Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
I Believe said:
Yes there are, but not enough for the UK to remain.

The EU will be dismantled now, but from the outside not within, it is impossible for it to re-invent or reform itself from the inside. I worked for 5 years for the EU, it was corrupt then (why I left) and its gone into itself now, totally insulated against change, too many know where the bodies are buried, to much too lose.

We need to start again, Britain should invite those like minded European countries to secede from the EU and form new Common Market that is about trade only.
Click to expand...

When politics is involved there will always be corruption. I doubt that the tories gave 1b to the dup out of a carefully planned strategic plan

Regarding your second comment the uk has been doing that for months. In malta we had Farage suggesting a sort of union among commonwealth nations. He was laughed off. Why on earth would we leave europe to rejoin a sort of empire mark 2 were everything is heavily staked towards the big guns? Why would we open our market and get little to nothing out of it in exchange? Not everyone is keen to self harm
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
When politics is involved there will always be corruption
Click to expand...

Really, is that acceptable then? Perhaps you do things different in your neck of the woods?

devilish said:
I doubt that the tories gave 1b to the dup out of a carefully planned strategic plan
Click to expand...

No, out of a tactical necessity and done in the full glare of national and international publicity.

The EU has around 15 years of unaudited accounts, no one gets to see these accounts, only the EU Commissioner's, this what you mean by political corruption?
 
I Believe said:
Really, is that acceptable then? Perhaps you do things different in your neck of the woods?



No, out of a tactical necessity and done in the full glare of national and international publicity.

The EU has around 15 years of unaudited accounts, no one gets to see these accounts, only the EU Commissioner's, this what you mean by political corruption?
Click to expand...

Is that how buying votes for the Tory government to survive another day is called these days? What about going head long into the Iraqi war despite knowing fully well that there's no WMDs? Is killing thousands of innocent based on a lie considered a tactical necessity too?
 
I Believe said:
Really, is that acceptable then? Perhaps you do things different in your neck of the woods?



No, out of a tactical necessity and done in the full glare of national and international publicity.

The EU has around 15 years of unaudited accounts, no one gets to see these accounts, only the EU Commissioner's, this what you mean by political corruption?
Click to expand...

More Brexiteer tripe, your facts seem to be way off the mark

Here's 2015 report - 300 odd pages of light reading for you
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreports-2015/annualreports-2015-EN.pdf
 
Last edited:
Dobba said:
So, if you follow the usual Brexiteer logic, you don't want your money going to people you haven't elected, unless it's to prop up a UK government?
Click to expand...


So what's wrong with the UK Government spending UK Taxpayers money on UK citizens ?

You're suggesting it would be more appropriate if they should have given it to Brussels to spend on building motorways in Lithuania or Spain ?


devilish said:
Is that how buying votes for the Tory government to survive another day is called these days? What about going head long into the Iraqi war despite knowing fully well that there's no WMDs? Is killing thousands of innocent based on a lie considered a tactical necessity too?
Click to expand...

Blame Tony Bliar and Labour for that - bugger all to do with the the Conservatives.
 
devilish said:
The British are still stuck to some royal families a relic that stinks of medieval rule. Sure they are expensive poster boys but it still give the impression that if one is born out from a certain family then his very future is ensured simply thanks to his blood line. Its democratic structure is a farce. Parties can get 12.5% of the votes and still end up with just 1 seat in parliament. Not to forget that its ignores a big chunk of the voter. I am a Lib Dem/Labour voter living in a council with a strong Tory base. Therefore my vote isn't worth the paper its printed upon.

Regarding human rights....well....they had been negotiable for many many years. From having such a great weapons business with Saudi Arabia knowing very well where they will end right to invading so many countries without any reason at all (WMDs?). The very fact that the UK expect the EU to go against their own morals and still sign a deal for business sake speaks volumes about their moral compass. I wonder what will be thrown under the bus in exchange for business (ie this time round with the US) Would it be the farmers who'll have to compete with cheaper GMOs produce and chlorinated chicken? Would it be the NHS?

So no, as an outsider I don't trust the British 'human rights' rule. As an immigrant whose country know exactly what the British rule are capable of, I trust them even less.

If the UK starts making restraints on immigrants then its only fair for the EU to do the same.Most EU immigrants residing in the UK are young, they are taxpayers and therefore they give a beneficial contribution to society. Can you say the same about the UK citizens who had retired in Spain, France and beyond?
Click to expand...

I really do not think this is going anywhere productive. So I'll give you this brief reply, you can reply if you wish, and we can agree to disagee.

