BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 01:09 PM

Well I think we should vote in general and local elections only. I want the politicians we elect to make the big decisions, then, if we think they've made the wrong ones, we can throw them out. So if Maggie Thatcher was opposed to referendums, I'm right with her. And savour that moment because you will never witness my saying anything remotely like that in my life ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 03:11 PM

For somebody to say today that Margaret Thatcher would have been opposed to Brexit is rather idiotic. Margaret Thatcher after all knew nothing of the Europe of 2016.

Changes:

1: The deal she had won for the United Kingdom no longer existed, Tony Blair had negotiated part of the UK's rebate away in exchange for reforms that never materialised - Margaret Thatcher would never have done that.

2: The Treaty of Lisbon was something that Margaret Thatcher would never have allowed to stand.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 03:40 PM

Well he knew her slightly better than you did. 😉

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 05:15 PM

Very true Shaw, I merely point out the differences, and the back-door way the Treaty of Lisbon was introduced. Also being part of the "establishment" Lord Powell of Bayswater, her longest-serving and most trusted former foreign policy adviser might have an agenda of his own that prompted him to state what he did - So far we have succeeded in changed nothing and managed to reform nothing of the EU's excesses by working from "within" - not even to the extent of them submitting balanced accounts that would tell people where all the money goes.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 05:19 PM

Er, so you think he may be a liar? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 05:29 PM

Of course the only way he gets the big job is if more people see her as being even more flawed

Not at all - Hillary aside, if enough unintelligent uneducated morons vote for The Trumpshit, bobs your uncle.

Then we're in deep Trumpshit - worldwide.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 06:21 PM

Lord Powell of Bayswater, diplomat, politician and businessman. Definitely part of the "establishment" and very well connected. He would say whatever was required to get what he wanted - Just like Corbyn, and we all know now that he IS a liar - don't we.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 06:58 PM

What lies has he told?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 01:22 AM

Something about having to sit on the floor because there were no seats available on a train he was travelling on.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 01:54 AM

Well may he burn in hell. Or will St Pete allow him a fair trial first?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM

Just for a bit of fun...... Brexit honesty, huh?

https://infacts.org/sun-article-perpetuates-metrication-myths/

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 05:07 AM

You beat me to it, SBS. All that EU dough promised for the NHS. Not happening. A LIE. An immigration points system promised, not happening. A LIE. More to come! Immigration down to the tens of thousands by now, promised by the woman who is now our hallowed leader. Never achievable and she knew it. A LIE. Then she lied about its having been a promise! Makes Jeremy's little train altercation look like nicking a tube of Smarties from Woollies, eh? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 05:10 AM

Steve Shaw - 05 Sep 16 - 01:54 AM - No idea and I couldn't care less - as long as he is there, there will never be another Labour Government. But you did ask:

Steve Shaw - 04 Sep 16 - 06:58 PM

"What lies has he told?"

I just supplied you with the information you requested.

SPB-Cooperator - 05 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM - Cash is pretty much spot on when he says:

"culture of traditional thinking on the subject of imperial measurements"

How long have we had the metric system now? Since 1980s? So over 30 years - Yet when I go down to the Pub I still go down there and order a Pint.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 05:21 AM

Yep. But try buying supermarket beer in pints, or wine, or lemonade, or orange juice. Our adopting the metric system has nothing to do with the EU. And, alongside those other lies, Jezza's lie (if it was one) is a peccadillo. Shame we weren't on that train, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 07:07 AM

Cash writes: "We have a complete culture of traditional thinking on the subject of imperial measurements and yet metric was just imposed on us." But it was actually our own government that supported metrication in 1965 after appeals from several industries, albeit on a voluntary basis.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 09:12 AM

"Something about having to sit on the floor because there were no seats available on a train he was travelling on."
If that's the most heinous sin he's guilty of, we'll be extremely lucky to get a major political leader with such a stainless character, especially as it is Virgin's statede policy to fill its trains to the point where they can't move.
Jim Carroll
POLITICAL LIARS

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 10:12 AM

" And, alongside those other lies, Jezza's lie (if it was one) is a peccadillo."

Still a lie though, and further evidence of the contempt most of Westminster seems to hold us all in.


"Yet when I go down to the Pub I still go down there and order a Pint."

