Led up the garden path....

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Or call it the White Elephant Collective!

[Blackpowder]

Cant politicians realise that a majority of the population who voted, voted to leave the EU.   My vote was to leave i have never followed any proceeds from the Brussels wind bags other than those concerning the British Fishing Industry.  To my mind only imbeciles would consider that throwing dead fish over the side was a conservation measure, but this was the EU ruling.  So what was happening in other spheres of which I know nothing .  Other imbecile proposals, lets get rid and soon as possible.

Blackpowder

[Newbie to this]

20 minutes ago, Blackpowder said:

Cant politicians realise that a majority of the population who voted, voted to leave the EU.   My vote was to leave i have never followed any proceeds from the Brussels wind bags other than those concerning the British Fishing Industry.  To my mind only imbeciles would consider that throwing dead fish over the side was a conservation measure, but this was the EU ruling.  So what was happening in other spheres of which I know nothing .  Other imbecile proposals, lets get rid and soon as possible.

Blackpowder

I know the EU was considering (not sure if it was made a policy) paying the people smugglers not to smuggle people. Makes sense when you think about it, pay a criminal (one of the worst kind) not to commit their crime, then once you have payed them, they go and do it anyway, they are criminals after all. Win win for the criminal and in the meantime the EU continue to bury their head's in the sand and hope the problem will go away.

[Vince Green]

13 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I know the EU was considering (not sure if it was made a policy) paying the people smugglers not to smuggle people. Makes sense when you think about it, pay a criminal (one of the worst kind) not to commit their crime, then once you have payed them, they go and do it anyway, they are criminals after all. Win win for the criminal and in the meantime the EU continue to bury their head's in the sand and hope the problem will go away.

I think Italy and Malta's stance over the "so called" rescue ship Aquarius was a step in the right direction. Refusing to let them land 600 odd illegals on the basis that the way they were picked up did not constitute a true maritime rescue in the legal sense is a breath of fresh air.

These rescue ships are just facilitating the people traffickers illegal activities.

Spain took them this time but that wont last long

[Walker570]

They should have been returned to Libya escorted by a couple of frigates. Do that a couple of times and the situation would change dramatically. 

7 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I think Italy and Malta's stance over the "so called" rescue ship Aquarius was a step in the right direction. Refusing to let them land 600 odd illegals on the basis that the way they were picked up did not constitute a true maritime rescue in the legal sense is a breath of fresh air.

These rescue ships are just facilitating the people traffickers illegal activities.

Spain took them this time but that wont last long

 

[johnphilip]

12 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

They should have been returned to Libya escorted by a couple of frigates. Do that a couple of times and the situation would change dramatically. 

 

Yes this all day long, 

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I know the EU was considering (not sure if it was made a policy) paying the people smugglers not to smuggle people. Makes sense when you think about it, pay a criminal (one of the worst kind) not to commit their crime, then once you have payed them, they go and do it anyway, they are criminals after all. Win win for the criminal and in the meantime the EU continue to bury their head's in the sand and hope the problem will go away.

Can't see that being a realistic option when you think about it. 

29 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I think Italy and Malta's stance over the "so called" rescue ship Aquarius was a step in the right direction. Refusing to let them land 600 odd illegals on the basis that the way they were picked up did not constitute a true maritime rescue in the legal sense is a breath of fresh air.

 

Yep. 

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I know the EU was considering (not sure if it was made a policy) paying the people smugglers not to smuggle people. Makes sense when you think about it, pay a criminal (one of the worst kind) not to commit their crime, then once you have payed them, they go and do it anyway, they are criminals after all. Win win for the criminal and in the meantime the EU continue to bury their head's in the sand and hope the problem will go away.

The people smugglers are without a doubt some of the worst type of criminals.

