Were Brexit campaigners straight with voters over claims?

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

Here's another example of how the Leavers deceived people on the referendum. They promised that a leave vote would benefit British fishing men with greater catches.. Because, you know, the mostly conservative leaders have always been first and foremost concerned for the British worker. On the other hand there's this:

One thing is clear: the UK government cannot settle back into its old habit of privileging a handful of large companies to the detriment of the UK’s small-scale fishermen. It wasn’t the EU that gave almost two-thirds of the entire fishing quota of England and Wales to just three companies - it was the British government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

It seems to me that you are mixing up apples with oranges.

The EU sets the fishing quote for the UK. If the UK is out of the EU, they need not respect this quota if they don't want to.

The allocation of any quota is a different matter altogether.

Had you bothered to read the article you would know that this isn't the case.

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

My bad, thanks for that. So you mean that he can have dual nationality as the Mayor of London but not if he wants to become PM?

According to this bbc page, not only could he have dual citizenship, but he doesn't need to have UK citizenship at all to become prime minister. He could also be a citizen of Ireland or any Commonwealth country. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27371673

OK so substitute commonwealth for UK citizen, pedantic at best.

Pedantic, really? You think it's a small thing that a citizen of, say Papua New Guinea, can become Prime Minister of the UK? I was rather surprised by that. Also, Gweiloman construed from your comment that Johnson couldn't have dual citizenship and become Prime Minister. Dual citizenship is no obstacle at all under current law.

teatree · June 28, 2016

Calm down Andrew. You're ranting aimlessly. Nobody knows the make up of the next set of political teams yet, and it's a non-issue until a general election is called.

I don't know what on earth you are talking about and I suspect neither do you. The next general election is due in about 4 years but in the next few months we will get a new PM and a completely new cabinet and you haven't got a clue who any of them are going to be.

And they can be voted out at the next election if we don't like their performance.

But nobody who voted at the last election voted for the person who is about to become PM nor any of those who who will form the government. So this new government will have no mandate and we will have to wait four years to do anything about it.

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

pitrevie · June 28, 2016

On topic - the headline of this thread seriously annoys me as its so obvious that both sides ran their campaign on the fear factor, and did their best to obscure any actual facts.

It would be nice to think that one day politicians will run their campaigns on facts and genuinely held belief, rather than fear - and worthless 'promises'. Unfortunately, its not going to happen in my lifetime .

Which is why we have independent sources like Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority who debunked the NHS claim of 350 million and the numerous independent financial organizations that stated what their research predicted but all of that was dismissed. So if all that is going to be dismissed then I think the only thing left is divine intervention.

So the 'remain' campaign were straight with voters?

Of course they were not which is why the claims they made were also rubbished where it was applicable.

chiang mai · June 28, 2016

My bad, thanks for that. So you mean that he can have dual nationality as the Mayor of London but not if he wants to become PM?

According to this bbc page, not only could he have dual citizenship, but he doesn't need to have UK citizenship at all to become prime minister. He could also be a citizen of Ireland or any Commonwealth country. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27371673

OK so substitute commonwealth for UK citizen, pedantic at best.

Pedantic, really? You think it's a small thing that a citizen of, say Papua New Guinea, can become Prime Minister of the UK? I was rather surprised by that. Also, Gweiloman construed from your comment that Johnson couldn't have dual citizenship and become Prime Minister. Dual citizenship is no obstacle at all under current law.

Current law is not the issue, try running for PM of a party in the UK when you are viewed as being a foreigner, especially an American, and see what happens, why else do you think he changed renounced his US citizenship.

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

According to this bbc page, not only could he have dual citizenship, but he doesn't need to have UK citizenship at all to become prime minister. He could also be a citizen of Ireland or any Commonwealth country. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27371673

OK so substitute commonwealth for UK citizen, pedantic at best.

Pedantic, really? You think it's a small thing that a citizen of, say Papua New Guinea, can become Prime Minister of the UK? I was rather surprised by that. Also, Gweiloman construed from your comment that Johnson couldn't have dual citizenship and become Prime Minister. Dual citizenship is no obstacle at all under current law.

