Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:48 AM

The whole point is that actions such as the promotion of that horrid poster are not prosecuted because there IS tolerance of a degree of racism in this country. Do read what I said, properly this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

The european public view on immigration:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/why-do-politicians-refuse-to-tell-it-how-it-is-on-immigration/

The relationship between immigration and crime is a taboo subject and little work has been done to study it. Is it, in fact, a perceived or actual problem. Existing research gives conflicting views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 03:50 AM

"If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign."
What complete and utter nonsense!
Do you really believe that the DPP would overlook such public criminality if your asinine statement had any validity? Several staunch labourites reported the poster but as you carefully sidestep the outcome,I will point out, no action was taken.Perhaps you would like to make a freedom of information request to the DPP as to why such a supposed heinous crime was overlooked?
The poster was actually a photograph of migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015.
Just like your playing with words on the Brexit vote you try to mask the reality. The poster actually showed a preponderance of young single males.

The true figures for brexit.
The total number of the electorate 46,501,241
Leave 17,410,742
Remain 16,141,241
Valid votes 33,551,983
Turnout Turnout 72.2%
Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept. It is rather like those that refuse to accept that Trump won the Presidency(and did rather well in the mid terms)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

"was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution."
It should be, but in the world we live in such behaviour has become acceptable - if the Foreign secretary and the President of the United States cand get away with it....

We really don't need written laws to tell us what we can see - we are learning only to well that the wealthy and powerful can circumvent laws with ease, should it be convenient to do so.
Confirmation of the hate inspiring nature of the 'Leave' campaign can be found in the immediate aftermath - the rise in hate incidents (which you, to your shame, have tried to minimise and the open presence of fascists on the British streets in the form of Robinson and his scum

When Enoch Powell mounted exactly the same campaign back in the day, his behaviour was unacceptable, even to his own party - the only way he could remain in politics was to cross the Irish Sea and throw in his lot with a sectarian party
It would not surprise me to read that Brave New Brexit Britain, will erect a statue in his honour

"Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism,"
On the contrary, taking just the most extreme and ignoring the mainstream Neos plays into the hands of the rabid right - Nick Griffin realised this when he attempted to respect realise the British National Party
It was internal squabbles and incompetence that destroyed the BNP, not British laws
The same goes for Ukip which virtually laughing-stocked itself out of existence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:04 AM

It's simple, DMcG - it's all about 'we won, get over it' as far as they're concerned. I wonder if many of them have ever heard of, let alone understand the significance of a 'Pyrrhic Victory'?

The way things are going, they'll find out all about it soon enough. And it won't be pretty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:45 AM

What I find interesting is how when everyone from Rees-Mogg and the ERG group through to the most staunch remainers insist what is on offer bears no relation to what was promised, some in this thread insist we must do it anyway.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 08:59 PM

Dammit. Don't ask me what "othung" means. It's nothing like wot I intended. Nothing, I tell you. Absolutely othung at all...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:42 PM

The alleged "freedom of speech" you're defending in that poster, Nigel, was deliberately predicated on a lie. The people depicted in the photo used for that poster were in no way linked to the brexit argument for "getting back control of our borders," though that's how we were supposed to interpret the thing. And you know it. And the fact that the people depicted had dark skins seals the racist, demonising nature of the poster. You really do need to be very careful as to what you choose to defend, Nigel. Well, unless, of course, you subscribe to the Trumpist school of untrammelled "free speech..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:34 PM

Thanks, Karen. Truth will out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:32 PM

"Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote.Who thinks that that is true?"