But tell me this, if there was a set of people who contacted the smugglers in say Libya, and told them that just outside their territorial waters, there was a ship that would pick their 'refugees' up and take them to a friendly EU port, would that be a crime ,or at the very least conspiracy ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/aquarius-migrant-crisis-boat-mediterranean-libya-italy-malta-spain-a8394416.html

You may have seen the story, how the ship, the Aquarius (more on that later) picked up these 629 people , including 123 'unaccompanied  minors' and 7 pregnant women, from the people traffickers at sea, then sailed straight past Malta and to Italy, who flatly refused to take them (Im sure the EU will have something to say about that rule break)
After some wrangling, Spain has agreed to take them, but the boats management have said no, we want to unload in Italy.
So not only are the captain and crew of the Aquarius complicit in people smuggling, they are demanding where these err, desperate refugees can and cant be unloaded to claim asylum.
A strange set of circumstances...

The Aquarius,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_(NGO_ship) belongs (at the moment) to SOS Mediterranee an NGO that shuttles back and forth between Italy and Libya ,meeting those nasty ,illegal people traffickers, and bringing them to Italy.
The ship and its running are apparently paid for by donations, some nice people out there who cant stand to see these sub Saharan peoples kept from the riches of the first world.
Another ship owned by NGO  Sea Watch https://sea-watch.org/en/ ,with 800 souls aboard has also been turned away by Italy.

http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/4529/which-ngos-have-signed-the-italian-code-of-conduct

So which of the NGOs who flout international law, deal with criminals and seem to want to create a conduit for refugees into Europe?
And what do they all have in common ?
Answer ,they are all either directly operated by, or receive massive funding from Open Society Org.
Dig deep enough and you will find that George soros pet project has its tentacles in most of the refugee boat NGOs to some extent or another.
Can you think why (besides him feeling sorry for refugees) he would want to do this ?

Mr soros , who makes his money banking on the demise of nations and large multinationals, seems intent on flooding migrants into Europe.
Mr soros has few friends, but lots of money, his offer of a multi million pound war chest to overturn Brexit, and the suspicion that he is the mystery donor who financed Gina Millers shenanigins (she distanced herself when it became somewhat obvious it was him) shows that he is most certainly not interested in democracy or indeed common people.
Indeed, surely a multi billionaire, if he cared so much about these 3rd world people, would invest some money in building something sustainable to help them, help themselves, instead of enabling the offloading of them onto our streets ?
But soros doesnt invest money in growth, he invests in decline. And the EU and its sovereign governments seem to let him get on with it.
Except Hungary, where he was born, they have effectively barred him from entry.
Think about that for a moment.

[yod dropper]

17 hours ago, scolopax said:

from the BBC article quoting the leave campaign Arron Banks:

Leave.EU, which was backed .....  and his role in it had been that of an "agent provocateur

 

I listened on the radio to a much more complete version of the interview, way more than was on television.  Mildly humerous as reported on both media, a bunch of solely remain MPs calling in only the leave camp and trying to discredit them and I guess the result.  Messrs Banks and Wigmore hammed up their role treating it with a suitable level of contempt.  As they pointed out, the remain campaign had the Civil Service, the IMF, Barack Obama and more behind them and who certainly employed some interesting tactics.  Despite the threats and scaremongering one campaign proved more successful than the other.  Talk about clutching at straws.

What are your views on this Scolopax?

[Wb123]

Is there any data on how strongly leave voters felt about the issue?

Between the better half and I we really couldn't side one way or the other so had a pact that each voted a different way. Thus far I have yet to see any new information that would have made me act differently (though I do miss two mates who moved their businesses to mainland Europe).

[scolopax]

54 minutes ago, yod dropper said:

 

What are your views on this Scolopax?

I voted to stay in, mainly because I am consevative in my attitudes to almost everything and generally have a dislike of change.   I hope I am wrong but when I first saw the claim of £350 million a week for the NHS, or whatever it was, I hoped the electorate was not too stupid to fall for that one simple statement (lie). Most probably did'nt but I think enough did to sway the vote, it was decided by that simple lie. And now one of the pro brexit groups admit they effectively lied through their teeth ..all about emotion not about Facts was'nt it??