Do you still pay of it in groats or barter spears for it? Things move on. SI units are in metric and everyone understands them except for a few old fuddy duddies. As for beer, the Americans sell it in glasses sized by ounces, the europeans in litres, etc and it still tastes the same regardless.

All that said, I do think a pint of beer is just the right amount.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 11:30 AM

If this was racially motivated, this alone in my book invalidates the whole referendum in spite of what the article says towards the end.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/death-arkadiusz-jozwik-post-referendum-racism-xenophobes-brexit-vote?CMP=f

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 11:30 AM

"Still a lie though,"
True, to a point (if it is), but there's a bit of a difference between "being economical with the truth" in order to expose a wider truth and just lying to totally distort the facts, as happens at every election-time.
One certainly does indicate contempt, I don't believe the other does.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 12:16 PM

David Davis has been in the commons talking about Brexit. It seems they still have no idea what this means, how they are going to do it and if we will stay in the single market, which he says we don't need to do.

We're going to get hauled over the coals in trade deals by the likes of India and China, who will now be able to out innovate, out develop and control much technical innovation (especially renewable energy technologies which are the future) us on all fronts. We're already in hock to a totalitarian regime in China that now seeks to own our means of producing energy, with all the issues that raises in terms of independence and security.

These countries will make mincemeat of us.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM

That's right Stu - The sky is falling - enjoy!!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM

One of the more disturbing features has been the sharp rise in racist incidents since the referendum.
"Almost 6,200 hate crimes have been reported in Britain over the month since the June 23 referendum, which saw immigration become a key issue during a bitter and deeply divisive campaign."

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 12:32 PM

We don't need the single market if we are not bothered about the inflationary effect on import tariffs for goods we consume on a daily basis, or if we are not bothered about the inflationary effect on import tariffs related to supply-chain components. It would most likely hurt those on low incomes, people with disabilities, people on other benefits etc etc. But people who wanted Brexit won, so they should just live with it??????

And with regards to supply chains - will multinational companies really want to pay higher production costs because of import tariffs, or would it make more sense to move 100% of production to a trading area without internal tariffs?

If production is moved elsewhere in Europe, how does Davis plan to force the relevant countries to accept free movement of workers from the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 12:47 PM

No one has yet answered the question on the morality of reliance on cheap immigrant labour to drive our economy?

The moral question is, who is to service the Polish and Romanian economies, and maintain the infrastructure in these countries and others in Eastern Europe.

Reliance on immigrant labour means our own people will not receive adequate training to do the jobs which require doing and are going to be parked on benefits for life......is that moral?

You complain about British Colonialism yet have no scruples about exploiting foreign workers to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed.......The hypocrisy of the "liberal left" writ large.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 01:35 PM

"No one has yet answered the question on the morality of reliance on cheap immigrant labour to drive our economy?"
Yes they have - interminably
!Reliance on immigrant labour means our own people will not receive adequate training to do the jobs which require doing and are going to be parked on benefits for life."
Not true - the types of work taken on by these people is that which largely need no training
A moot point anyway - apprenticeships in Britain are largely a thing of the past.
"You complain about British Colonialism "
British colonialism was a form of politico/economic exploitation forced on nations without their being consulted - largely by force of arms
Your scaremongering and misinformation is exactly the type of hate-mongering that directly causes the rise in hate crimes - which you have yet to respond to.
Brexit was pushed through on a racist ticket - as evidenced here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 05:24 PM

Labour is "cheap" because BRITISH employers pay immigrants low wages. Immigrant workers do not demand low wages. No-one in work ever demanded to be paid as little as possible. They get what they are given by BRITISH employers. They have no choice. As very few immigrants claim benefits, there can be no complaint against them. Paying wages as low as possible to people who have no choice has a name. We call it capitalism.

The facts about Corbyn's train ride have yet to be cast in stone, Stu. If he did lie, which is in doubt, the lie pales beside the lies told to us by the brexiteers. We cannot "control our borders" whilst being in the single market. We will not get a points system, which we were promised. We will not get hundreds of millions of rescued EU money pumped into the NHS, as we were promised. Going back just a little, tuition fees WERE trebled, weren't they, Nick Clegg? Immigration was NOT reduced to the "tens of thousands", in spite of the fact that over half of the immigration that Theresa May "failed to control" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the EU. Going back even further, Saddam did NOT have WMDs that could be activated within 45 minutes. And yer man DID have sex with "that woman" and he did inhale. If you really want to conclude that Jezza was really lying, then put that alleged lie into the context of real political lies. And don't forget the lies that the imbecilic David Davies was telling the Commons today.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 06:18 PM

"All that said, I do think a pint of beer is just the right amount."

