josephbloggs

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

I have strong reservations about Farage, particularly when he transfers his attention and commentary to the US political scene, but on this he is quite right, the Tories have failed on Brexit. They had the tool and the mandate to make a much better fist of it than they have, faffed around on the fringes and failed dismally.

The Tories are useless and despicable and they need to go next year. But saying Brexit is a failure because of them sounds like an excuse to me. Brexit was doomed to be a failure from the start but those concerns were labelled "project fear" and dismissed.

For me the Tories are to blame 100%, but only because they called the referendum in the first place for their own selfish interests. It is pretty clear to me that deep down they never expected Leave to win, but when there was a sniff of it people like Johnson switched sides and switched allegiance immediately, again purely to suit their own agenda and ambitions. Add then the Russian influence and Cambridge Analytica and it was game over. And here we are. And most of the "Project fear" concerns have come true.

It should also be noted that Farage is/was only in it for himself too right from the off. He's another despicable human that shouldn't be given column inches. Same as Christopher Yaxley-Lennon and all the other human detritus that made themselves a lot of money by whipping up the xenophobes / racists - only ever in it for themselves. So for him to come out and say Brexit would have been great but the Tories have messed it up is ridiculous, Brexit itself is the cause of our problems and nothing else.

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You either need to choose whether you want just one referendum or have a referendum every five years .

  You cannot choose to have  referendums until you get the result that you want, and then stop having referendums after that .

I can help you with this. Nigel Farage, arch Brexiteer and a hero to the many uninformed, proclaimed before the referendum that if Remain won by a small margin (perhaps 52-48%) then it would be "unfinished business" and there should be a re-run. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Hypocrisy of the highest order.
 

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Straight from the horses mouth. Even Remainers think Rejoining is a bad idea.

Pathetic. Is that really what you took from my post? It was quite obvious what I meant, don't try such childish tricks please.

11 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Here are the facts,

 

UK has left EU.

 

There have been no calls for another referendum.

 

No political parties have said they support rejoining 

 

Much as I think Brexit was the most ill thought out, self harming, disastrous thing that any UK government has implemented in the last 30 years, and much as I despise the fact that it was all based on a pack of lies and it has made the UK a worse place and it has stripped the rights of free movement of my children (mostly because of bigoted logic), nobody is going to stand on a platform of rejoining. Not because they don't think that leaving was a huge mistake but because we would be rejoining in an extremely weak position.

We had exceptional power and rights in the EU, we had the power to opt out of things we didn't like (single currency, Shengen), we had special privileges that "normal" member states did not have. We had negotiated excellent rebates. If we rejoin that tomorrow all of that is gone. Gone forever, we would NEVER have those special privileges again, we have lost our bargaining power completely. And no, they don't need us more than we need it. Add to that the ill feeling created by our ridiculous antics, by poisonous buffoons like Farage, Johnson et al.  And all member states would have to agree to have us - - I wouldn't want us back after the way we've behaved!

So campaigning on a promise to rejoin would be pointless as I don't think we even could rejoin for the next 20 years.

On 5/14/2023 at 3:36 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps someone in favour of getting rid of these so called ‘EU Laws’ can give us an example of which particular laws they want to get rid of and why

Maybe I missed the replies or the mods got rid of them, but how many people got back to you on this? There must have been tons of Franco/German oppressive laws they want rid of so I am curious to know what they are - would be great if you could steer to me to the replies as I can't seem to find them. 

On 5/12/2023 at 8:53 PM, JonnyF said:

It doesn’t matter if we remove them this year or next year. Or 2030.

 

The fact is, since the people spoke via the democratic vote in 2016, WE CAN. It’s up to us. The British answer to nobody and certainly not unelected EU technocrats.

 

Democracy. Self determination. Sovereignty. Marvelous.

A gold star for being the first in this thread to trot out the "unelected EU technocrats/bureaucrats" cliche.  (You would have got another gold star for adding in "faceless" - you can do better next time).

You do know that unelected bureaucrats are also known as civil servants and are part of every government. You obviously know that that the UK has almost half a million of them as apposed to less than 40,000 in the EU. That means the UK has over ten times the amount of unelected bureaucrats than the EU despite having less than 15% of the population.

No doubt you are horrified by this and will be voting to leave the UK. 

On 5/12/2023 at 6:03 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is probably the reason why I haven't been able to buy straight bananas in my UK Supermarket .

   There are still E.U laws banning them 

There have never been EU Laws banning bendy bananas. If you honestly believe they were banned then you are clearly gullible enough to believe without question the £350m a week to the NHS and all the other lies of the campaign.

59 minutes ago, Jonathan Swift said:

yeah, the world is hard to understand sometimes, isn't it? Ever hear the phrase protected/endangered species? Look it up and you'll find explanations why no one is allowed to approach or interact with them. 

Yes, I am aware of endangered species and agree they should be protected. I also think he should have known better considering he lives on the island. But I was replying to the poster who said he should be thrown in jail for 30 days. Do you advocate him being locked up in a Thai prison for a month for what he did? If so please explain why. 

Quote

Might be over your head, though. Like climate change. 

 

What the heck on you on about??

3 minutes ago, steven100 said:

throw his sorry ass in jail for a month ... 

....for touching a fish????

6 hours ago, sezze said:

Why ? Because the name is there already . You do not need the marketing for a new name , the name got history , even if it is not yours (same like other brands do , there are now only a few big players and they got dozens of brands) . Even in the beginning after the takeover they just made the same cars as they did before , but now under Chinese flag . You buy the name , the designs , the know how , well basically you did buy a carbrand from scratch . Making the same some that scratch takes whole lot more effort and with that money . There is a risk involved , which is , the company failed in the 1st place , so you buy a bankrupt brand . But for the Asian market it didnt matter , so good gamble on them i'd say .

Yep, and they have turned a failed British brand in to a huge success so well played to them.