I said no such thing. Read my two posts germane to this spat and you will see that I made plain, straightforward, unspun, factual statements. Othung like the quote in bold. You're compounding your own twisting dishonesty via the highlighted remark. Shame on you. Cease and desist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:58 PM

On alleged use of statistics to 'tell lies'. I can find no example in the accused post. Steve Shaw has never, as far as I can make out, argued that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. He pointed out that a minority of the electorate voted for 'Brexit', which is true. Nor has he ever asserted that to calculate a 'majority' you must include all those who didn't vote, though of course to calculate whether a majority of the electorate voted for Brexit one would indeed have to include those members of it who did not vote as 'the electorate'. And his point was, in effect, that it is not the case that a majority of 'the electorate' voted for Brexit. This is correct, and even if it were not, it would not necessarily be a 'lie'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:41 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.
If you could show that that poster (I'm guessing which one you mean) was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution. Even then Nigel Farage would only be in jail if the prosecution was successful.
If not, then freedom of speech (or of other forms of expression) trumps your feelings of taking offence on behalf of others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:11 PM

Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. Who thinks that that is true?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:59 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:56 PM

From: Jim Carroll
12 Nov 18 - 12:32 PM
"Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, "
Go read the other headlines instead of quoting a lone voice.
I was only quoting that 'lone voice' because it was the basis of the article that YOU linked to.

Hate crimes have escalated beyond belief - they have brought the Klan out on the streer=ts of Northern Ireland and ex-army Nazis are being jailed for their hate crimes in Britain
Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism, and prepared to use the rule of law to prevent it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:22 PM

It's you wriggling, Stanron. You called me a liar when I typed nothing but the unvarnished truth. You get to demonstrate where you think I lied. You do not get to accuse me of wriggling. What I said was plain, straightforward and truthful. Think before you post in future and just behave yourself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:04 PM

The votes of a mere 38% of the electorate cannot be described as "the will of the people". It is that term that is dishonest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:04 PM

To claim that to leave is 'the will of the people', when only a small minority of 17 million out of a total population of 65 million (which is what 'the people' actually means) expresses the wish to leave, is dishonest. Spin it however you wish, it won't change that fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:02 PM

To claim that to leave is 'the will of the people', when only a small minority of 17 million out of a total population of 65 million (which is what 'the people' actually means), is dishonest. Spin it however you wish, it won't change that fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:41 PM

Wiggle as you wish, more people voted for Brexit than against. To group non voters with either side is dishonest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:02 PM

I'm well used to it, Jim. After all, we're being infested by brexiteers all the time in threads like this. I'm not too keen on being called a liar by people who are really good at pulling the wool over their own eyes when every statement in my previous two posts is the unvarnished truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:55 PM

"Another thought on this disgraceful assertion that I used statistics to tell lies"
If you're not used to this dishonest tactic by now Steve, you never will be
I've asked our serial abuser to back up his accusations - nothing so far
They're like Billy Connolly's suggestion "If you want to confuse a policemen, ask him a question'
Works every time
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:38 PM

"Steve Shaw's posting is a perfect example of using statistics to tell lies."

Another thought on this disgraceful assertion that I used statistics to tell lies. We have yet to see Stanron comment on the mantra that the leave side hurled at us for over two years that "the British people have spoken." As Stanron is so concerned that statistics should be used only honestly, I ask myself why he didn't rush to correct that assertion. As I'm ever-helpful, I'll suggest a more honest version, thus: "38% of the British people have spoken in the way Stanron wanted, whereas 62% either spoke in the way Stanron didn't want or didn't speak at all."

Now if Stanron isn't too thoroughly ashamed of his slur, perhaps he'd tell me which bit of either of my last two posts contained a lie and why he hasn't attacked that "people have spoken" pile of dishonesty. Well, as if I don't already know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:26 PM

"Care to explain yourself? preferably in english."
if you don't understand simple sentences you have no place here - go buy a book
If yhou have to rely on tipos (written in haste) you have nothing to offer
Pa-the-tic, as ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:50 PM

Amen, Raggy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM

Just a thought about the democracy of the Brexit vote.

If the public elect a Labour or a Conservative Government a few years down the line they will be given another choice and another vote will be held.

If the sitting Government has done what the people expected they may well be re-elected.

If the population decide that now, that they have more information, that the Government has not delivered what was promised they may de-select that Government.


The current situation is akin to saying you voted for a Conservative/Labour government then you are now stuck with it for perpetuity.

We now ALL have far more information than we did 30 months ago.

Democracy would indicate we should be given another choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:11 PM

I've never seen scul like Robinson on the streets of Britain to this extent - have y
About time you fellers took responsibilit for your behaviour ou ?