 

Anyway I await the results of Brexit with a mixture of interest and trepidation, it has the potential to efect me personally in a big way (badly), but one thing I will not do is blame the politicians for it (well maybe that fool Cameron), they in the majority did not want it and now have to try and make it work. The only people to blame if it goes wrong are thse who voted for it.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by scolopax

[yod dropper]

2 minutes ago, scolopax said:

I voted to stay in, mainly because I am consevative ...... they in the majority did not want it and now have to try and make it work. The only people to blame if it goes wrong are thse who voted for it.

 

I think there's enough consensus that neither side was really up for reasoned debate, facts were probably out of the window even before that government leaflet came out the day before the official campaign began.  I've no doubt the many 'facts' in that leaflet led a lot of people up the garden path on the remain side.  We then had all of the stuff about the 'bonfire of workers' rights' and 'race to the bottom' and other emotive nonsense.  It's not all one-sided you see.

Brexit should benefit me but in the same way it will most of the people who live around here.  I think we're getting a way worse deal than we could have done due to the weakened hand the government has been given by many remain leaning politicians and those who have even been briefing against the UK to the EU.  One of the problems we have is that Parliament is not nearly representative of the electorate on this issue.

Just in case, I've respect for your position to do stability and that Brexit may effect you adversely.

[poontang]

47 minutes ago, scolopax said:

I voted to stay in, mainly because I am consevative in my attitudes to almost everything and generally have a dislike of change.   

 

If you're conservative in attitude then the very last thing you would want would be to be shackled to the disgusting behemoth that is the EU. 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

The people smugglers are without a doubt some of the worst type of criminals.

But tell me this, if there was a set of people who contacted the smugglers in say Libya, and told them that just outside their territorial waters, there was a ship that would pick their 'refugees' up and take them to a friendly EU port, would that be a crime ,or at the very least conspiracy ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/aquarius-migrant-crisis-boat-mediterranean-libya-italy-malta-spain-a8394416.html

You may have seen the story, how the ship, the Aquarius (more on that later) picked up these 629 people , including 123 'unaccompanied  minors' and 7 pregnant women, from the people traffickers at sea, then sailed straight past Malta and to Italy, who flatly refused to take them (Im sure the EU will have something to say about that rule break)
After some wrangling, Spain has agreed to take them, but the boats management have said no, we want to unload in Italy.
So not only are the captain and crew of the Aquarius complicit in people smuggling, they are demanding where these err, desperate refugees can and cant be unloaded to claim asylum.
A strange set of circumstances...

The Aquarius,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_(NGO_ship) belongs (at the moment) to SOS Mediterranee an NGO that shuttles back and forth between Italy and Libya ,meeting those nasty ,illegal people traffickers, and bringing them to Italy.
The ship and its running are apparently paid for by donations, some nice people out there who cant stand to see these sub Saharan peoples kept from the riches of the first world.
Another ship owned by NGO  Sea Watch https://sea-watch.org/en/ ,with 800 souls aboard has also been turned away by Italy.

http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/4529/which-ngos-have-signed-the-italian-code-of-conduct

So which of the NGOs who flout international law, deal with criminals and seem to want to create a conduit for refugees into Europe?
And what do they all have in common ?
Answer ,they are all either directly operated by, or receive massive funding from Open Society Org.
Dig deep enough and you will find that George soros pet project has its tentacles in most of the refugee boat NGOs to some extent or another.
Can you think why (besides him feeling sorry for refugees) he would want to do this ?

Mr soros , who makes his money banking on the demise of nations and large multinationals, seems intent on flooding migrants into Europe.
Mr soros has few friends, but lots of money, his offer of a multi million pound war chest to overturn Brexit, and the suspicion that he is the mystery donor who financed Gina Millers shenanigins (she distanced herself when it became somewhat obvious it was him) shows that he is most certainly not interested in democracy or indeed common people.
Indeed, surely a multi billionaire, if he cared so much about these 3rd world people, would invest some money in building something sustainable to help them, help themselves, instead of enabling the offloading of them onto our streets ?
But soros doesnt invest money in growth, he invests in decline. And the EU and its sovereign governments seem to let him get on with it.
Except Hungary, where he was born, they have effectively barred him from entry.
Think about that for a moment.

