FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Vote Leave Appeal...
Vote Leave Appeal...
Jump to: Newest in thread
It means that they are guilty of breaking electoral law.
Just for clarity. | |||
| |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying...." They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. | |||
 | |||
"Gove, BJ and others could have funded an Appeal if they thought it could have succeeded, now that they can’t hide behind it the excuses should be at least amusing "They will probably not bother much, as there hasn't really been any coverage of this and I assume it will get very little in parliament or our media. Yet many of these crooks will happily take the Prime Minister role, if allowed to. Their illegal undertakings should invalidate the result of the referendum and see then kicked out of public office for life. Complicit and/or inept. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying...." I voted Remain because I knew of benefits of being in the EU and have enjoyed them throughout my life. Remain wasn't mis-sold unlike the Brexit Fantasy. | |||
| |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying." And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... | |||
"....and what will be done about this bearing in mind it is only a £60k fine?" Probablynothing asit was an Advisory vote, but it does show that Gove, BJ et al lied, which underlines their character and lack of suitability to lead  | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying...." Remain Groups we’re also investigated, and fined. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... Remain Groups we’re also investigated, and fined. " Were autocorrect does my head in. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... Remain Groups we’re also investigated, and fined. " Which one and for what? | |||
"....and what will be done about this bearing in mind it is only a £60k fine?" What difference does it make how much the fine is? Was the law broken or not? It isn't even the severity of the crime. It's the denial and lies which apparently doesn't bother you. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying...." It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though "Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority.... | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority...."Was the government leaflet legal? Yes Did anybody deny what they did? No Was the Leave cross-funding legal? No Did they deny that it was illegal? Yes False equivalence is easy to explain. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority...."You know what. It's fine. Your position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign acted illegally, denied it and were convicted. The fact that the fine is "only" £60,000 and the government produced a legal statement of their position makes it OK  | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying...." That was legal though | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority...."No one needs to explain the legality of a legal issue that's not illegal. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority....
You know what.
It's fine.
Your position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign acted illegally, denied it and were convicted.
The fact that the fine is "only" £60,000 and the government produced a legal statement of their position makes it OK "No more acceptable than the Government spending £9.4 million on pro EU propaganda just before a referendum. Two wrongs don't make a right. To me it seems a mute point. Remain failed to recognise the potential strength of feeling at grass roots and not actually tried to persuade those who voted out to change their opinions. Since the referendum the losing Remain side have continuously looked at every little snippet of gripe as a lifeline, often berating Brexit supporters as racist or ill informed, using snobbery such as claiming the moral or intellectual high ground in a similar way that the PM snapped at Parliament. There is little to differentiate between the methodology of the two sides. Sad. | |||
| |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority....
You know what.
It's fine.
Your position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign acted illegally, denied it and were convicted.
The fact that the fine is "only" £60,000 and the government produced a legal statement of their position makes it OK
No more acceptable than the Government spending £9.4 million on pro EU propaganda just before a referendum.
Two wrongs don't make a right. To me it seems a mute point.
Remain failed to recognise the potential strength of feeling at grass roots and not actually tried to persuade those who voted out to change their opinions.
Since the referendum the losing Remain side have continuously looked at every little snippet of gripe as a lifeline, often berating Brexit supporters as racist or ill informed, using snobbery such as claiming the moral or intellectual high ground in a similar way that the PM snapped at Parliament.
There is little to differentiate between the methodology of the two sides.
Sad."Did the Leave campaign break electoral law? Yes. Were Leave voters generally less educated? Yes. These are facts not opinions. I agree it's sad but its also the truth. Own it. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority....
You know what.
It's fine.
Your position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign acted illegally, denied it and were convicted.
The fact that the fine is "only" £60,000 and the government produced a legal statement of their position makes it OK
No more acceptable than the Government spending £9.4 million on pro EU propaganda just before a referendum.
Two wrongs don't make a right. To me it seems a mute point.
Remain failed to recognise the potential strength of feeling at grass roots and not actually tried to persuade those who voted out to change their opinions.