Care to explain yourself? preferably in english.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:32 PM

"Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, "
Go read the other headlines instead of quoting a lone voice
Hate crimes have escalated beyond belief - they have brought the Klan out on the streer=ts of Northern Ireland and ex-army Nazis are being jailed for their hate crimes in Britain
Britain supposedly fought a war against fascism and now it is rife on BRITISH STREETS
AND MORE
I've never seen scul like Robinson on the streets of Britain to this extent - have y
About time you fellers took responsibilit for your behaviour ou ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:10 PM

Interesting article, Jim.
Did you get as far as the part which says:
Mark Hamilton, the NPCC lead for hate crime, said that the reductions in the rate of increase meant they were no longer going to require weekly updates from police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

“We have seen continued decreases in reports of hate crimes to forces and these reports have now returned to formerly seen levels for 2016. For this reason, we will return to our previous reporting procedures and will no longer be requiring weekly updates from forces,” he said.

“This doesn’t mean that hate crime is no longer a priority. We know that divisions still exist in our society and that tensions could rise again. Police forces will continue with their robust response and we will react swiftly to any future signs of tension.”


Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, and assume that the following report confirms that headline.
Just look at the headline. It proclaims a "Lasting rise in hate crime". The section I've just quoted appears to show that the rise isn't 'lasting', and anyway, all the figures quoted relate to a rise in 'reported' hate crime. It should be clear that there is not necessarily any direct correlation between the level of crime reported, and the level of the actual crime.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:03 PM

"Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? What arrant nonsense!"

"The People have spoken..."

And he claims that it's Remainers who don't understand the meaning of 'democracy'! Bwaaaaaaahahahaaa!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:02 PM

There are nearly one and a half million Brits living and working in Europpe - tat's how much they hate it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:00 PM

My point exactly
The British people were conned into believing this shit on a promise that it would stop immigration - it won't
Do you think the British peole are so stupid as to vote for this shit if they'd had relised what would happen
It was sold on a racist package - nothing to do with hating Europe - try asking them to vote again and see what happens
FURTHER PROOF
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 11:30 AM

Of the towns you list from planet Zog:
Barnsley voted leave
Peterborough voted leave
Sunderland voted leave
Harlepool voted leave
Rotherham voted leave
Wolverhampton voted leave
Bolton voted leave
Leeds a narrow remain vote
Kingston-upon-Hull voted leave
Stoke uon Trent votd leave

Notice a pattern here.
Labour heartlands detest the EU.Perhaps tis you on planet Zog( a place you must be intimately acquainted with)
The message I would take from this is that these areas feel betrayed by the EU and your second link is but merely opinion.
I know you like to bluster through opinion as fact, a miserable trait shared by most on the left, but let us stick to facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 11:04 AM

WHAT COSY CORNER OF the PLANET ZOG do you INHABIT ?

WHAT AREAS ARE LIKELY TO BE WORST EFFECTED BY BREXIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 09:37 AM

None of this addresses the fact that Brexit is now considered a disaster on all sides of the political divide
To gop ahead without a second referendum would te totally undemocratic - nearly as bad as the fact that no exit plan was devised before it was put to the people - a fundamental flaw
Sort of setting out on a long journey in strange territory without taking maps   
As you say - all bluster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 09:19 AM

In the same interview with Der Spiegel we have from his masters voice:
Corbyn: I think a lot of people have been totally angered by the way in which their communities have been left behind. We had high Leave votes in the most left-behind areas of the country. In a lot of deprived areas, working conditions have deteriorated over the decades, protected by European legislation. Indeed, we would enhance workers' rights, where the Conservative Party wants to go in another direction of a largely deregulated economy.