I don't paticularly agree with the monarchy, nor the peerage system and I agree the voting system could do with some reform. But none of those are human rights issues. France and Germany also both sell Saudi Arabia large amounts of weapons and if we're going to go all the way back to colonialism then I also assume you don't trust the EU on human rights because let us look at Germany in the 30s and 40s, let us look at France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands when it comes to colonialism. Yet you seem fine to have them having significant influence over EU human rights policy. It's only the UK for some reason you take issue with.

It's kind of ironic that you say "The very fact that the UK expect the EU to go against their own morals and still sign a deal for business sake speaks volumes about their moral compass." Because that's also exactly what is happening in reverse. That is the point of negotiations, to find a middle ground you can both walk away from happy.

No one is selling the NHS, that is again, something with no solid factual basis. I'm also assuming you disliked the EU for the proposed TTIP deal if you are also that concerned about the NHS?

Erm. UK citizens in Spain, France etc who went to retire over there will have their pensions paid for by the UK and any healthcare costs to those nations paid for by the UK. In some cases they probably contribute to increased house prices, which if was to a degree felt it was a negative then I would have 0 issue with them putting a cap or whatever. Yes, it would be perfectly fair for the EU to put in a system, but iff you really can't see that there would be a difference between the UK giving all already within the UK the right to remain and putting limits on new arrivals and your proposal of the EU kicking out Brits already there then I don't know what to say, and I don't think this will go anywhere.
 
Kentonio said:
The part you're skipping over is that in that same period (and in large part because of our membership) we reconstructed Britain from a failing manufacturing state into a hugely successful and rich service and financial industry led country. Over the last 10 years there has been a real slump in the conditions of a lot of working people thanks to respective governments taking the side of corporations and banks, but nothing today compares to the shitshow that was Britain in the 70's. Can you even imagine what the country would do today if the government announced that they could only have electricity for 3 days a week? Or if the streets were filled with huge mounds of rubbish because no-one was collecting it for weeks? Or if the dead weren't being buried because even the grave-diggers were on strike? Nothing today compares to that, but then again people's expectations are considerably higher today than they were then.

That's what pisses me off about the Leave arguments about the amount of money we put in, they never bother to mention the huge benefits including economic benefits that we've taken back as a result. The vast, vast majority of experts have told you that leaving would be a huge economic hit, so why aren't you listening to them?
Click to expand...


No, we didn't.

We closed down whole industries left the people who used to work in them and the communities which depended on them to rot. There was no either or choice, developing the financial service sector didn't mean ending manufacturing it's a false dichotomy and it is one of the reasons the UK voted Brexit by the way. Those areas were left without hope and cut off from the new opportunities and benefits of the growth in the well-paid service sectors.

None of which had anything to do with the EU if it did then why is France still struggling to deal with the power of its unions?
 
Full bodied red said:
So what's wrong with the UK Government spending UK Taxpayers money on UK citizens ?

You're suggesting it would be more appropriate if they should have given it to Brussels to spend on building motorways in Lithuania or Spain ?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously defending the bung :lol:
 
IWat said:
I really do not think this is going anywhere productive. So I'll give you this brief reply, you can reply if you wish, and we can agree to disagee.

I don't paticularly agree with the monarchy, nor the peerage system and I agree the voting system could do with some reform. But none of those are human rights issues. France and Germany also both sell Saudi Arabia large amounts of weapons and if we're going to go all the way back to colonialism then I also assume you don't trust the EU on human rights because let us look at Germany in the 30s and 40s, let us look at France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands when it comes to colonialism. Yet you seem fine to have them having significant influence over EU human rights policy. It's only the UK for some reason you take issue with.
Click to expand...

As said I had the opportunity to vote twice in the GE. I did out of habit but since I am a lib dem/Labour in a Conservative stronghold my vote wasn't even worth the paper it was printed out. Now if the government cant give a feck about the voter's opinion imagine how they care about the random joe.

It's kind of ironic that you say "The very fact that the UK expect the EU to go against their own morals and still sign a deal for business sake speaks volumes about their moral compass." Because that's also exactly what is happening in reverse. That is the point of negotiations, to find a middle ground you can both walk away from happy.
Click to expand...

I fear that the only party who is desperate for a trade deal is the UK. The EU simply wants an orderly Brexit and that the UK pays what it signs for. They might be willing to offer some sort of trade deal (like CETA) if that is agreed but by the looks of it that is really not at the top of the EU agenda.

