Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Fuzzar

OT - EU straw poll...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bagster said:

Ok cm the indicative vote is when the softer brexit line had it's chance to change the game.

If the SNP weren't so wanting chaos to get indy ref 2, then they would've surely backed this like the Scots Tories did.

The liberal democrats also are more interested in getting their voters back than sorting the actual problem.

Remainers had it in their power to get the sort of brexit that they would actually be happy to settle for but they've gambled on the win, just like BigFish is now doing.

The problem with going for the big win is you could end up with a big loss.( But in reality either is going to pi ss off half the country)

Should've settled for the draw.

Still find it bizarre?

Yes, completely bizzare.

The draw was never on offer because the government and, most of all the Prime Minister, were completely set against it from the start.

By the time the indicative votes arrived attitudes had, for a variety reasons hardened on both sides. But the indicative wasn't even a half chance, it was a temporary backbench rebellion against a totally incompetant government, and even had one of those votes been won there is absolutely no guarantee that Theresa May would have acted on it, in fact she made it pretty clear she wouldn't.

Just as she made it pretty clear that she wouldn't even consider a Customs Union never mind the rest of CM2 when she suggested a 'compromise 🤣' with Labour to achieve a last gasp Brexit. Even in these bizarre times the government controls the business of the House apart from those couple of days and even though the Tory party is deeply split the remain side of the party has consistently supported TM' sh1tshow Brexit.

So there is a world of difference between the government proposing CM2 two years ago which if whipped would have got the support of 60-70% of Tory MPs, a big chunk of Labour MPs and quite possibly the SNP and Lib Dems as well, and a vote on a rebel motion which was never going to be binding on the government anyway.

I've got no problem with your advocacy of CM2 as the compromise solution, in fact if you cast your mind back a number of months I had a very regular dispute with LDC who kept defending TM's deal as a compromise whilst I kept insisting that it was nothing of the sort and that only something like CM2, or Norway+ as we used to call it, was a real and realistic compromise.

So I mostly agree with you on CM2 itself but to suggest the reason it hasn't happened is because of the failure of some MPs to back it in the indicative votes is absolutely ludicrous. Like so much else, the blame lies entirely with Theresa May.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

So there is a world of difference between the government proposing CM2 two years ago which if whipped would have got the support of 60-70% of Tory MPs, a big chunk of Labour MPs and quite possibly the SNP and Lib Dems as well, and a vote on a rebel motion which was never going to be binding on the government anyway.

I've got no problem with your advocacy of CM2 as the compromise solution, in fact if you cast your mind back a number of months I had a very regular dispute with LDC who kept defending TM's deal as a compromise whilst I kept insisting that it was nothing of the sort and that only something like CM2, or Norway+ as we used to call it, was a real and realistic compromise.

rather akin to saying that those same parties would accept the return of capital punishment .... as long as it is done nicely 😒

you have to wonder if some on here live on the same planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't argue with the statistics of what occurred in the indicative votes. You can't blame Boris and farage for everything and then call them stupid because after all they are beating you 

It isn't a question of winning. I voted remain but do believe we must stand by the result. But we have had a GE since the referendum and yes Tessie was a remainer but she negotiated a leave deal. Why couldn't the ERG just try it for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bagster said:

When compromise is not forthcoming, there is only one other option.

I would prefer to keep that me in a box.

It's probably where you'd end up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigFish said:

Outstandingly ignorant opinion, and sadly typical of probably the most selfish generation. I have no doubt you worked hard but it was it probably the most benign of socio-economic conditions in history. The "greatest generation" had won the war and the massive rebuilding required created opportunities for many in a labour market marked by shortages. Jobs, if not for life, formed the basis for long term careers with final salary pensions. Education was free and houses were cheap. Strong unions protected employment rights. If you were your typical Conservative member "gammon" times were good as the white male felt entitled to look down on women, immigrants and anyone that could be considered a little different.