Current law is not the issue, try running for PM of a party in the UK when you are viewed as being a foreigner, especially an American, and see what happens, why else do you think he changed renounced his US citizenship.

I was answering this question: My bad, thanks for that. So you mean that he can have dual nationality as the Mayor of London but not if he wants to become PM?

pitrevie · June 28, 2016

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

Gweiloman · June 28, 2016

Here's another example of how the Leavers deceived people on the referendum. They promised that a leave vote would benefit British fishing men with greater catches.. Because, you know, the mostly conservative leaders have always been first and foremost concerned for the British worker. On the other hand there's this:

One thing is clear: the UK government cannot settle back into its old habit of privileging a handful of large companies to the detriment of the UK’s small-scale fishermen. It wasn’t the EU that gave almost two-thirds of the entire fishing quota of England and Wales to just three companies - it was the British government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

It seems to me that you are mixing up apples with oranges.

The EU sets the fishing quote for the UK. If the UK is out of the EU, they need not respect this quota if they don't want to.

The allocation of any quota is a different matter altogether.

Had you bothered to read the article you would know that this isn't the case.

I did read the article. I also read the Common Fisheries Policy http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm

You started off your post by stating how the Leavers deceived the people. I don't think the article supports that view.

teatree · June 28, 2016

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

Here's another example of how the Leavers deceived people on the referendum. They promised that a leave vote would benefit British fishing men with greater catches.. Because, you know, the mostly conservative leaders have always been first and foremost concerned for the British worker. On the other hand there's this:

One thing is clear: the UK government cannot settle back into its old habit of privileging a handful of large companies to the detriment of the UK’s small-scale fishermen. It wasn’t the EU that gave almost two-thirds of the entire fishing quota of England and Wales to just three companies - it was the British government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

It seems to me that you are mixing up apples with oranges.

The EU sets the fishing quote for the UK. If the UK is out of the EU, they need not respect this quota if they don't want to.

The allocation of any quota is a different matter altogether.

“Unfortunately, perhaps, the UK’s geopolitical position means that it is not politically or legally possible just to ringfence most of our fish resources, in the way that, for example, Iceland can. The reality is that most of our stocks are shared with other countries to some degree or other.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

pitrevie · June 28, 2016

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

Such is the interest in accountability that the figures in local election usually hover around the 20% mark. In the last UK general election it was around 66%. Ask any voter the names of the people currently occupying the top 3 offices in the UK government and I doubt if the majority would get one name and many would be pushed to name the PM. it was revealing listening to people being asked what Brexit was about, I shouldn't use the word revealing, hysterical was more like it. Most people dont give a damn what goes on at Westminster let alone the EU.

Gweiloman · June 28, 2016

Here's another example of how the Leavers deceived people on the referendum. They promised that a leave vote would benefit British fishing men with greater catches.. Because, you know, the mostly conservative leaders have always been first and foremost concerned for the British worker. On the other hand there's this:

One thing is clear: the UK government cannot settle back into its old habit of privileging a handful of large companies to the detriment of the UK’s small-scale fishermen. It wasn’t the EU that gave almost two-thirds of the entire fishing quota of England and Wales to just three companies - it was the British government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

It seems to me that you are mixing up apples with oranges.

The EU sets the fishing quote for the UK. If the UK is out of the EU, they need not respect this quota if they don't want to.

The allocation of any quota is a different matter altogether.

“Unfortunately, perhaps, the UK’s geopolitical position means that it is not politically or legally possible just to ringfence most of our fish resources, in the way that, for example, Iceland can. The reality is that most of our stocks are shared with other countries to some degree or other.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/british-fishermen-warned-brexit-will-not-mean-greater-catches

Again, ringfencing is a very different issue from that of quotas.

But let's agree to disagree, shall we?