Since the referendum the losing Remain side have continuously looked at every little snippet of gripe as a lifeline, often berating Brexit supporters as racist or ill informed, using snobbery such as claiming the moral or intellectual high ground in a similar way that the PM snapped at Parliament.
There is little to differentiate between the methodology of the two sides.
Sad."Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Your position is as I stated it to be. Illegal activity is fine as long as the fine is "small" and because someone else did something that is not illegal. Understood | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. " Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward." Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it. | |||
"......and every mainstream party is guilty of misdescription, disinformation and failed promises. Just saying.... They are not a mainstream party They have attempted to fundamentally change the direction of the country using deceit. They claimed innocence. Loudly as in everything else they do. Have been found guilty and quietly slipped away. The Leave press is quiet about it. Just saying. And the taxpayer funded a £9.4 million pro EU marketing campaign which was not included in the Remain campaign accounts. Just saying.... It was not illegal and that was the government position. False equivalence. Bless you for trying though
Try explaining it is false equivalence to the majority....
You know what.
It's fine.
Your position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign acted illegally, denied it and were convicted.
The fact that the fine is "only" £60,000 and the government produced a legal statement of their position makes it OK
No more acceptable than the Government spending £9.4 million on pro EU propaganda just before a referendum.
Two wrongs don't make a right. To me it seems a mute point.
Remain failed to recognise the potential strength of feeling at grass roots and not actually tried to persuade those who voted out to change their opinions.
Since the referendum the losing Remain side have continuously looked at every little snippet of gripe as a lifeline, often berating Brexit supporters as racist or ill informed, using snobbery such as claiming the moral or intellectual high ground in a similar way that the PM snapped at Parliament.
There is little to differentiate between the methodology of the two sides.
Sad.
Did the Leave campaign break electoral law? Yes.
Were Leave voters generally less educated? Yes.
These are facts not opinions. I agree it's sad but its also the truth. Own it."Explain where in your opinion that leave supporters were less educated. Was it the same polling companies that have failed to get anything right recently? Perhaps an appraisal of the influence of the long defunct Referendum Party after the 1997 election is more aligned to what happened. "voters for the Referendum Party were remarkably Eurosceptic but were unremarkable in most other respects. They show no sign of being right-wing on the economic issues of the left-right dimension and they were not consistently right-wing ideologues. Those who voted for the party held a diversity of ideological positions, the only shared factor being their Euroscepticism"..... | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it."Doesn't the quip about leave supporters being less well educated back up the argument about intellectual snobbery, even though there is no real evidence to back it up. It also smacks of the idea of a need for Orwellian re-education or worse that those with a vote should only be granted that right if they reach the "correct" conclusion and vote for the "truth". I am sure that wasn't the intention but a simple apology would suffice. | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it.
Doesn't the quip about leave supporters being less well educated back up the argument about intellectual snobbery, even though there is no real evidence to back it up.
It also smacks of the idea of a need for Orwellian re-education or worse that those with a vote should only be granted that right if they reach the "correct" conclusion and vote for the "truth".
I am sure that wasn't the intention but a simple apology would suffice.
"It's not a quip is it? It's a statistic just as most leave voters were older and remain voters younger. Higher educational attainment does not equate to intelligence. Do you disagree? If you don't like the statistic because it doesn't suit you that's fine. Just call it "fake news". To go from this to Orwellian re-education is a laughable step. However, as you are alluding to it, would it be wrong for the population to change their mind? Well done on focussing on this specific element which is the most likely to get people emotionally outraged rather than the fact that the leave campaign has dropped it's appeal on breaking electoral rules
Apologise for an imaginary slight that you made up? | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it.
Doesn't the quip about leave supporters being less well educated back up the argument about intellectual snobbery, even though there is no real evidence to back it up.
It also smacks of the idea of a need for Orwellian re-education or worse that those with a vote should only be granted that right if they reach the "correct" conclusion and vote for the "truth".
I am sure that wasn't the intention but a simple apology would suffice.
It's not a quip is it? It's a statistic just as most leave voters were older and remain voters younger.