Then from the eighties rather than looking to pass the lucky advantages due to when you were born you start to pull up the ladder. Selling state assets, selling social housing, attacking the unions and employment rights, wasting all the revenues from North Sea Oil, running down public services all because you think "you earned everything you have". Now houses are increasingly unaffordable, the environment is trashed, final salary pensions are gone, jobs are precarious, students are in debt and your generation sit like big fat toads sucking the life out of the economy with your rentier ways, not contributing to the productive economy but sitting back and expecting it to owe you a living. I think @Bagster knows, particularly when he talks about his own kids so don't try and sign him up to your ignorant selfish paradigms.

Yup sounds about right for the US situation a well. Throw in some more culture wars around guns, abortion and religion, but you still come back to the same place. A bunch of mainly older, white guys and gals wishing their formerly  right of center party that sold out all of the the rights and workplace options they benefited from would just "stick it" to the "others" so that they can feel better about what it means to be "an American". And to hell with the country's progress, everyone else is just "lazy" a "socialist" or a "murderer" 

So we have the same problem in both countries. And the same leadership vacuum. And the same political cowardice refusing to address the issue head on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Police are investigating five allegations of electoral irregularities related to the Peterborough byelection, which Labour won by 683 votes.

Three of these relate to postal votes, one allegation is of bribery and corruption and the fifth is of a breach of the privacy of the vote, Cambridgeshire police have confirmed.

The Labour candidate, Lisa Forbes, was elected after the byelection on 6 June, with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in second place.

Postal votes accounted for 9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received. About 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature or date of birth or both not matching council records."

 

Oh dear, and such a small majority!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BigFish said:

Outstandingly ignorant opinion, and sadly typical of probably the most selfish generation. I have no doubt you worked hard but it was it probably the most benign of socio-economic conditions in history. The "greatest generation" had won the war and the massive rebuilding required created opportunities for many in a labour market marked by shortages. Jobs, if not for life, formed the basis for long term careers with final salary pensions. Education was free and houses were cheap. Strong unions protected employment rights. If you were your typical Conservative member "gammon" times were good as the white male felt entitled to look down on women, immigrants and anyone that could be considered a little different.

Then from the eighties rather than looking to pass the lucky advantages due to when you were born you start to pull up the ladder. Selling state assets, selling social housing, attacking the unions and employment rights, wasting all the revenues from North Sea Oil, running down public services all because you think "you earned everything you have". Now houses are increasingly unaffordable, the environment is trashed, final salary pensions are gone, jobs are precarious, students are in debt and your generation sit like big fat toads sucking the life out of the economy with your rentier ways, not contributing to the productive economy but sitting back and expecting it to owe you a living. I think @Bagster knows, particularly when he talks about his own kids so don't try and sign him up to your ignorant selfish paradigms.

Amazing piece of Revisionist history, @BigFish.

By the beginning of the eighties, the country was in a state of total collapse brought about by two main causes. Firstly, the petroleum price rises whereby the West were held to ransom by the oil exporting countries, and secondly by the communist infiltrated trade unions and their friends in the Labour Party who destroyed most of our manufacturing industries through nationalisation and strikes. Most of us old uns' will remember the flying pickets who turned up unannounced on the picket lines to beat up and hospitalise where possible those ordinary folk trying to get to work and feed their families. 

We can remember the rubbish piled up in the street when the binmen went on strike, the dead unburied and the morgues filled to overflowing when the grave diggers went on strike - no thoughts about grieving families. You have to be a special kind of hard-hearted person to be so uncaring about your community that you allowed this to happen, but the boys from the General and Municipal Workers Union reported to their masters in Moscow, not to the people of Britain, they didn't care about us.

And now you're trying to bring it all back again with Jeremy Corbyn and his Momentum bullies. Only this time the working-classes have seen through your little game, and no longer support you. The Labour Party was never the party of aspiration. They fkd up the education system, fkd up the health service, and created an economic underclass. But you've been rumbled and nobody tusts Labour anymore. So you've created a whole new set of victims that you can teach to be dependent and subservient in a way the proud British working-class never will be.