Khun Han · June 28, 2016

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

According to a Centre for European Reform study, one of the most repeated claims made about the EU is that Brussels, namely, the European Commission, dictated 75% of British laws. In reality, the percentage of secondary legislation resulting from EU requirements is actually about 10-13%. Most of that relates to business regulation, VAT and excise duties.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-eu-needs-to-do-to-avoid-losing-more-member-states-2016-6

Khun Han · June 28, 2016

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

Such is the interest in accountability that the figures in local election usually hover around the 20% mark. In the last UK general election it was around 66%. Ask any voter the names of the people currently occupying the top 3 offices in the UK government and I doubt if the majority would get one name and many would be pushed to name the PM. it was revealing listening to people being asked what Brexit was about, I shouldn't use the word revealing, hysterical was more like it. Most people dont give a damn what goes on at Westminster let alone the EU.

More bizarre 'remain' logic from him: some people don't show much interest in politics so those of us who do should just capitulate.

I strongly suspect (and statements over the years have alluded to this) that the whole EU federalism project was reliant on the ignorance of member populations. Well, we just bucked the trend and p1ssed on their frites. And now our destiny isn't decided by people from other countries who don't particularly like us.

Khun Han · June 28, 2016

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

According to a Centre for European Reform study, one of the most repeated claims made about the EU is that Brussels, namely, the European Commission, dictated 75% of British laws. In reality, the percentage of secondary legislation resulting from EU requirements is actually about 10-13%. Most of that relates to business regulation, VAT and excise duties.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-eu-needs-to-do-to-avoid-losing-more-member-states-2016-6

Do you really want to get into a discussion about EU laws that have been imposed on the UK that are locally irrelevant/inappropriate? How much time do you have?

ilostmypassword · June 28, 2016

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

According to a Centre for European Reform study, one of the most repeated claims made about the EU is that Brussels, namely, the European Commission, dictated 75% of British laws. In reality, the percentage of secondary legislation resulting from EU requirements is actually about 10-13%. Most of that relates to business regulation, VAT and excise duties.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-eu-needs-to-do-to-avoid-losing-more-member-states-2016-6

Do you really want to get into a discussion about EU laws that have been imposed on the UK that are locally irrelevant/inappropriate? How much time do you have?

Just the ones that have undermined british sovereignty and turned Britons into vassals of Europe will do.

Khun Han · June 28, 2016

^Sorry, but you can't be selective. If you want to discuss intrusive EU law, you have to do so in all it's daft, gory detail .

Basil B · June 28, 2016

Carlos Moedas

Margrethe Vestager

Corina Cretu

Tibor Navracsics

Vera Jourova

Elzbieta Bienkowska

Violeta Bulc

Phil Hogan

Christos Stylianides

Pieere Moscovici

Marianne Thyssen

Dimitris Avramopoulos

Vytenis Andriukaitis

Karmenu Vella

Miguel Arias Canete

Neven Mimica

Cecilia Malmstrom

Johannes Hahn

Guenther Oettinger

Jyrki Katainen

Valdis Dombrovskis

Maros Sefcovic

Andrus Ansip

Kristalina Georgieva

Federica Mogherini

Frans Timmermans

No offense meant but would you want this group of people running your country and deciding on all the policies?

What makes you think any of the above would be any worse the Boris, Theresa or Nigel???

Thaiwine · June 28, 2016

There seems to be some confusion ( I think from scots ) how British Democracy works, let me try and help you out

We have a general election where we the people vote MP's into office, these ELECTED MP's then ELECT a prime minister from one of the ELECTED MP's

so you will see our prime minister is ELECTED not once but twice, the prime minister then appoints cabinet ministers from the ELECTED MP's

So now you see ALL our MP's are ELECTED into office by we the people.

mommysboy · June 28, 2016

"were-brexit-campaigners-straight-with-voters-over-claims?"

As with all politicians they lied, concealed, distorted and exaggerated, and told people what they wanted to hear in order to secure a vote. That would also apply to the opposite camp.

Not that I wish to defend any politician, it is nevertheless true that voters do not want to hear the truth, as it often involves telling them things that they don't want to believe or hear.

