/ Mogg threatens the EU with Tommy Robinson

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Pete Pozman - on 05 Apr 2019

Mogg is telling the EU to be careful what they wish for as they might get "Tommy Robinson" as an MEP. Francois is ramping up the threat by indicating Farage will be back causing trouble.

They seem to assume that they are somehow more respectable than these other characters. Why? They are cut from the same cloth and are just as odious . 

8
Moley on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Mogg is telling the EU to be careful what they wish for as they might get "Tommy Robinson" as an MEP. 

Please give us a link to this particular  statement from JRM. I heard a piece of interview with him this morning but must have missed that.

Tyler - on 05 Apr 2019
pec on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Mogg is telling the EU to be careful what they wish for as they might get "Tommy Robinson" as an MEP. Francois is ramping up the threat by indicating Farage will be back causing trouble.

> They seem to assume that they are somehow more respectable than these other characters. Why? They are cut from the same cloth and are just as odious . 

Only if you think anyone right of Ken Clarke is 'far right', which from your perspective might seem the case but it really isn't.

22
Wainers44 - on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Robinson ....mogg

devil....deep blue sea...

3
Pete Pozman - on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> Only if you think anyone right of Ken Clarke is 'far right', which from your perspective might seem the case but it really isn't.

Watch him and listen to him a little more closely. I actually think John Redwood is respectable even though he's a fool. And what about Frankoyz (people pronouncing his name as if he's French must be really irksome)? Are you taken in by him too? 

2
Frank the Husky - on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I hear a number of politicians telling us we have to do what they want or the far right will get us. It seems to be more common as the chaos deepens. I have yet to hear an interviewer challenge them on this particular bit of claptrap.

2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Definitely don't want extremists gaining influence. Not anyone who, given their way, would force sexual abuse victims to carry to full term and then give birth to their attacker's baby, for instance.

3
Martin Hore - on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The implication in what Jacob Rees Mogg is reported to have said is that we have to appease the far right in order to save us from the even further right. I wonder if Rees Mogg and his ilk realise that it's their rhetoric that encourages those on the even further right to believe that the violence they espouse is acceptable and patriotic. If the Rees Moggs don't realise this then in my view they lack the intellect to be taken seriously as politicians. If they do realise this then they should be held to account for a significant share of the responsibility for any acts of violence that result. 

Martin

4
Rob Parsons on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Mogg is telling the EU to be careful what they wish for as they might get "Tommy Robinson" as an MEP.

What do you mean by suggesting he's 'telling the EU'? And what do you mean when you suggest that the EU is 'wishing for' a particular outcome? I don't see that in the article which has been linked in this thread.

In any event the general claim seems fair to me: the current atmosphere is pretty rancorous, to say the least. So it seems reasonable to think that the European elections (assuming we take part) will throw up some divisive candidates, and some divisive results.

1
RomTheBear on 05 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> Only if you think anyone right of Ken Clarke is 'far right', which from your perspective might seem the case but it really isn't.

If you were to compare to Tory manifesto to the manifestos of other Europeans far right groups, you’d find that the policies are pretty much aligned. The tone is different, but the policies are the same.

Post edited at 23:47
5
johncoxmysteriously - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Indeed. It's instructive to compare Corbyn's policies with Macmillan's. Rent control, for instance, which has the right wing fainting in coils today, was common ground between the parties at that time.

jcm

1
Pete Pozman - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> What do you mean by suggesting he's 'telling the EU'? 

"I can only say to those in the EU ... be careful what you wish for." etc

By implication Mogg is suggesting that Leave voters are likely to vote for extreme racist right wingers like "Robinson" in the forthcoming European elections (should the UK take part)

This is precisely the same implication which caused the incandescently self righteous Francois to get into an eyeballing competition with Will Self last week. Francois was demanding an apology from Self because he had accused all Leavers of being racist; he hadn't . 

So, which is it? Do Leavers constitute a potential cohort for the racist Right or not? 

2
pasbury on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Mogg's latest inflammatory bullshit

'If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes'

He wants the EU to be worried and kick us out for fear of our disruption. This is diplomatic vandalism. I hope he realises how much responsibility will be seen to be his if we leave with no deal.

3
marsbar - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I hope people will stand up to this kind of threatening and bullying.  

2
myserable old git - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pasbury:

Surely the time is fast arriving when Mogg should be interned for sedition as his hero Churchill did to Mosley, he must be hoping for trouble if we get to remain and dreaming of his Droogs marching down Cable Street led by  Robinson ( Yaxley-Lennon) wearing their top hats and chanting Mogg Mogg.

Enough is enough from this obnoxious (but terribly nice)little fascist!