And this is why Brexit is much more than about remaining in or leaving the EU, and why CM 2.0 might well have worked three years ago, but you entitled Remainers destroyed any chance of that happening, and the issue is now about something far more fundamental in our country than our membership of the EU. It's about reclaiming our country, our self-identity, our voice. it's about being strong and aspiring to be the best you can, not weak and cowardly and giving in to the likes of Barnier or taking your orders from Merkel. It's about taking responsibility  not whimpering about your victim rights. It's about contributing to society and not expecting society to owe you a living.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yes, completely bizzare.

The draw was never on offer because the government and, most of all the Prime Minister, were completely set against it from the start.

By the time the indicative votes arrived attitudes had, for a variety reasons hardened on both sides. But the indicative wasn't even a half chance, it was a temporary backbench rebellion against a totally incompetant government, and even had one of those votes been won there is absolutely no guarantee that Theresa May would have acted on it, in fact she made it pretty clear she wouldn't.

Just as she made it pretty clear that she wouldn't even consider a Customs Union never mind the rest of CM2 when she suggested a 'compromise 🤣' with Labour to achieve a last gasp Brexit. Even in these bizarre times the government controls the business of the House apart from those couple of days and even though the Tory party is deeply split the remain side of the party has consistently supported TM' sh1tshow Brexit.

So there is a world of difference between the government proposing CM2 two years ago which if whipped would have got the support of 60-70% of Tory MPs, a big chunk of Labour MPs and quite possibly the SNP and Lib Dems as well, and a vote on a rebel motion which was never going to be binding on the government anyway.

I've got no problem with your advocacy of CM2 as the compromise solution, in fact if you cast your mind back a number of months I had a very regular dispute with LDC who kept defending TM's deal as a compromise whilst I kept insisting that it was nothing of the sort and that only something like CM2, or Norway+ as we used to call it, was a real and realistic compromise.

So I mostly agree with you on CM2 itself but to suggest the reason it hasn't happened is because of the failure of some MPs to back it in the indicative votes is absolutely ludicrous. Like so much else, the blame lies entirely with Theresa May.

CM, of course that is correct, and especially about May’s stupidity. Which applies to pretty much every aspect of her time as PM, so her handling of Brexit was hardly some aberration, let alone a cunning one. At only a bit of a tangent, why May acted as she did raises the question of whether Leavers voted for a specific kind of Brexit, and what effect that had on how she behaved. Certainly some posters here claim they did vote for a very specific Brexit. They didn’t, of course. They cannot have done.

Because it was a straight binary choice - Remain or Leave. Remain was defined only as staying in the EU and Leave was defined only as quitting. So there would be 27 EU countries rather than 28. There was nothing on the ballot about any specific kind of Brexit. Of how close or how distant might be a future relationship with the EU.

And no Leaver could possibly have voted knowing what Brexit would emerge mean, apart from the verifiable fact of the UK no longer being  in the EU.  They might well have thought or hoped they  knew, but they cannot have known.

That is the theory. In reality, knowing or not, Leavers were in practice voting for a pretty specific Brexit. All the analyses show that all but a tiny minority did so on the issue of restoring a supposed lost sovereignty. Often a mix of the principle of the thing and the practical, such as getting out from under freedom of movement. The inevitable logic of which had to be an economically damaging Hard Brexit, quitting the single market and cutting any ties, and there seemed to be a lot, deemed to impinge on UK sovereignty.

Right at the start, even before walking into Number 10, May could have made a speech on these lines. Which would have had the rare virtue of being true. That although she had voted Remain she was now totally committed to Brexit. Anyone who doubted that should remember how as home secretary she had prioritised sovereignty in her dealings with the EU, specifically in terms of immigration and laws. She could be trusted to produce a Brexit that honoured what Leavers had voted for.


But there would be a “but” coming. That the arguments of Remainers about the economic benefits of the EU were solidly based. No-one (not-very-subtle subtext: not even the most prominent Leavers) had denied that. So her job as PM of all the country was to produce a Brexit that respected  the referendum result but avoided scr*wing the economy. No PM could pursue a course they knew would be so damaging to the lives of many millions.