Higher educational attainment does not equate to intelligence. Do you disagree?
If you don't like the statistic because it doesn't suit you that's fine. Just call it "fake news".
To go from this to Orwellian re-education is a laughable step.
However, as you are alluding to it, would it be wrong for the population to change their mind?
Well done on focussing on this specific element which is the most likely to get people emotionally outraged rather than the fact that the leave campaign has dropped it's appeal on breaking electoral rules
Apologise for an imaginary slight that you made up? "You may be in a minority again...using less educated is hardly a compliment is it? | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it.
Doesn't the quip about leave supporters being less well educated back up the argument about intellectual snobbery, even though there is no real evidence to back it up.
It also smacks of the idea of a need for Orwellian re-education or worse that those with a vote should only be granted that right if they reach the "correct" conclusion and vote for the "truth".
I am sure that wasn't the intention but a simple apology would suffice.
It's not a quip is it? It's a statistic just as most leave voters were older and remain voters younger.
Higher educational attainment does not equate to intelligence. Do you disagree?
If you don't like the statistic because it doesn't suit you that's fine. Just call it "fake news".
To go from this to Orwellian re-education is a laughable step.
However, as you are alluding to it, would it be wrong for the population to change their mind?
Well done on focussing on this specific element which is the most likely to get people emotionally outraged rather than the fact that the leave campaign has dropped it's appeal on breaking electoral rules
Apologise for an imaginary slight that you made up?
You may be in a minority again...using less educated is hardly a compliment is it?"Why would more educated people vote to flush the country down the bog just because of some transparent propaganda? The answer is, on average, they wouldn't. | |||
". Having won, leave chose to ignore the 16 million who voted to remain yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You lost, we won", "stop moaning" and "get over it" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Having lost, remain chose to ignore the 17.4 million who voted to leave yet you seem surprised that they might be a little annoyed about that. "You didn't know what you were voting for", "you're thick", "you're all racists" and "we need another referendum because the first one shouldn't count" are not forms of engagement that will unite the country and move it forward. Those who support remain did not and cannot ignore the leave vote. What has been happening for the last three years?
I've never said any of the things that you claim.
It's possible to know exactly what you're voting for and then find out you were lied to and want to change your position. Do you disagree?
Less educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you?
The simplest logic makes it clear that voting leave does not make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist. The question is if you really believe that the majority of racists votes leave or remain. Not some. The majority. What is your opinion? Tommy Robinson claimed to represent you outside Parliament. Leave has been hijacked.
The first recerndum counts. We now know that the promises made cannot be delivered. The second referendum is to agree that the terms agreed are acceptable or if not to stop the process. Would the public be wrong to change their mind?
You won, own it.
Doesn't the quip about leave supporters being less well educated back up the argument about intellectual snobbery, even though there is no real evidence to back it up.
It also smacks of the idea of a need for Orwellian re-education or worse that those with a vote should only be granted that right if they reach the "correct" conclusion and vote for the "truth".
I am sure that wasn't the intention but a simple apology would suffice.
It's not a quip is it? It's a statistic just as most leave voters were older and remain voters younger.
Higher educational attainment does not equate to intelligence. Do you disagree?
If you don't like the statistic because it doesn't suit you that's fine. Just call it "fake news".
To go from this to Orwellian re-education is a laughable step.
However, as you are alluding to it, would it be wrong for the population to change their mind?
Well done on focussing on this specific element which is the most likely to get people emotionally outraged rather than the fact that the leave campaign has dropped it's appeal on breaking electoral rules
Apologise for an imaginary slight that you made up?
You may be in a minority again...using less educated is hardly a compliment is it?"You do like this detail to argue over don't you? Much easier to be emotive and take offense than the actual point under discussion
Shall we see if you can directly respond to both your own diversion and the main question?
Less well educated does not imply stupid to me. Does it to you? I would not use that as an insult either. Would you?