No one is selling the NHS, that is again, something with no solid factual basis. I'm also assuming you disliked the EU for the proposed TTIP deal if you are also that concerned about the NHS?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of friends who work in the NHS and they are all in agreement that the NHS is on buying time. Its not a matter of if anymore but a matter of when. Regarding the second comment, the TTIP collapsed for a numerous of reasons but mostly it was because the EU refused to bend over backwards to the US and their private corporations. Can you see the UK turning a trade deal with the US especially if a hard brexit occur?

Erm. UK citizens in Spain, France etc who went to retire over there will have their pensions paid for by the UK and any healthcare costs to those nations paid for by the UK. In some cases they probably contribute to increased house prices, which if was to a degree felt it was a negative then I would have 0 issue with them putting a cap or whatever. Yes, it would be perfectly fair for the EU to put in a system, but iff you really can't see that there would be a difference between the UK giving all already within the UK the right to remain and putting limits on new arrivals and your proposal of the EU kicking out Brits already there then I don't know what to say, and I don't think this will go anywhere.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...pensions-health-care-and-public-a6903211.html

All I said is that its very dangerous for the UK to start considering people as a burden especially if they happen to be citizens of the same bloc the UK is desperate to have a trade deal with. Believe it or not the two are quite related. India had already said that there's no way the UK will get a trade deal with the country unless it relaxes its rules on immigration. I strongly believe the EU thinks in the same way
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
No, we didn't.

We closed down whole industries left the people who used to work in them and the communities which depended on them to rot. There was no either or choice, developing the financial service sector didn't mean ending manufacturing it's a false dichotomy and it is one of the reasons the UK voted Brexit by the way. Those areas were left without hope and cut off from the new opportunities and benefits of the growth in the well-paid service sectors.

None of which had anything to do with the EU if it did then why is France still struggling to deal with the power of its unions?
Click to expand...


Not often Kentonio and I agree - but he's absoltely 101% correct here.

I survived the UK when Wilson let the unions run the country; likewise Callaghan.

More miraculously, I managed to survive when Heath and Thatcher screwed up the country for generations still to come.

Just really, really glad that I saw the light and left when I did - a man can only take so much.


Edited - Shit, thought it was Kentonio who said that....No wonder I'm surprised that I agreed with the statement.
 
Kentonio said:
The part you're skipping over is that in that same period (and in large part because of our membership) we reconstructed Britain from a failing manufacturing state into a hugely successful and rich service and financial industry led country. Over the last 10 years there has been a real slump in the conditions of a lot of working people thanks to respective governments taking the side of corporations and banks, but nothing today compares to the shitshow that was Britain in the 70's. Can you even imagine what the country would do today if the government announced that they could only have electricity for 3 days a week? Or if the streets were filled with huge mounds of rubbish because no-one was collecting it for weeks? Or if the dead weren't being buried because even the grave-diggers were on strike? Nothing today compares to that, but then again people's expectations are considerably higher today than they were then.

That's what pisses me off about the Leave arguments about the amount of money we put in, they never bother to mention the huge benefits including economic benefits that we've taken back as a result. The vast, vast majority of experts have told you that leaving would be a huge economic hit, so why aren't you listening to them?
Click to expand...
Britain in the 70s Holland in the 60s & 80s, France has taken over as strike capital of the eurozone they just don't have a Thatcher to batter everyone into submission. Closing coalmines to import from Australia cos it was cheaper( another race to the bottom ), trickle down economics which worked for the few, neoliberal politics at its best. European politics has been putting the power with the banks and large corporations to this day yet you condemn it in your post.

People went on strike cos they had the right to and so they should. And as to your last couple of sentences, if people were feeling the benefits the ref would have a different result. The fact that very few benefit is thanks to the neoliberal way of euro politics which you so much adore. Less we talk about experts the better. I mean does anyone really care how the country is doing so long as they can provide for their family?? Probably yeas but first and foremost not.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Here's 2015 report - 300 odd pages of light reading for you
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreports-2015/annualreports-2015-EN.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL! This is an OJEC publication its the EU's own court of auditors report, the EU auditing themselves, my goodness they have dozens of these... where are the independent auditors report?
No wonder the EU's in a mess, when I worked for the EU (late 9o's to early 00's) I asked 12 times for independent auditors to audit a relatively low cost project, Brussels refused every time.
 