7
Trevers - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to myserable old git:

> Enough is enough from this obnoxious (but terribly nice)little fascist!

Why can't more people see through his facade? The man is a deeply unpleasant character.

Post edited at 11:09
4
Andy Long - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Indeed. It's instructive to compare Corbyn's policies with Macmillan's. Rent control, for instance, which has the right wing fainting in coils today, was common ground between the parties at that time.

True. Harold Macmillan. A great one-nation Tory who epitomised the post-war settlement. Laughed at for his tweedy patrician ways, he was nonetheless way to the left of, say, Tony Blair. He was one of the giant figures who'd fought in the First World War and cut their political teeth during the slump and WW2. I wonder what he'd have had to say about today's "blitz spirit" fantasists.

pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> By implication Mogg is suggesting that Leave voters are likely to vote for extreme racist right wingers like "Robinson" in the forthcoming European elections (should the UK take part)

When mainstream politicians ignore people's concerns they will turn to people who do listen, if that's extremists then mainstream politicians only have themselves to blame. Some will turn to the extremists because they are genuinely taken in by them, others just to fire a warning shot across the bows, either way the extremists win.

> So, which is it? Do Leavers constitute a potential cohort for the racist Right or not? 

Only if nobody else will listen.

11
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Mogg's latest inflammatory bullshit

> 'If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes'

Sounds a lot like the tactics used by militant remainers to keep us in the EU.

27
pasbury on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

‘Militant remainers’ - you’re hilarious.

7
wercat on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to myserable old git:

He should be treated as a traitor, as he's just trying to undermine anything that does not fit his personal political ReQuirements

6
captain paranoia - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes

I'm not sure I understand this. For years Leave have been telling us we have on influence on the EU.

How can we disrupt the activities of the EU if we have no influence...?

1
captain paranoia - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> Only if nobody else will listen.

Nobody seems to be listening to the 72% of the population that didn't vote to leave...

9
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Only if nobody else will listen.

> Nobody seems to be listening to the 72% of the population that didn't vote to leave...


And strangely they didn't listen to the 70% that didn't vote to remain in 1975.

We can all produce b*llocks statistics to prove our point but we all know what the rules really are and they're not made up by the losers after the event.

Post edited at 14:20
10
john arran - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

>  we all know what the rules really are

and anyone who's read any kind of balanced media knows they were comprehensively broken during the referendum campaign, yet your use of the term 'losers' seems to imply that you think there were legitimate 'winners', whereas in reality the outcome should never have been relied upon to support any key decisions, let alone the most major constitutional upheaval in living memory.

10
Pete Pozman - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> Only if nobody else will listen.

Do they though, listen? Is it really listening or is it cold blooded grooming?

Do you think Yaxley-Lennon gives a toss about the average decent citizen who for all sorts of of their own reasons voted to leave the EU?

His life is devoted to hatred. He wakes up hating and he goes to sleep hating. It's very convenient for him to be around during this time of turmoil. Some poor benighted loser like Thomas Mair will no doubt feel that at last there is an important person who is listening to them.

Mogg is just an emotionally stunted fool who still wears his school uniform in his forties. However he bears a heavy responsibility because he has the advantage of a good education but he uses it to push the vulnerable towards the pure evil that "Tommy Robinson" represents.

He's losing control of himself just now because if it hadn't been for him and his pals in the ERG we'd have left the EU last week. Watch him disintegrate quickly and dangerously  

5
Foxache - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to myserable old git:

If you honestly think JRM is a fascist then I can only imagine that life must be very frightening for you.

13
Pete Pozman - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Foxache:

> If you honestly think JRM is a fascist then I can only imagine that life must be very frightening for you.

I honestly think Mogg would have been a Moseley supporter and certainly a Franco supporter if he'd been around in Spain during the 30s. Don't fall for the English eccentric shtick Lord Ha Ha is what an actual fascist looks like. 

If you want to know what a fascist does then let him have some power. See what happens 

Worth a punt...? 

6
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Do they though, listen? Is it really listening or is it cold blooded grooming?

> etc etc

You can say what you like, it makes no difference. The reality is that if people think mainstream politicians aren't listening, Gordon Brown's "that bigoted woman" comment for example or David Cameron's "this is a once in a generation decision, we will implement what you decide", then they will turn to other parties which may well be extremists.

Whether the extremists are listening or not, they still win and sensible politics loses.

BTW, if you really can't tell the difference between between JRM and Tommy Robinson the world must be a very confusing place for you.

13
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> and anyone who's read any kind of balanced media knows they were comprehensively broken during the referendum campaign,

Yes, £9million of taxpayers money bunging a pro remain leaflet to every house in the land which didn't count in their campaign expenses. Its disgraceful.