With the caveat "per 45 minutes," I presume...

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 04:01 AM

Only on a slow day!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 04:02 AM

SPB-Cooperator - 05 Sep 16 - 12:32 PM - Classic case of jumping fences before you even know they have been built, let alone before you actually come to them. But one thing we do know, we buy more from Europe than they buy from us, according to your little synopsis it would appear that only the UK gets hurt by the imposition of "tariffs" - that of course is patently ridiculous.

Jim Carroll - 05 Sep 16 - 01:35 PM - Uniformed generalisations and idiotic stereotypical misinformation.

"the types of work taken on by these people is that which largely need no training" - Any idea of the numbers of skilled tradesmen who have poured into Europe and the UK from Eastern Europe Jom?

"apprenticeships in Britain are largely a thing of the past." - Not strictly true Jom they are in the process of being reintroduced, so early days yet.

"British colonialism was a form of politico/economic exploitation forced on nations without their being consulted - largely by force of arms" - The British Empire was formed and based on trade not conquest - your "largely by force of arms" is a myth.

Steve Shaw - 05 Sep 16 - 05:24 PM

"Labour is "cheap" because BRITISH employers pay immigrants low wages." ..........."They get what they are given by BRITISH employers."

Are you 100% sure of that Shaw? No non-BRITISH agents or agencies in countries of origin, or in the UK?

"the lies told to us by the brexiteers"

"We cannot "control our borders" whilst being in the single market."

Not a lie Shaw, simply put we cannot control our borders while we are members of the EU, we do however have a say as to who comes in and who doesn't if we are independent of EU rules and regulations.

"We will not get a points system, which we were promised"

An "Australian type" point system was mentioned as a suggestion, not as a promise.

"We will not get hundreds of millions of rescued EU money pumped into the NHS, as we were promised."

No such promise was ever made.

"tuition fees WERE trebled, weren't they, Nick Clegg?"

Probably because they had to be Shaw. Parties in opposition can make whatever promises they like in order to convince the uniformed into voting for them. It is only when that political party is elected into office that reality hits home and they have to come up with workable solutions for real problems.

"Immigration was NOT reduced to the "tens of thousands", in spite of the fact that over half of the immigration that Theresa May "failed to control" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the EU."

Not quite as clear cut as you'd like to make us think Shaw. Two things combined to hinder any effort at controlling immigration:

1: Tony Blair and Labours "open door" policy, which even he admitted was a tremendous error.
2: Membership of the EU compels us to observe and obey "their" rules

We cannot even begin to address these problems until we have left the EU.

"Saddam did NOT have WMDs that could be activated within 45 minutes."

Irrelevant, the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq was not invaded in 2003 because they had WMD, they were invaded because they had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Safwan ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq and the Ba'ath regime in March 1991.

"If you really want to conclude that Jezza was really lying, then put that alleged lie into the context of real political lies."

Without a shadow of a doubt Jeremy Corbyn was caught in a very public manner lying about there being no seats on the train he was travelling on. All he succeeded in doing was to make himself look silly. You have given no examples of any "real political lies" apart form the one quite clearly told by Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 04:30 AM

We get more immigration from outside the EU than from the EU. No EU regulations cause that. Theresa May, in spite of the Tory promise, failed to address that, then she lied that it had been a promise. She knew all along that there was never any hope of cutting it to tens of thousands. A lie on top of a lie. A promise you know you can't keep is a lie. Clegg lied. The brexiteers lied about EU money diverting to the NHS. Johnson promised a points system. Not happening. Lies. Dress these things up with your cod explanations and excuses all you like. They are lies.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM

"That's right Stu - The sky is falling - enjoy!"

Heck T, you're the military man. You really want the Chinese government controlling our energy supply? You want them tapped into the national grid? To our control and logistics systems? You'd be happy with that?


"No such promise was ever made."

Er, I refer you to this sign behind Boris (note immigration promise too): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/keep-britain-in-eu-legal-c

And this sign seems quite clear: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/one-month-on-what-is-the-impact-

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 05:31 AM

"Lets give our NHS the £350 million the EU take every week"

Oh dear, but the Brexit campaign supporters on this forum say it was never a promise, it was only a suggestion ..............