Is it OK to break electoral law? Does the fact that the fine was "only" £60,000 make it alright. Does the government spending money legally make it alright to break electoral law? | |||
| |||
| |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". " If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". " Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far!" It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding. "I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost. Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". " I did not raise the point. All that I said, and have repeated, is that intelligence does not equate to educational attainment in my mind. What do you think? The source is: "European Journal of Political Economy Volume 56, January 2019, Pages 132-150 Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined Eleonora Alabresea, Sascha O.Beckerb, ThiemoFetzerc,Dennis Novyd a University of Warwick, United Kingdom b University of Warwick, Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE), CEPR, CESifo, ifo, IZA and ROA, United Kingdom c University of Warwick, Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE), SERC, United Kingdom d University of Warwick, Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE), CEPR, CESifo and CEP/LSE, United Kingdom" I will welcome your fulsome apology, although you know doubt have significant data to refute this. Everyone's vote is as valid as mine. That is what universal suffrage means. If everyone's opinion as valid is less obvious. For instance, I don't think that the opinion of someone who thinks that I should go back to where I came from due to the colour of my skin is as valid as my opinion that I should continue to live here. What do you think? So, for clarity, you find it perfectly acceptable that the Leave campaign broke electoral law and claimed not to have done so. You feel that the magnitude of the dine (the maximum available under law) justifies your opinion. You would like to equate this breaking of the law with legal spending that you take exception to. Is this correct? I did not state that it forces a rerun. It merely underlines the fact that the Leave campaign felt it acceptable to behave in this manner which throws light upon their willingness to lie and exaggerate liberally throughout the campaign. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly. "I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU."Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. "I would have been annoyed that the government did not concur with my opinion, but it's perfectly legitimate that they should take one before purdah. As it stands, I felt that it was not a very good document anyway. It did not actually provide any information about how the EU functioned or how successful the UK has been getting its own way within it. Facts would have been more useful than opinion. There have not been two wrongs. There has been one illegal act and one conviction. You have attempted to minimise it's importance by indicating that a £60,000 fine is insignificant and drawing an equivalence with another matter and trying to conflate the two. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU.
Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point."All of which has already been paid to the EU by the UK via its membership contributions. | |||
| |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU.
Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point."All of which has already been paid to the EU by the UK via its membership contributions. The UK's EU membership fee. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK's 'net contribution' was estimated at nearly £9 billion. | |||
| |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU.
Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point.
All of which has already been paid to the EU by the UK via its membership contributions.
The UK's EU membership fee. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK's 'net contribution' was estimated at nearly £9 billion."So access to a unified market with the cost savings and efficiency that brings means nothing to you then? Why dont you just keep counting the beans Jack and if you’re lucky maybe they might be magic and lead us to some golden eggs that will bail us out? | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU.
Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point.
All of which has already been paid to the EU by the UK via its membership contributions.
The UK's EU membership fee. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK's 'net contribution' was estimated at nearly £9 billion."What's the value of frictionless trade? What's the value of freedom of movement? What's the value of poorer countries becoming wealthier and more able to buy our output? The contribution is not made with the expectation of a direct financial return from the organisation of the EU. If you buy a new machine for a factory, would you expect the supplier to return that cash to you in some way or do you expect the investment to pay back significantly more in some other way? Do you think that it was OK for Vote Leave to break election law, deny it and refuse to take responsibility when found out? | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! It will only cost 1 Billion if we leave and keep the 39 Billion ransom that the EU is demanding.
I was talking about the loss of tax revenue and the extra expenses caused by Brexit. That cash you’re talking about is extra on top of the 40 billion it’s already cost.
Surely you completely understand the impact of refusing to pay the money we own to the E.U.? Exactly.
I would point out that the EU has been funding much of the payment for infrastructure contingency in the UK due to the current rules in place. It was probably an oversight as nobody actually believed that a country would leave the EU.
Yeah the E.U. fund lots of stuff. Good point.
All of which has already been paid to the EU by the UK via its membership contributions.
The UK's EU membership fee. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK's 'net contribution' was estimated at nearly £9 billion.