9
john arran - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

You might not like it - I wasn't impressed at the time as it was such a shit leaflet - but according to the 'rules' you seemed keen to  remind us of, was there anything illegal about it?

More crucially, at least it didn't spout damaging lies, such as the lie that Turkey would be joining the EU and many others, specifically intended to fool more people into voting Leave based on a fear of things that were never on the cards anyway.

5
Pete Pozman - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> You can say what you like, it makes no difference. The reality is that if people think mainstream politicians aren't listening, Gordon Brown's "that bigoted woman" comment for example or David Cameron's "this is a once in a generation decision, we will implement what you decide", then they will turn to other parties which may well be extremists.

> Whether the extremists are listening or not, they still win and sensible politics loses.

> BTW, if you really can't tell the difference between between JRM and Tommy Robinson the world must be a very confusing place for you.

You used to make a lot more sense before all this Brexit stuff kicked off. 

5
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> You might not like it - I wasn't impressed at the time as it was such a shit leaflet - but according to the 'rules' you seemed keen to  remind us of, was there anything illegal about it?

The rules are that the side with most votes wins unlike the idiotic assertion Captain P made above that a democratic mandate requires more than half of the entire population to vote for it regardless of whether they are even eligible to vote.

The rules are also that people who overspend get fined (and they have been) and the rules are that these overspends didn't make the result invalid because if they did we can be damn sure some militant remainers would have taken it to the high court by now.

And of course the rules which allowed the £9million to not count to the remain budget are made by the government which was of course, remain central. Hardly fair in any real sense of the word.

> More crucially, at least it didn't spout damaging lies, such as the lie that Turkey would be joining the EU and many others, specifically intended to fool more people into voting Leave based on a fear of things that were never on the cards anyway.

It wasn't short on half truths and misleading assertions like "there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system" which in reality meant "the UK can apply to limit access to in work benefits for new EU immigrants for four years"

And then was what is turning out to be the mother of all lies.

http://tinyurl.com/y3wx5daz

15
Pete Pozman - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

It seems to me like everyone is tip toeing around the elephant in the room like mad including Corbyn  The elephant being non Britons coming and living here.

So that the people will feel listened to nobody's allowed to tell them they're worrying about nothing and maybe allowing prejudices to trump careful thought. 

1
MG - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You used to make a lot more sense before all this Brexit stuff kicked off. 

There are a number of posters here in that category, and presumably many others nationally. It is amazing how easily far right, nationalist, populism  takes hold. Can the genie be put back in the bottle? 

Post edited at 20:42
6
Sir Chasm - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

And then was what is turning out to be the mother of all lies.

http://tinyurl.com/y3wx5daz 2

But your mate Nigel said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way".

4
john arran - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> The rules are also that people who overspend get fined (and they have been) and the rules are that these overspends didn't make the result invalid because if they did we can be damn sure some militant remainers would have taken it to the high court by now.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? The only reason it hasn't been taken to a higher court is that it was supposedly only advisory, so technically had no consequences in and of itself. However, the arguments by Leave supporters, including yourself judging by your link, make it quite clear that you never considered it in any way advisory. You can't have it both ways.

> And of course the rules which allowed the £9million to not count to the remain budget are made by the government which was of course, remain central. Hardly fair in any real sense of the word.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any rules having been changed by the Tory government prior to the vote, which sours your point more than a little.

> It wasn't short on half truths and misleading assertions like "there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system" which in reality meant "the UK can apply to limit access to in work benefits for new EU immigrants for four years"

> And then was what is turning out to be the mother of all lies.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that the best deal the government could secure doesn't even command the support of the Leave-centric government! I'd be blaming the Leavers for squabbling among themselves if I were you - oh, and the government for losing its majority in a foolish bid to gain an increased majority. What isn't reasonable is blaming those outside of government for not implementing a promise the government pledged to deliver.

6
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But your mate Nigel

My mate Nigel?

Would that be like your mate Cameron?

1
Rob Parsons on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> You haven't been paying attention, have you? The only reason it hasn't been taken to a higher court is that it was supposedly only advisory, so technically had no consequences in and of itself.

That is a tired argument. The Government at the time promised in advance to implement the vote of the referendum; both major parties agreed.

5
pasbury on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I'm not sure I understand this. For years Leave have been telling us we have on influence on the EU.

> How can we disrupt the activities of the EU if we have no influence...?