It seems to me to be a clear, precise promise to increase spending on the NHS by £350 per week if a vote to leave was successful.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 05:50 AM

"We get more immigration from outside the EU than from the EU. No EU regulations cause that."

Depending upon who things are classified Shaw.

Any economic immigrant, or refugee, from outside the EU who manages to get into Europe and get registered can then under EU rules enter the UK. Once inside the country ECHR greatly limits what can be done to expel people from the country.

YOUR reading of the others makes them promises only IN YOUR OPINION - not in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 08:29 AM

In view of Stu's post and the photo of Boris, I'd say that you are in total denial, Teribus. If you make a promise that you know you won't be able to keep, or that is based on false information (such as the £350 million a week lie), or that you are not in any position to make, then you are lying. As for the immigration numbers, the Tories have had six years in which they have failed abysmally - ABYSMALLY - to address the promise they made. Around half of the immigration has NOTHING to do with EU rules, in spite of your convoluted excuses for the inability to control it (and they did PROMISE! Even if you're right, which I doubt, presumably they knew about the issues you mentioned when they made that promise. So, a promise they were in NO POSITION TO MAKE). The confident prediction from that, nay, a dead cert I'd say, is that immigration will be unaffected by Brexit, yet we're going to lose the single market. Considering that "controlling our borders" was arguably the point upon which the whole referendum turned, I'd say that is more than ironic. It's downright disreputable.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 09:50 AM

Only problem with all of that Shaw is that we, and they, are talking about things that are yet to happen, so to varying degrees of rationality everybody is crystal ball gazing. None are in a position to do anything other than make suggestions as to what might happen. So in reality there is nothing for me to be in denial about. If you think that promises were made then you are denying the fact that no money saved from us leaving the EU can be allocated until after we have left the EU which can only happen at the earliest sometime in 2020.

No the Tories have not had six years to sort out the immigration mess that the last Labour Government got us into, between 2010 and 2015 there was no Tory Government there was a Coalition Government - yet another fact that you are in denial about.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 10:11 AM

By the way, Teribus, the numbers of refugees or people granted asylum here (and they do have to be HERE before they can apply for asylum) are tiny compared with the overall immigration numbers, which makes your point virtually irrelevant. The term "economic migrant" is meaningless. Anyone moving to another country to better themselves is an economic migrant, which includes just about everyone who wants to come to live in the UK from anywhere. That includes my dentist (EU) and the bloke who carried out the surgery on my back (non-EU). As for refugees/asylum seekers, they are not exactly coming here in droves, are they? They do not provide anything like the adequate excuse for May's abysmal failure as Home Secretary to carry out Cameron's rash promise on immigration, made only as an election tactic because the Tories have to look "tough on immigration." It was an impossible-to-keep promise and they knew it. A lie. Then she lied about its being a promise!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 10:23 AM

It was a Tory prime minister and a Tory Home Secretary and there was no resistance from the LibDems to that promise, a long-standing, rock-solid Tory sentiment, being in the manifesto. We all know where the buck stops, except for you. And the £350 million per week was a lie and you know it. We don't have to wait until 2020 for that to be crystal clear. And we'll wait until kingdom come for Boris's points-system promise to come to fruition. Ain't gonna happen. It's on the poster behind him with an x in the box next to it. That means "Vote leave and you're voting for a points system." What the hell else was it supposed to mean? Now come along. I've admitted to the lies and scaremongering of the Remain side. Time for all you smug brexiteers to admit the same and confess that there was a massive democratic deficit surrounding the whole damn thing.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 11:45 AM

The 2010 General Election resulted in the UK being governed by a Coalition Government - YES or NO - simple enough question even for you Shaw.

Your earlier statement that:

"As for the immigration numbers, the Tories have had six years in which they have failed abysmally - ABYSMALLY - to address the promise they made."