Rewulf that really is a intreststing post, I knew Soros was an extremely dodgy character but that truly is shocking (I know, I shouldn't be). He also has a list of "friendly" members within the EU parliament, if any corruption is worth investigating it's Mr Soros.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, scolopax said:

when I first saw the claim of £350 million a week for the NHS, or whatever it was, I hoped the electorate was not too stupid to fall for that one simple statement (lie). Most probably did'nt but I think enough did to sway the vote, it was decided by that simple lie. 

What makes you think it was a lie? We still don't know what the £350 Million will be spent on, as we are still sending it to the EU. As has been mentioned both sides were liberal with the truth, but I, like many on both sides, had made our minds up way before any of the campaigning started.

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

The people smugglers are without a doubt some of the worst type of criminals.

But tell me this, if there was a set of people who contacted the smugglers in say Libya, and told them that just outside their territorial waters, there was a ship that would pick their 'refugees' up and take them to a friendly EU port, would that be a crime ,or at the very least conspiracy ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/aquarius-migrant-crisis-boat-mediterranean-libya-italy-malta-spain-a8394416.html

You may have seen the story, how the ship, the Aquarius (more on that later) picked up these 629 people , including 123 'unaccompanied  minors' and 7 pregnant women, from the people traffickers at sea, then sailed straight past Malta and to Italy, who flatly refused to take them (Im sure the EU will have something to say about that rule break)
After some wrangling, Spain has agreed to take them, but the boats management have said no, we want to unload in Italy.
So not only are the captain and crew of the Aquarius complicit in people smuggling, they are demanding where these err, desperate refugees can and cant be unloaded to claim asylum.
A strange set of circumstances...

The Aquarius,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_(NGO_ship) belongs (at the moment) to SOS Mediterranee an NGO that shuttles back and forth between Italy and Libya ,meeting those nasty ,illegal people traffickers, and bringing them to Italy.
The ship and its running are apparently paid for by donations, some nice people out there who cant stand to see these sub Saharan peoples kept from the riches of the first world.
Another ship owned by NGO  Sea Watch https://sea-watch.org/en/ ,with 800 souls aboard has also been turned away by Italy.

http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/4529/which-ngos-have-signed-the-italian-code-of-conduct

So which of the NGOs who flout international law, deal with criminals and seem to want to create a conduit for refugees into Europe?
And what do they all have in common ?
Answer ,they are all either directly operated by, or receive massive funding from Open Society Org.
Dig deep enough and you will find that George soros pet project has its tentacles in most of the refugee boat NGOs to some extent or another.
Can you think why (besides him feeling sorry for refugees) he would want to do this ?

Mr soros , who makes his money banking on the demise of nations and large multinationals, seems intent on flooding migrants into Europe.
Mr soros has few friends, but lots of money, his offer of a multi million pound war chest to overturn Brexit, and the suspicion that he is the mystery donor who financed Gina Millers shenanigins (she distanced herself when it became somewhat obvious it was him) shows that he is most certainly not interested in democracy or indeed common people.
Indeed, surely a multi billionaire, if he cared so much about these 3rd world people, would invest some money in building something sustainable to help them, help themselves, instead of enabling the offloading of them onto our streets ?
But soros doesnt invest money in growth, he invests in decline. And the EU and its sovereign governments seem to let him get on with it.
Except Hungary, where he was born, they have effectively barred him from entry.
Think about that for a moment.