So access to a unified market with the cost savings and efficiency that brings means nothing to you then? Why dont you just keep counting the beans Jack and if you’re lucky maybe they might be magic and lead us to some golden eggs that will bail us out? "You seem to be able to recount many fairy tales and fantasies, another very angry remainer, who thinks if he shouts louder than everyone else, it must be true. | |||
| |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers " So much anger and confusion in one man. Take a deep breath, look out the window once in a while. | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers " Not the circles I move in - the men here seem more into fucking than wanking | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers " Aaron Banks and the Leave.eu campaign are actually South Gloustershire, not Bristol. But close. -Matt | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers " Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you "you,re welcome it was you and your ilk it was aimed at | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you you,re welcome it was you and your ilk it was aimed at "Why are leavers so bitter? Is it because the penny has finally dropped and you won't be getting your magical unicorns you were promised? I said many times before that whilst remain voters quite rightly were pissed off about how things were going (as they didn't want to leave anyway)... it always surprised me why so many leave voters seemed so accepting of how the shit-show was unfolding. -Matt | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you you,re welcome it was you and your ilk it was aimed at "The frustration, anger and confusion is strong with you. I know it’s wrong, but when people stereotype leavers, it’s you they picture. I know we shouldn’t stereotype groups of people, and I realise that most leavers aren’t as ignorant, angry and frustrated. But you’re not doing their cause any good. | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers " Well as the pride of lytham (where the fuck even is that anyway?) I guess you would know all about that wouldnt you....sounds like the usual lying Brexiteers bollocks to me....lying wankers every last one of them! | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. "An excellent summary of the key points. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. An excellent summary of the key points. "The Government was rightly tasked with outlining probable outcomes. Leave just lied  | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far!" You appear to fail to recognise that any project will incur set up costs. The £40 billion to which you refer fades into insignificance when you take into account the long term savings as a result of Brexit . ( the concept of cost benefit analysis ). | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! You appear to fail to recognise that any project will incur set up costs. The £40 billion to which you refer fades into insignificance when you take into account the long term savings as a result of Brexit . ( the concept of cost benefit analysis ). " How long term are you talking? The economy has been held back by Brexit, we have lost major employers and £1trillion of investments has left the UK - is it 1 year, 3 years, 25 years or 1,000 years!?  | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. An excellent summary of the key points.
The Government was rightly tasked with outlining probable outcomes. Leave just lied "If you do a detailed analysis of the long term savings as a result of Brexit you will probably find that their campaign was as accurate if not more accurate than that of the government. Instead of an immediate economic recession we had a stock market boom and a strongly performing economy. | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". If you're that cheesed off about the £9 mil for those leaflets that the government was obliged to send out as per the electoral commission. You must be going mental about the £40 billion that Brexit has cost us so far! You appear to fail to recognise that any project will incur set up costs. The £40 billion to which you refer fades into insignificance when you take into account the long term savings as a result of Brexit . ( the concept of cost benefit analysis ). How long term are you talking? The economy has been held back by Brexit, we have lost major employers and £1trillion of investments has left the UK - is it 1 year, 3 years, 25 years or 1,000 years!? "Bump - strongly performing economy my arse (thanks to Father Ted) | |||
"If the phrase less educated was not intended as a slur about people who voted against your agenda, then why raise it and what is the evidence? If you do not believe you were trying to take the intellectual snobbery line, then you accept that the opinions of the majority are just as valid as yours. Insofar as the £60k fine is concerned, it is about the size of the average student loan....small potatoes. The finding makes no difference to the result as it will not force a rerun. The expenditure of the leave campaign was less than the remain campaign and remain still lost. I would not want my hard earned taxes being used to promote a pro or anti document again. It was a larger scandal especially as it was not backed by law. The real scandals are where cash comes from and not "my funding was fine as it was provided by the Government and yours wasn't because it came from Vote Leave to a subsidiary". Absolutely right. If I adopt the answer this sums up my thoughts. I suppose if the Government produced a document costing £9.4 million saying why the Withdrawal Agreement was wonderful and then has a referendum on an accept/reject basis, then Easyuk would have no objection to the idea, even if he was against the agreement.....as it sums up the Governmental position. Or perhaps the Government could such a document at the expense of the taxpayer outlining all of it's policies prior to an election (clearly illegal under electoral law). The propaganda sheet sent contained a number of falsehoods such as that we would probably go into recession (we still are in growth) once we vote to leave and employment would fall (it has risen), both of which have yet to happen. It was a worthless piece of paper at a cost to you and me of a mere £9.4 million. Somewhat more than the £600k mispend and £60k fine. The point is that it puts the expenditure into context. I have already said in a previous post that 2 wrongs don't make a right. He clearly refuses to read it....perhaps selectively reading what he wants. Next time, I will post my thoughts on the side of a bus. An excellent summary of the key points.