I Believe said:
LOL! This is an OJEC publication its the EU's own court of auditors report, the EU auditing themselves, my goodness they have dozens of these... where are the independent auditors report?
No wonder the EU's in a mess, when I worked for the EU (late 9o's to early 00's) I asked 12 times for independent auditors to audit a relatively low cost project, Brussels refused every time.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the European Court of Auditors is not independent and that their findings are in collusion with the EU to misrepresent the actual finances of the EU and it's the EU who's in a mess and not the UK and it's the EU that's going to disintegrate and not the UK economy
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

Or something a bit like the National Audit Office or Public Accounts Committee in the UK
 
Last edited:
The Outsider said:
the police dealing with waves of EU criminals needing translators at £150 per call out as well as dealing with disaffected descendants of earlier waves of immigration, farmers having livestock stolen, churches having lead stolen from roofs and railway tracks stripped of wire and you can start to understand the rising tide of anger.
Click to expand...

:lol: Because this is all done by EU immigrants is it? 80% of all unemployed in this country are UK nationals. But the 20% EU citizens are the ones committing all the crime.

Time to stop reading the Daily Express, bud.
 
Dobba said:
Which page can I find the £1bn DUP bung in the Tory manifesto again?
Click to expand...

rcoobc said:
Are you seriously defending the bung :lol:
Click to expand...


The equivalent of a pin prick on a gnat's bollock compared to the £40 billion > £50 billion that Corbyn promised to give to students to vote Labour.

And then denied he'd actually promised to.....

But just as well that bribe didn't work, because Corbyn is whipping his MPs to vote against Brexit even though he privately supports it. Caroline Flint says MPs should rebel against the Labour whip. Thanks to Keir Starmer Labour officially want to stay in the single market during the transition, even though Corbynistas think the single market is a neoliberal tool of the bosses and want to leave it. Tom Watson says Labour could stay in the single market forever, yet John McDonnell says we have to leave it to respect the referendum result. Frontbenchers Jon Ashworth and Jenny Chapman say Watson is wrong, Heidi Alexander and Alison McGovern say he is right. Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis say Labour must support free movement, Corbyn and Starmer say free movement will end after Brexit. Barry Gardiner says staying in the customs union would be a “disaster“, yet Starmer says we should remain in “a” customs union during the transition. Watson says we could stay in indefinitely. Tony Blair says we should just stay in the EU but now says FoM needs to stop.

So I suppose £1 Billion to avoid Labour's very own self-imposed chaos is something of a bargain.
 
Full bodied red said:
http://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-i-never-promised-to-abolish-student-debt-10958430
Click to expand...

I mean, it's really nice of you to prove my point for me. But isn't it usual to try and link to something that backs up your viewpoint? (Not that you can, because you've made it up mind)

It's ironic you bring this up this week actually seeing as Theresa May is reportedly trying to win back young voters by altering the terms of student debt retroactively to ease the burden caused by interest payments.

But one rule for the Tories and one rule for everyone else right?
 
Dobba said:
No he isn't you utter imbecile.

Though it was awfully nice of you to point out that you're clueless before the wall of text really got going.
Click to expand...

I'm just imaging how long you could make a list of contradictory things various members of the Brexit team have said or done.

That's what I don't really understand about the current Brexit supporters posting here. If you're of the opinion that Brexit could be a good thing, then surely you should be absolutely seething with the completely clueless, bungling imbeciles in charge of it right now for fecking it up.
 
So where does it actually say what you've claimed you nightmare of a man :lol:
 
NinjaFletch said:
I think rcoobc probably know the difference between promising to end student loans going forward and writing off student debt.

Unfortunately you don't, but perhaps you should go and look it up before you continue to make a tit of yourself?
Click to expand...


I never mentioned writing off student debt -

compared to the £40 billion > £50 billion that Corbyn promised to give to students to vote Labour.

And the difference is ??

Maybe you couldn't make it to Uni yourself so get easily confused if you have to think about something before answering.
 
Last edited:
Full bodied red said:
I never mentioned writing off student debt -

compared to the £40 billion > £50 billion that Corbyn promised to give to students to vote Labour.

And the difference is ??
Click to expand...
One was a manifesto policy. One was an after the fact bribe.
 
You're a tad confused I think.

Labour wrote a manifesto. A tax and spend manifesto. They were going to tax. And they were going to spend. The promised to privatise, they promised to fund public projects, and they promised to scrap tuition fees.

This was going to cost a lot. But their numbers more or less added up depending on how much people thought they would bring in from their increased tax rates.

Later, some people started claiming that Labour were promising to scrap the existing student debt. This wasn't a manifesto promise, although Corbyn did say he would look at it. Later, others criticised him for backtracking, forcing Corbyn to say "I never said we would abolish student debt" (your link)

No one is saying that Labour's policy wouldn't cost a lot. It would.

But saying "there is no magic money tree" and then finding £1bn to pay a bribe is something else.

theresas-magic-money-tree.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.