That is a very interesting post, thanks for that information   The increasing influence of these NGOs, well funded, operating state of the art shipping like a military operation  does require much more scrutiny and answers are required.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Vince Green

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, scolopax said:

I voted to stay in, mainly because I am consevative in my attitudes to almost everything and generally have a dislike of change.   I hope I am wrong but when I first saw the claim of £350 million a week for the NHS, or whatever it was, I hoped the electorate was not too stupid to fall for that one simple statement (lie). Most probably did'nt but I think enough did to sway the vote, it was decided by that simple lie. And now one of the pro brexit groups admit they effectively lied through their teeth ..all about emotion not about Facts was'nt it??

 

Anyway I await the results of Brexit with a mixture of interest and trepidation, it has the potential to efect me personally in a big way (badly), but one thing I will not do is blame the politicians for it (well maybe that fool Cameron), they in the majority did not want it and now have to try and make it work. The only people to blame if it goes wrong are thse who voted for it.

 

To be fair, you are misquoting what it said on the side of the Brexit bus, The bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week" (which is broadly true as a gross figure so no lie there) "Lets fund the NHS instead" There was no lie but the bus did not belong to the Leave Campaign in any case. However, was that in any way worse than the appalling (and probably illegal) leaflets put through every door? Funded by the tax payers? 

I can tell you now, that is going to come back to haunt David Cameron in a very big way. Once Brexit is over a private prosecution is highly likely, The Government cannot use public money to influence any sort of voting process. The penalties are potentially massive.  lets wait and see

Edited June 13, 2018 by Vince Green

[Scully]

12 hours ago, scolopax said:

I voted to stay in, mainly because I am consevative in my attitudes to almost everything and generally have a dislike of change.   I hope I am wrong but when I first saw the claim of £350 million a week for the NHS, or whatever it was, I hoped the electorate was not too stupid to fall for that one simple statement (lie). Most probably did'nt but I think enough did to sway the vote, it was decided by that simple lie. And now one of the pro brexit groups admit they effectively lied through their teeth ..all about emotion not about Facts was'nt it??

 

 

 

To be fair you're stating something as fact that you can't possibly know to be true....a bit ironic given the theme of the rest of your post. 

[old man]

21 hours ago, Scully said:

Can’t argue with much of that.

I voted out because I believe the EU to be undemocratic and fundamentally corrupt.

I like being part of Europe, and enjoy the better aspects of its culture, but have no desire to be ruled by European politicians whom I have no method of voting for or against. 

Spot on, me too.

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, Vince Green said:

To be fair, you are misquoting what it said on the side of the Brexit bus, The bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week" (which is broadly true as a gross figure so no lie there) "Lets fund the NHS instead" There was no lie but the bus did not belong to the Leave Campaign in any case. However, was that in any way worse than the appalling (and probably illegal) leaflets put through every door? Funded by the tax payers? 

I can tell you now, that is going to come back to haunt David Cameron in a very big way. Once Brexit is over a private prosecution is highly likely, The Government cannot use public money to influence any sort of voting process. The penalties are potentially massive.  lets wait and see

Spot on, it's just more fake news and shows if that's the biggest hole they could find in the leave campain (despite not even being a part of the official leave campain) there must have been very little wrong with it, it certainly pales in to insignificance compared to dodgy Dave's mass leaflet drop costing more than the entire budget the remain team were allowed to spend on the campaign. 

There literally are no depths the remainiacs (I refer to the ones trying to overturn the referendum, not those who voted remain but except the democratic result) won't sink to, to overturn and subvert democracy, they justify it to themselves because eveyone who voted leave is a thick, bigoted, xenophobic, racist idiot and obviously doesn't know what's best for them, I wish I was as enlightened as them, they are going to rid the world of fascism by being fascists, what enlightened people they are.

[Newbie to this]

23 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

they are going to rid the world of fascism by being fascists, what enlightened people they are.

Very true, but they can't see it through their rose tinted glasses.

[Westward]

14 hours ago, scolopax said:

 it was decided by that simple lie. 

When Boris said that the £350M per week was money that we would be free to spend on things like the NHS he made a silly mistake, not because the figure was lie but because it was then interpreted by the left as a commitment to increase NHS spending by £350M per week. Although it's an obvious subterfuge and a deliberate misinterpretation, the haters can now claim that Boris and the Leavers lied - even though they didn't.