Andreas2 · June 28, 2016

I read many posts here re Brexit in which the authors either express their disappointment or their flat out schadenfreude of how the British politicians are starting and already struggling with the implementation of their people's mandate: Breaking off from the EU.

This is absolutely uncharted territory! Nobody has done this before. And all Britons who chose their self-determination over convenience deserve my highest respect!

I'm not sure if all of them are fully aware that they kicked a gigantic hornet's nest with their decision for self-determination. The powers that be will do everything, and I mean everything, to neutralise this unexpected uprising - On a global scale.

In a related topic I made this post where I referred to an article by an experienced bureaucrat who listed a few possibilities of how the "counter measures" of the elites could look like and how this movement could be derailed: Despite the Vote, the Odds Are Against Britain Leaving the EU

Reminder: This is only the beginning.

No matter what happens, stay your course. If I were a British citizen, I would put my trust in Nigel Farage. In my opinion, he has an impressive track record regarding self-determination and independence for the British people. I loosely followed him for the last ten years and he always managed to impress and excite me.

He is the purest you can get. And even if you think he wouldn't be the right person to lead GB out of the EU, I would stick with him and make sure that he is at least a very powerful watch dog who has his teeth close to the neck of my government - Very close.

Above, I mentioned the kick into the hornet's nest. If you don't know what I mean with this set phrase, then I recommend you an interview with Lord Monckton.

Warning to all self-proclaimed high information people, snowflakes, sjw's and other collectivists: This is not intended for you as you could easily feel offended by the straight (pun intended) talk. For anybody else, but who is not familiar with Alex Jones and his InfoWars channel: His style is sometimes - At least for me - a little bit annoying. But once you get over it, the information he provides is extremely interesting. And as I already noted in another post: Watch, listen, learn: InfoWars Full Show, 06/27/16

Stay your course, smash the smoke screens and get free again! Good luck to all my fellow freedom-preferring Britons.

June 28, 2016

^^ LOL! Even if I wish to see a swift UK's EU-exit and the best possible results for our EU side, think that would be considered as a very unfair for the UK.

While EU might wish to punish UK for the exit, we are no way willing to kill our friend, who shares most of our values. Both sides know that we'll be working together also in the future.

And anyone who listens to InfoWars.. well, if it's for pure entertainment purposes or understanding the psychology, do so. Just think it as an The Onion, without the funny part. If you think the nutters are on something, think again. At least read his Wikipedia page for starters.

Alex Jones on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American conspiracy theorist

Andreas2 · June 28, 2016

^^ LOL! Even if I wish to see a swift UK's EU-exit and the best possible results for our EU side, think that would be considered as a very unfair for the UK.

While EU might wish to punish UK for the exit, we are no way willing to kill our friend, who shares most of our values. Both sides know that we'll be working together also in the future.

And anyone who listens to InfoWars.. well, if it's for pure entertainment purposes or understanding the psychology, do so. Just think it as an The Onion, without the funny part. If you think the nutters are on something, think again. At least read his Wikipedia page for starters.

Alex Jones on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American conspiracy theorist

...High information reply of a mathematics genius.

Damn, why am I not impressed? That's all you got? Really? C'mon, you can do better, I still believe in you. Don't disappoint me, please... After all, you are a math genius, right?

Go back to bed and continue to request another referendum (by insulting fellow posters) for yourself and your young, intelligent, productive friends who were asleep during the rainy 23rd - Nothing changed for you, as others continue to decide for you, but now they are Britons... Don't panic, all is good. Huussaa, huussaa.

Anyway, in your opinion, what's wrong with self-determination and democracy? Any suggestion? Enlighten us, please.

Andreas2 · June 28, 2016

Watch, listen, learn.

Nigel Farage, EU Exit Speech In European Parliament

"Ladies and gentlemen, one major quality of democracy is, that you listen to those even if you don't share their opinions". President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz

"Diversity" includes diversity in opinions, values, merits. That's something many do not understand or accept. That's very sad. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with aggression.