Of course the overriding subtext would have been that many (most?)Leavers had voted for two irreconcilable aims because they had been dumb enough to believe the blatant cake-and-eat-it lies of blatant liars. But a strong politician, driven by strategy rather than fear and short-termism, could have faced down the deranged Brexit zealots and got away with it, especially with a slim but workable Commons’ majority.

Instead, because she couldn’t bring herself to tell voters a very serious home truth, and because she was so fearful of those comparatively few crazed idiots, we had the infantile “Brexit means Brexit” and the ultra-hard red lines that were bound to cause maximum damage to the economy. And much good all her deeply humiliating kowtowing did her in keeping her job.

Now none of this would matter if her resignation had changed the argument. But as far as the Tory party and its candidates  to be her successor are concerned zilch has changed. With the exception of no-hoper Stewart they are all peddling the same fantasy Brexit lies. Not one of them has made that speech May should have made, and there is no likelihood any of them will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

 

"Police are investigating five allegations of electoral irregularities related to the Peterborough byelection, which Labour won by 683 votes.

Three of these relate to postal votes, one allegation is of bribery and corruption and the fifth is of a breach of the privacy of the vote, Cambridgeshire police have confirmed.

The Labour candidate, Lisa Forbes, was elected after the byelection on 6 June, with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in second place.

Postal votes accounted for 9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received. About 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature or date of birth or both not matching council records."

 

Oh dear, and such a small majority!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the two lesbians who got punched on a bus by a gang of youths? Remember the outpouring of sympathy they received from all quarters of the country? Well it seems our sympathy was somewhat misplaced as these young women demonstrate the worst kind of entitled victimhood that the Labour Party feeds upon. Read what journalist Brendan O'Neil has to say:

 

Talk about ungrateful. Brits, and people around the world, offered empathy and solidarity to the two gay women who were battered by thugs on a London bus. And yet now one of the women has turned around and told us we only care about them because they are white. It’s only because they are ‘two attractive, white, cisgender women’ that so many people and organisations gave a damn about them and tweeted about them, apparently. Thanks a bunch. We offer our human concern for your wellbeing and you tell us we’re being racist. We’ve reached peak identitarian ****.

The woman in question, who goes only by the name ‘Chris’, has written a piece for the Guardian. Natch. The intro lets us know what we’re in for: ‘The photo of me and my date went viral – but only as we’re white, feminine and cisgender.’ Translation: you racist, transphobic idiots wouldn’t have cared half as much if this had been two bloodied and bruised black women or trans women. The ‘commodification’ of ‘my face’ came at the ‘expense of other victims whose constant persecution apparently does not warrant similar moral outrage’, says Chris.

What is most striking about her piece is that she flagellates herself for her privilege. Yes, this woman who last month was badly beaten allegedly on account of her sexuality is now beating herself up in the national press over her privileged identity. She says she has ‘evaded much of the violence and oppression imposed on so many others by our capitalist, white-supremacist, patriarchal system because of the privileges I enjoy by dint of my race, health, education, and conventional gender presentation’. What a strange, self-hating mindset it must take to be victimised for your sexuality and then to say: ‘God, I’m SO privileged.’

 

Chris even does us the service of providing a list of people who are far less privileged than her and who us phoney empathisers should finally start noticing. It is ‘open season’, she says, on ‘people of colour, indigenous people, transgender people, disabled people, queer people, poor people, women and migrants’. This is classic virtue-signalling. She is engaging in the Oppression Olympics while making it clear she doesn’t deserve any gold medals in said Olympics because she is white, educated, cisgender, etc. A masterclass in identitarian showboating.

Ironically, while bemoaning her privilege, Chris and her partner have exercised the key privilege of our age – victim privilege. Witness how the liberal media have fallen over themselves to solicit the women’s opinions on political matters. They think Boris is unfit to be PM, one headline tells us. Commentators claim the attack on them shows how ugly Brexit Britain has become. What this isolated assault has got to do with Brexit is anyone’s guess, not least since the alleged perpetrators are teenagers who are not even old enough to vote and probably couldn’t care less about politics. Why are these women’s political opinions being sought out, anyway? We don’t ask victims of armed robbery or knife crime what they think of Boris Johnsongetting into Downing Street, so why ask victims of a physical assault on a bus? It’s because they enjoy identitarian privilege; they are on the oppression scale and thus their views matter more than other people’s.

