4 months to put together a campaign. Why? Why do short. He had a five year window to fit that referendum in. He could have called it thr day after he won and still held it on the day they did. He could have held it a year later then it was held. Why the rush?

[simFox]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Oh yeah, I know why he called it. I don't like the reasons, it was reckless, selfish and only had his and his partys interests in it, and **** the country. I didn't like it, but he isn't the first and won't be the last politician to do the same. But the way it was called, the timing of the announcement prior to the date was stupid. 4 months to put together a campaign. Why? Why do short. He had a five year window to fit that referendum in. He could have called it thr day after he won and still held it on the day they did. He could have held it a year later then it was held. Why the rush?

Campaigns cost money. A long campaign isn't necessary and is destructive to other issues. There was nothing wrong with the first referendum unless you're a remainer.

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, simFox said:

I didn't vote leave based on the bus slogan. I voted leave because I didn't believe a word of project fear. Biggest pack of lies i'd ever heard.

Is that your learned opinion?

[What the Fuchs?]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Oh yeah, I know why he called it. I don't like the reasons, it was reckless, selfish and only had his and his partys interests in it, and **** the country. I didn't like it, but he isn't the first and won't be the last politician to do the same. But the way it was called, the timing of the announcement prior to the date was stupid. 4 months to put together a campaign. Why? Why do short. He had a five year window to fit that referendum in. He could have called it thr day after he won and still held it on the day they did. He could have held it a year later then it was held. Why the rush?

Because his big-headedness and possibly his very privileged upbringing instilled in him a vain belief that he couldn’t lose. He campaigned like he’d already won.