Let the "Brexiters" find their way and let us Europeans live, trade and prosper together in peace. It's as simple as that. Elect, enable and encourage your governments to act accordingly.

MJP · June 28, 2016

I read many posts here re Brexit in which the authors either express their disappointment or their flat out schadenfreude of how the British politicians are starting and already struggling with the implementation of their people's mandate: Breaking off from the EU.

This is absolutely uncharted territory! Nobody has done this before. And all Britons who chose their self-determination over convenience deserve my highest respect!

I'm not sure if all of them are fully aware that they kicked a gigantic hornet's nest with their decision for self-determination. The powers that be will do everything, and I mean everything, to neutralise this unexpected uprising - On a global scale.

In a related topic I made this post where I referred to an article by an experienced bureaucrat who listed a few possibilities of how the "counter measures" of the elites could look like and how this movement could be derailed: Despite the Vote, the Odds Are Against Britain Leaving the EU

Reminder: This is only the beginning.

No matter what happens, stay your course. If I were a British citizen, I would put my trust in Nigel Farage. In my opinion, he has an impressive track record regarding self-determination and independence for the British people. I loosely followed him for the last ten years and he always managed to impress and excite me.

He is the purest you can get. And even if you think he wouldn't be the right person to lead GB out of the EU, I would stick with him and make sure that he is at least a very powerful watch dog who has his teeth close to the neck of my government - Very close.

Above, I mentioned the kick into the hornet's nest. If you don't know what I mean with this set phrase, then I recommend you an interview with Lord Monckton.

Warning to all self-proclaimed high information people, snowflakes, sjw's and other collectivists: This is not intended for you as you could easily feel offended by the straight (pun intended) talk. For anybody else, but who is not familiar with Alex Jones and his InfoWars channel: His style is sometimes - At least for me - a little bit annoying. But once you get over it, the information he provides is extremely interesting. And as I already noted in another post: Watch, listen, learn: InfoWars Full Show, 06/27/16

Stay your course, smash the smoke screens and get free again! Good luck to all my fellow freedom-preferring Britons.

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

HappyDazed · June 28, 2016

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

As for all the bullshit about freedom and self-determination ....radically changing the infrastructure of your nation with no plan thus devaluing your assets and currency? ....is the apex of stupidity!

Edited June 28, 2016 by HappyDazed

bkkcanuck8 · June 28, 2016

"were-brexit-campaigners-straight-with-voters-over-claims?"

As with all politicians they lied, concealed, distorted and exaggerated, and told people what they wanted to hear in order to secure a vote. That would also apply to the opposite camp.

Not that I wish to defend any politician, it is nevertheless true that voters do not want to hear the truth, as it often involves telling them things that they don't want to believe or hear.

The difference is that the people in the Remain camp who lied.... are a moot point. There is no difference in outcome between a 4% loss vs a 14% loss, which means a lie or fraudulent statement had no influence on the overall outcome. Same is with the Leave campaign, if they had lost and lied - then it would also be a moot point. The issue is if the lie caused a material difference in the outcome or potentially did, then the question is was the election won by fraud. The question is not just limited to the referendum, and it is a valid question of what should be done if lies / fraudulent behaviour affects the outcome of an election - should the affected election/vote be rerun. Should those that blatantly lied and affected the outcome be charged with fraud..... I personally don't know what I believe is the right answer...

wooloomooloo · June 28, 2016

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

You seem to be taking an interest, HappyDazed. How did you education turn out?

MJP · June 28, 2016

Farage is a con man, plain and simple... which is why his target demographic are the least educated in UK society.

As for all the bullshit about freedom and self-determination ....radically changing the infrastructure of your nation with no plan thus devaluing your assets and currency? ....is the apex of stupidity!

Bullshit about freedom and self-determination. The apex of stupidity?

Really?

Edited June 28, 2016 by MJP

Sign In

Were Brexit campaigners straight with voters over claims?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US