 

This whole affair confirms how ugly and divisive the politics of identity has become. This nasty new politics makes solidarity impossible. Even the offering of solidarity to two victimised gay women is treated as suspect, as being motored by racism or transphobia or privilege. In the identitarian sphere, where everyone is reduced to their race or sexuality and neatly ordered from Most Oppressed to Least Oppressed, solidarity cannot even be accepted by victims of assault anymore. ‘Why are you sympathising with me? Is it because I am white?’, Chris is effectively asking, like an identitarian Ali G – ‘Is it cos I is white?’. No, it’s because you are a human being, and while sections of the virtual left might have disappeared up the fundament of the anti-human, anti-solidarity politics of identity, the rest of us have not. In that photo, we saw two human beings unfairly abused and assaulted. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop imputing malice and prejudice into our humanist urge to empathise with other people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The date the May-Bot rot really set in - 29 March 2017

Brexit Facts4EU.Org reveals the moment when Brexit was thwarted by Mrs May

pm_signing_art_50_letter.jpg

Mrs May signing the Article 50 letter (Credit: HMG/Twitter)

‘Look Donald, I don’t want to do this but I have to’

On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister signed a letter addressed to Donald Tusk, unelected President of the EU Council, and it was delivered by hand by the UK’s ambassador to the EU.

This letter was the official notice that the United Kingdom was triggering the Article 50 clause of the EU treaty, nine months after the people of the UK had voted to leave. It was arguably one of the most important letters from a British Prime Minister in a generation.

What did the letter say?

A Brexit Facts4EU.Org analysis reveals how Mrs May first surrendered on 29 March 2017

Our summary of Mrs May's 6-page letter to the EU Council President:-

“Look Donald, I really don’t want to do this but I have to.
Let’s keep it as close to remaining in the EU as possible.”

Readers can see the full version of Mrs May’s letter here (PDF).

Mrs May’s 6-page apology to the EU for the Leave vote

Mrs May sent a six-page apology which set the tone for the United Kingdom being the supplicant in the Brexit process.

Brexit Facts4EU.org Summary

After Mrs May's letter the EU dominated everything, including:

  • The start date of the negotiations – delayed by 12 weeks because the EU were still not ready
  • The location of the talks – all to be held in the opposing party’s headquarters in Brussels
  • The content and sequencing of the talks – no discussion of trade until after the UK had left
  • The negotiators – the EU fielded bureaucrats not decision-makers, while the UK fielded a Cabinet Minister
  • The content of final documents – all drafted by the EU in their interests

What did the letter need to say?

Instead of May's six-page letter, here is what we suggest was required - in just one page. We start with a de minimus version of this letter, which would have read:

What we would have written

“Dear Mr Tusk,

“I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union on or before 29 March 2019. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community, on or before the same date.”

We would then also have added:

“The default position is that the EU treaties (including their rights and obligations – including payments) will cease to apply to the UK on or before 29 March 2019. We will then trade with each other on WTO terms. I am hopeful, however, that we might agree a better trading arrangement which suits both parties and I confirm that we are ready to discuss continued tariff-free access for EU27 goods into the UK market provided this is reciprocated.

“I can also confirm that all EU27 citizens currently residing in the UK will enjoy the same treatment as all UK citizens. I trust you will confirm that the same will be true for all UK citizens living in EU27 countries.

“As both sides have had nine months to prepare, I propose that negotiations for an orderly exit should start next Monday 03 April 2017. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU is ready to meet your team in Brussels, after which all meetings should alternate between London and Brussels.

“I am sure you will join me in looking forward to efficient and friendly negotiations to effect the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union in a productive manner on or before 29 March 2019.

“Finally and for clarity, we are leaving the EU, not Europe, and I look forward to a friendly relationship in the years and decades ahead.”