The Government was rightly tasked with outlining probable outcomes. Leave just lied If you do a detailed analysis of the long term savings as a result of Brexit you will probably find that their campaign was as accurate if not more accurate than that of the government.
Instead of an immediate economic recession we had a stock market boom and a strongly performing economy. "Excellent. Which detailed analysis? Have you got a link or is it in a "specialist publication" that the rest of us don't have access to? Was the detailed analysis by Economists for Free Trade who see the end of UK manufacturing as an acceptable outcome? | |||
| |||
" The UK's EU membership fee. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. In 2017 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion. So the UK's 'net contribution' was estimated at nearly £9 billion. So access to a unified market with the cost savings and efficiency that brings means nothing to you then? Why dont you just keep counting the beans Jack and if you’re lucky maybe they might be magic and lead us to some golden eggs that will bail us out? " They ignore the benefits of the EU membership payment because their only economic argument that goes their way is just to point out what we pay in and what money comes back. Many fully understand that once you do take into account the economic benefits of being in the Single Market etc then their original argument falls flat on it's arse. You also have many that don't have a bloody clue about the economic benefits of the Single Market and blindly refuse to accept there's any benefits, and I really don't know which is worse. The 3rd group of this economic angle just say their vote was nothing to do with economics which is fine yet they won't accept there will then be less money as a result to go towards Health, education, Police etc etc through vastly reduced free trade once we leave, especially if its a WTO no deal exit. | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you you,re welcome it was you and your ilk it was aimed at "So you have no evidence to counter anything he's pointing out so all you've got left is to call him a lying wanker. We'll done you | |||
" You appear to fail to recognise that any project will incur set up costs. The £40 billion to which you refer fades into insignificance when you take into account the long term savings as a result of Brexit . ( the concept of cost benefit analysis ). " What saving is that then Pat? To calculate a saving you obviously must understand all losses have to factored in first. So how do you get to the notion long term savings as a result of Brexit? I'd presume it's only once we have replaced all our Trade agreements with level or better terms than we have now and enough time has elapsed to negate the £800 million a week the UK is worse off by since the referendum and built up a surplus to negate the losses. What sort of time frame are you looking at Pat? Do you agree with prominent Brexiteers it may take 50 years or longer? | |||
"Did you not know Bristol is full of lying wankers Really good point. You tackled the situation head on and I feel enlightened by your contribution. Thank you you,re welcome it was you and your ilk it was aimed at
So you have no evidence to counter anything he's pointing out so all you've got left is to call him a lying wanker.
We'll done you "It's par for the course with him, no ideas or anything of any value to add to any such debate so just trots out juvenile tosh.. Hey ho.. | |||
" You appear to fail to recognise that any project will incur set up costs. The £40 billion to which you refer fades into insignificance when you take into account the long term savings as a result of Brexit . ( the concept of cost benefit analysis ). What saving is that then Pat? To calculate a saving you obviously must understand all losses have to factored in first. So how do you get to the notion long term savings as a result of Brexit? I'd presume it's only once we have replaced all our Trade agreements with level or better terms than we have now and enough time has elapsed to negate the £800 million a week the UK is worse off by since the referendum and built up a surplus to negate the losses. What sort of time frame are you looking at Pat? Do you agree with prominent Brexiteers it may take 50 years or longer? " The analysis indicated that the most optimistic outcome of the least damaging Brexit would put us back where we were before the referendum by 2066. But by then, we will be 53 years behind the rest of the world. | |||
| |||