According to my calculator the £19 billion we contribute annually to the EU amounts to £365 million per week. As the 2nd largest nett contributor to the EU slush fund we get back around £10 billion per year in subsidies etc., so therefore when the decree nisi is absolute, and assuming London continues the same level of subsidies as Brussels, the nett gain to the public finances will be about £173 million each week.

No one lied about this except those who claimed that Boris promised an extra £350m per week to the NHS.

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, Westward said:

When Boris said that the £350M per week was money that we would be free to spend on things like the NHS he made a silly mistake, not because the figure was lie but because it was then interpreted by the left as a commitment to increase NHS spending by £350M per week. Although it's an obvious subterfuge and a deliberate misinterpretation, the haters can now claim that Boris and the Leavers lied - even though they didn't.

According to my calculator the £19 billion we contribute annually to the EU amounts to £365 million per week. As the 2nd largest nett contributor to the EU slush fund we get back around £10 billion per year in subsidies etc., so therefore when the decree nisi is absolute, and assuming London continues the same level of subsidies as Brussels, the nett gain to the public finances will be about £173 million each week.

No one lied about this except those who claimed that Boris promised an extra £350m per week to the NHS.

Anyone who uses the 350 mil bus argument, as a good reason to stop Brexit or damage the leaving process needs a good solid dose of reality.

Since when was government spending policy, or the promise of future budgets, announced to the public on the side of a campaign bus by people who have nothing to do with such responsibilities.
It was an idea, a suggestion, and a means of telling the public in real terms. exactly how much  (gross) money goes into the EU coffers every week.
Those who want to make you believe that it was a direct promise, need a direct kick up the backside !

I was promised an economic crash and world war 3 by remain, what happened to that ? 

[anser2]

On 13/06/2018 at 15:56, Vince Green said:

Westwood asks

Who elected Junker Tusk or Barnier?

 

Call it the Illuminai, call it The New World Order, Call it the Fourth Reich,  Call it The Bilderberg Group,  the effect is the same, at its heart,  the EU is a quasi secret society 

Indirectly you did via the political party you voted into power. All 3 sections of political power in the EU are voted in. MEPs directly by the people, the commission and council of ministers by the individual countries political parties. Unlike the UK where only the House of Commons is voted into power. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by anser2

[anser2]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Anyone who uses the 350 mil bus argument, as a good reason to stop Brexit or damage the leaving process needs a good solid dose of reality.

Since when was government spending policy, or the promise of future budgets, announced to the public on the side of a campaign bus by people who have nothing to do with such responsibilities.
It was an idea, a suggestion, and a means of telling the public in real terms. exactly how much  (gross) money goes into the EU coffers every week.
Those who want to make you believe that it was a direct promise, need a direct kick up the backside !

I was promised an economic crash and world war 3 by remain, what happened to that ? 

You seem to have forgotten we are still inside the EU, so cant expect a crash, yet. 

6 hours ago, Westward said:

When Boris said that the £350M per week was money that we would be free to spend on things like the NHS he made a silly mistake, not because the figure was lie but because it was then interpreted by the left as a commitment to increase NHS spending by £350M per week. Although it's an obvious subterfuge and a deliberate misinterpretation, the haters can now claim that Boris and the Leavers lied - even though they didn't.

According to my calculator the £19 billion we contribute annually to the EU amounts to £365 million per week. As the 2nd largest nett contributor to the EU slush fund we get back around £10 billion per year in subsidies etc., so therefore when the decree nisi is absolute, and assuming London continues the same level of subsidies as Brussels, the nett gain to the public finances will be about £173 million each week.

No one lied about this except those who claimed that Boris promised an extra £350m per week to the NHS.

Boris will say what ever he has to to get into No 10. Remember his 2 articles writen for the newspapers one pro and one anti EU. Have writen them he just waited to see which way public opinion swung and published the one that would open the door to no 10.