Further observations and a stand-out example of incompetence

Mrs May's letter to Donald Tusk invoking Article 50 is possibly one of the most poorly-drafted letters in international diplomacy that we have read. It almost talks more about the EU’s interests and values than it does about the UK’s. Furthermore it is repetitious in the extreme.

One stand-out example:-

“deep and special partnership” appears no less than SEVEN TIMES in the letter

1. “This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave.”

2. “We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals.”

3. “The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation.”

4. “It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.”

5. “We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation.”

6. “As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation.”

7. “Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.”

Observations

We don't know which civil servant or special advisor was responsible for drafting Mrs May's letter but whoever was involved should have been fired on the spot. Those responsible seem to have thought they were drafting a PM speech, not an important international legal document.

We believe that the EU took one look at Mrs May’s letter and knew they had already won.

From the moment the Leave result was announced they had already resolved to punish the UK and set an example for any other countries which might consider the same move. Remember EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on the morning after the result? “This will not be an amicable divorce”.

Mrs May’s appallingly verbose and grovelling letter set the landscape for the EU to increase its demands beyond what anyone internationally would have thought possible. With Mrs May and her Remainer team of civil servants the EU almost succeeded in this.

It was only the EU's insane greed which caused them to come unstuck, when Parliament refused to ratify the surrender treaty which the EU were by then attempting to impose on the UK. Had the EU held back a little and moderated its wholly-unreasonable demands just slightly, we believe Parliament would have reluctantly passed the ‘deal’ and the EU would have succeeded in turning the UK into its first colony.

As it is, everything hangs in the balance. Last night’s leadership candidate debate on Channel4 TV had all five contenders saying that they would go back to the EU to re-negotiate. What utter nonsense and a complete waste of time. Only Dominic Raab came even close to articulating what is now needed.

We must now proceed full-speed ahead towards a clean, WTO managed Brexit on or before 31 October 2019.

and global power of our continent.”

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Van wink said:

 

"Police are investigating five allegations of electoral irregularities related to the Peterborough byelection, which Labour won by 683 votes.

Three of these relate to postal votes, one allegation is of bribery and corruption and the fifth is of a breach of the privacy of the vote, Cambridgeshire police have confirmed.

The Labour candidate, Lisa Forbes, was elected after the byelection on 6 June, with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in second place.

Postal votes accounted for 9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received. About 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature or date of birth or both not matching council records."

 

Oh dear, and such a small majority!

Good to see the police acting quickly on allegations of electoral fraud, for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Surfer said:

Yup sounds about right for the US situation a well. Throw in some more culture wars around guns, abortion and religion, but you still come back to the same place. A bunch of mainly older, white guys and gals wishing their formerly  right of center party that sold out all of the the rights and workplace options they benefited from would just "stick it" to the "others" so that they can feel better about what it means to be "an American". And to hell with the country's progress, everyone else is just "lazy" a "socialist" or a "murderer" 

So we have the same problem in both countries. And the same leadership vacuum. And the same political cowardice refusing to address the issue head on. 

Welcome to our Washington Correspondent.

 

Surfer, the US is like the UK in many ways, and even over the pond the left are no longer interested in blue-collar workers. Here's from MSNBC today:

 

Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” network host Chris Matthews spoke of the state of the Democratic Party ahead of his special event talking with voters in Dayton, OH.

Matthews was asked about how working people feel “left behind” by the establishment class and President Donald Trump connected with that group of people in 2016 to get their vote.

The “Hardball” host said working people witnessed the “liberal elite” and Hollywood cozying up together and felt like they were not invited.

“Nobody wants to go to a party they hadn’t been invited to,” Matthews outlined, adding they have been “looked down on.”

“A friend of mine once said … people don’t mind being used, but they mind feeling discarded,” he continued. “The Democrats have a lot of people who feel discarded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Herman said:

Good to see the police acting quickly on allegations of electoral fraud, for once.

Get it right - it's blatant electoral fraud via postal voting and it's hardly the first time.