Stunning doublespeak! High leave votes in the most left behind parts of the country.I wonder what that means? The industrial labour heartlands voted for out, resoundingly. Where and what are these most left behind parts? A meaningless concept unless defined.
He also says:In a lot of deprived areas, working conditions have deteriorated over the decades, protected by European legislation.
Does he realise what he said? or perhaps this is why he supports brexit, so the tories can protect working conditions with positive legislation? Where the conservative party wants to go in fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:13 AM

"The consequences will not be known until after the event."
What a crass way to run a country - leap off the cliff - we won't know what happens until we hit th ground
The consequences are already being felt
Even the economists say that the damage will take at least twenty years to recover from the damage that is now being done
It was a crass narrow-minded decision taken on Xenophobic promises that will not and cannot be met
The first reactions made that obvious - the low-foreheads approaching those obviously not indigenous and asking them when they are going back to where they came from
Since then, racist incidents have spiralled upwards
It was a decision based on hate, economic and social consequences be damned
Maybe these people should be told something similar to:
"As you are disenfranchised I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:55 AM

The consequences will not be known until after the event. Until then it is only conjecture, and frequently hysterical from the remainers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:25 AM

Members of my family voted for Brexit - now they know what it entails they wish they hadn't
Brexit isn't a philosophy - it's a political decision and, as such, can b reversed if it is found to be unsitable
Now we have the ludicrous position of members of the opposition and Brexiteers uniting to oppose May - this has turned into a classic political farce to rival 'The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

"Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? "#
Because it was an obvious crap decision that was taken not knowing the consequences
Now those consequences are known, the vote needs to be confirmed - that is how democracy workd - a little different from populism
What is nonsensical about that ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 04:52 AM

"It boils down to this - if these people believe yjey could win a second vote they'd be breaking their necks to hold one - why wouldn't they ?"

Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? What arrant nonsense!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

I think, Jim, part of the reluctance lies in this earlier post of mine:

The Soubry proposal for a ranked voting system does not split the leave vote- despite what some claim - but does allow a vote for leave to express the type of Brexit that is preferred.

As anyone who looks into it will confirm, the ranked voting system does not split the vote, if people who wanted leave were in the majority leave would win.

But - and I think this is where the problem for leave lies - the 'deal' Brexiteers would have to be explaining why the 'no deal' was such a bad idea and vice versa, which would end up with both leave groups showing why the other had problems. And those voters for leave who were content with empty 'leave means leave' rhetoric - which may be a minority of those who voted leave, who can say? - would have to take their ideas to a deeper level. Which risks some saying, "you know what? Both leave routes sound bad."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:09 AM

It boils down to this - if these people believe yjey could win a second vote they'd be breaking their necks to hold one - why wouldn't they ?
It can't possibly be more expensive than bungning the DUP to vote in their favour again
That is the regard in which they hold democracy
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:15 AM

"If the vote was called again that would probably be no longer be the case you well know as is obvious from your refusal to respond to that fact Nigel"

Yes Jim, and he also nit-picked the 'minority' thing, whilst refusing to comment on the real point I was making - that the entire Brexit negotiation and planning process should have been a Cross-Party endeavour.

He's a lightweight, just ignore him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:11 AM

"Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?"

Stop being a thick twunt, Nigs - even a nit-picking simpleton like you should be able to realise that, of a population of 64 million, with an electorate of 45 million, the 17 million who voted to plunge the country into catastrophe is a small minority of those numbers.

However you try to pretend otherwise, 47 million of the total population or, put another way, 28 million of the electorate, are being led down the road to wrack and ruin by 17 million 'Take are cuntry back', flag-waving, Nationalistic nit-wits.

Now knock off the 'thick as a plank' act.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 09:09 PM

Nope. Every statement in my post is completely truthful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 09:02 PM

A smaller minority voted against it. Steve Shaw's posting is a perfect example of using statistics to tell lies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 08:35 PM

38% of the electorate voted for brexit, Nigel. That is not just a minority of the electorate, it's a minority of the people. 62% of the electorate did not vote for brexit. With a result like that in a trade union strike ballot you and your fellow Tories would be down on us like a ton of bricks. You should listen to Steve Shaw more often, Nigel. He'll do your sums for you.

And yes I do know how democracy works. It works a million times better when we're told the truth, instead of the pack of lies we were told by both sides.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 06:59 PM

"Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?"
A moinority of the British people voted for it
If the vote was called again that would probably be no longer be the case you well know as is obvious from your refusal to respond to that fact Nigel
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 06:07 PM

Brexit should have been a Cross-Party endeavour right from the outset. If we have to accept 'the will of a minority of the people', it is far too important and complex an issue to be left to an incompetent and self-serving Tory government to handle.

Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?