Is incorrect. But as you seem fixated on governments that failed ABYSMALLY - shall we run through the things that Blair & Brown's Labour Government failed ABYSALLY at in the 13 years they had in office?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM

Cameron promised in JANUARY 2010 - before the coalition - to cut net immigration to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts. There would be a cap. No LibDem forced him to relinquish that pledge. Theresa May was responsible for carrying it out. It couldn't be done. They KNEW it couldn't be done. It was entirely a Tory election gambit, a deliberate lie, nothing to do with the LibDems, unmodified by the coalition arrangements. It's laughable that you are trying to divert the blame for the failure of the policy on to the coalition. Cameron and May are Tories to the core and did not change their spots just because a few Liberals were handed tokenistic roles.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 12:24 PM

By the way, do carry on with the schoolyard comparisons with the other children who you claim are just as bad, which you seem to think lets the Tories off the hook. I hate to keep saying it, but it's no skin off my nose. I hold no candle for Blair and Brown and never did.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 02:44 AM

Cameron promised in JANUARY 2010

Tell me Shaw who was Prime Minister in JANUARY 2010 - certainly wasn't David Cameron was it.

David Cameron also promised a Referendum Vote on the UK's EU membership too prior to the General Election in May of 2010. That along with other items contained in the Conservative Party's Manifesto had to be abandoned as part of the price of forming the Coalition.

In forming the Coalition Government with the Liberal-Democrats agreements were made detailing "Coalition Policy" in the following areas:

1.1 Deficit
1.2 Spending
1.3 Tax
1.4 Banking
1.5 Immigration
1.6 Political reform
1.7 Pensions and welfare
1.8 Education
1.9 European Union
1.10 Civil liberties
1.11 Environment

On immigration, the shortest section of the agreement, it only stated that a cap on immigration should be set - thus ending Labour's open door uncontrolled immigration policy.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 03:21 AM

Sorry Tezza, you;re dead wrong on this. In 2010 Cameron pledged to cut immigration to the "tens of thousands", "no ifs, no buts". He said it was a promise:

"But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping."

Full transcript here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigration-speech

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 05:37 AM

When did campaign pledges ever count--Once they did, but when did they stop being taken seriously?

Yup, keeping the campaign promise to hold the referendum will count as one of the rashest gestures of mega stupidity in recent history.

You have more consumer guarantees buying a hoover, or even a used car, than
voting for a political party or in a UK referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: JHW
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 05:47 AM

'Virgin's stated policy to fill its trains'

The other day I found easily a seat where the display thingy said Available
But - Notices stuck thereabouts stated that even apparently available seats could be booked 'onshore' and you might have to leave

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 07:55 AM

"Tell me Shaw who was Prime Minister in JANUARY 2010 "
He was leader of the Tory Party and in the position to make such promises for when they came into power, which they did a few months later
Jin Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 08:58 AM

You can make whatever promise you like in good faith when you are in opposition and responsible for S.F.A. Very different game when you actually have to do the job and are then faced with real problems that require you to come up with real and practicable solutions.

It was a Coalition Government that came to power a few months later not a Conservative Government - I think that is a fairly well documented fact.

Stu I see that in his speech he did refer to the introduction of the immigration caps I mentioned in my post. The fact that immigration proved impossible to control while inside the EU I would have thought would have been obvious for reasons I have already given.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 09:56 AM

Impossible to control for obvious reasons eh? In that case the promise was not made in good faith. If you say that you will control immigration when you know damn well that you can't you are telling a bare-faced lie in order to get yourself elected. It's called playing the race card. And the LibDems did not force any compromise on that stated promise. Even the Tories didn't blame them when the policy failed. They simply lied about it, saying that it had been an aspiration, not a "no ifs, no buts" promise. You are defending the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 11:27 AM

"You can make whatever promise you like in good faith when you are in opposition and responsible for S.F.A."
Which underlines the failings of our "democratic" system.
Basically, thinks haven't changed since we got "democracy" - that would be sometime in the first few decades of the 19th century, wouldn't it???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 01:54 AM

" you are telling a bare-faced lie in order to get yourself elected. It's called playing the race card"

No it is not Shaw it is called "electioneering" and every single candidate and every single party standing for election does it. The list of things promised by Blair and Brown in 1997 that they completely and utterly failed to deliver on would fill a book as thick as "War & Peace", the two greatest lies they told {according to your definition} related to education and the NHS. We have the mess we have related to immigration solely because of the policies they introduced {Blair even admitted it}.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 02:44 AM

"our" democratic system hasn't failed Jom - Communism did though didn't it - rather spectacularly if I remember it.

1000 up.