That the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation is actually reporting postal vote fraud is quite astounding.

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jools said:

Get it right - it's blatant electoral fraud via postal voting and it's hardly the first time.

That the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation is actually reporting the possibility of vote fraud is quite astounding.

oh dear, another dimwitted RWNJ

is it blatant electoral fraud  ?

or

is it the possibility ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear, another dimwitted RWNJ

is it blatant electoral fraud  ?

or

is it the possibility ?

blatant in his RWNJ world Bill (that's because his rabble lost :classic_biggrin:). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bill said:

oh dear, another dimwitted RWNJ

is it blatant electoral fraud  ?

or

is it the possibility ?

It's blatant and obvious to anyone with common sense, which is why I edited out the 'possibility' in my previous post before you made yours.

I doubt the police will bother to dig very deep, but it shows what we're up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you would think these nutters would man up - they lost the by election

so they should stop being ....... brexit tears 😢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jools said:

It's blatant and obvious to anyone with common sense, which is why I edited out the 'possibility' in my previous post before you made yours.

I doubt the police will bother to dig very deep, but it shows what we're up against.

oh dear, not too bright are you ?

my post was made 2 mins before your edit

and like your 'mate' hand crank you are already covering your ar se

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they realise that if the Peterborough result is overturned then the referendum should be as well?? Electoral fraud is electoral fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Herman said:

Do they realise that if the Peterborough result is overturned then the referendum should be as well?? Electoral fraud is electoral fraud.

image.png.a9cf4ea8809fcab4e92b194264f29338.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Welcome to our Washington Correspondent.

 

Surfer, the US is like the UK in many ways, and even over the pond the left are no longer interested in blue-collar workers. Here's from MSNBC today:

 

Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” network host Chris Matthews spoke of the state of the Democratic Party ahead of his special event talking with voters in Dayton, OH.

Matthews was asked about how working people feel “left behind” by the establishment class and President Donald Trump connected with that group of people in 2016 to get their vote.

The “Hardball” host said working people witnessed the “liberal elite” and Hollywood cozying up together and felt like they were not invited.

“Nobody wants to go to a party they hadn’t been invited to,” Matthews outlined, adding they have been “looked down on.”

“A friend of mine once said … people don’t mind being used, but they mind feeling discarded,” he continued. “The Democrats have a lot of people who feel discarded.

 

Chris Matthews is a commentator who speaks a lot of sense. Fact is the right have never had the interests of the working class in mind, and they definitely don't now. The left apparently fell in love with very similar monied interests the right have always worshipped, but only one of those political groups has a chance of representing the working class again; these current right wing politicians are pulling a major con, but they are only able to leverage the culture, flag and religious iconography of all authoritarians because the left of center, center and right of center aligned politicians allowed a vacuum to be created. So Chris is right in many ways, but he's not saying the solution to adopt the "policies" of the right, he's saying go speak plainly to the people in the street.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Jools? Other than the referendum is far more important they are both electoral fraud*.

 

*That's if a dodgy fakebook post and racism will lead to the overturning of the Peterborough result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear, not too bright are you ?

my post was made 2 mins before your edit

and like your 'mate' hand crank you are already covering your ar se

😀 Covering my @rse from what exactly, Billock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jools said:

😀 Covering my @rse from what exactly, Billock?

the police investigation drawing a blank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Why Jools? Other than the referendum is far more important they are both electoral fraud*.

 

*That's if a dodgy fakebook post and racism will lead to the overturning of the Peterborough result. 

Why do you keep bringing up the subject of racism, Hermo?

You know by doing so makes you a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bill said:

the police investigation drawing a blank

3150E12cdJL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......or, as known by his native American name

Running scared

61n9nICTcJL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jools said:

Why do you keep bringing up the subject of racism, Hermo?

You know by doing so makes you a racist.

Hahahaha you daft ****. How the hell does that work?

Anyway, your first reply to winky's post?? Why was your first post a group of asian lads celebrating? Why did the BP keep mentioning the asian community? Why are known racists like Hopkins getting involved? Hand around with dogs......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×