I read it as Rees-Mosely suggesting that a long extension will mean we elect a new tranche of MEPs and that they might disrupt EU governance. That assumes that the British will be pig-ignorant and bloody minded enough to elect a bunch of UKIP tw*ts to the European Parliament. By no means a given. European elections will be very interesting if it comes to it and we have to take part. I welcome it but I fear that they would be a platform for all sorts of protest votes which don’t have anything to do with representation in the European Parliament.

Or he means that government will be obstructive and obtuse. This seems far more unlikely. And reveals him to be a rather hate filled fantasist. 

4
MG - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Promised presumably on the basis that the referendum was fairly conducted, not that it was corrupted. 

3
pec on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> You haven't been paying attention, have you? The only reason it hasn't been taken to a higher court is that it was supposedly only advisory, so technically had no consequences in and of itself. However, the arguments by Leave supporters, including yourself judging by your link, make it quite clear that you never considered it in any way advisory. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see why that would have stopped them trying. But if I'm supposed to be concerned about a relatively small overspend which may or may not have had any influence its odd how you can ignore a £9million bung to leave, more than the entire Leave.eu budget.

I never considerd it advisory because of stuff like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUsKWsPcRXE&t=29s

> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any rules having been changed by the Tory government prior to the vote, which sours your point more than a little.

No but they exploited them to the full.

> I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that the best deal the government could secure doesn't even command the support of the Leave-centric government!

That will be the leave centric government with a remainer PM, remain chancellor, remain chief Brexit negotiator, an 80% remain cabinet who can only see Brexit as a damage limitation exercise and all supported by an almost entirely remain supporting civil service and treasury.

> I'd be blaming the Leavers for squabbling among themselves if I were you. 

They didn't negotiate the crap deal, they had no hand in it which is why they think its so crap. But even if every one of the ERG had voted for the deal it would have still lost all of the three votes.

> What isn't reasonable is blaming those outside of government for not implementing a promise the government pledged to deliver.

Its perfectly reasonable to blame anyone who has deliberately made leaving as difficult as possible with the intention of overturning the biggest democratic mandate in history (despite all the odds stacked against it).

Post edited at 21:45
10
Sir Chasm - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> My mate Nigel?

> Would that be like your mate Cameron?

Sure, Cameron's an arsehole, but if you can find a quote where he says that a 52/48 result would be be unfinished business then we can call him my mate - like your mate Nige.

2
MG - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> I 

> They didn't negotiate the crap deal, they had no hand in it which is why they think its so crap. But even if every one of the ERG had voted for the deal it would have still lost all of the three votes.

WTF!! It was negotiated by Davies and Raab,  two arch  leavers.  Cut the stab in the back crap. Your side failed to implement brexit and we are now in this mess because of them. 

3
MG - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> the biggest democratic mandate in history 

Utterly barking! 

3
HansStuttgart - on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> They didn't negotiate the crap deal, they had no hand in it which is why they think its so crap. But even if every one of the ERG had voted for the deal it would have still lost all of the three votes.

Who cares who did the negotiation from the UK's side?

The deal was drafted by the EU27.

The only way the UK was going to get a better deal was to drop red lines.

1
pasbury on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Who cares who did the negotiation from the UK's side?

> The deal was drafted by the EU27.

> The only way the UK was going to get a better deal was to drop red lines.

Pretty much sums it up. The only trouble is the ‘better deals’ piss off the idealogues.

2
pasbury on 06 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

You sound like a sheep bleating into the rain on the side of a bleak moor.

3
Tyler - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> When mainstream politicians ignore people's concerns they will turn to people who do listen, if that's extremists then mainstream politicians only have themselves to blame.

Which concerns are they? The genuine concerns people have about slipping into poverty and forced to use food banks, the genuine concerns about underfunding of welfare systems or the entirely confected concerns about the EU bogeyman? If the latter why should we appease them when what they favour (no deal Brexit) is a minority concern? You are right, politicians like Mogg are to blame as they have created the economic conditions that have adversely affected the poor and they have whipped up a convenient scape goat for it. Even Hitler only did one of them

3
Northern Star on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

Pec I have some questions for you.

You say that you feel that the people haven't been represented and the government should listen.  I presume you are talking about people who voted to leave here.  Do you think that the 48% who voted remain should also be listened to?  In other words if the concerns of the 48% are taken into account, then we should leave the EU but remain very close to Europe (Norway style agreement of similar).  Would you agree this would be fair given the closeness of the result, or do you think that because leave won, the 48% should be completely ignored?  How would you solve this issue?

Secondly, you believe that because our MP's are mostly remain, then they have negotiated a bad deal.  Fair enough, I don't think many people, leave or remain like TM's deal or approve of the way the government has handled things.  But what deal would you personally believe to be a fair deal, best for the UK in light of the referendum result and also allowing for the inevitable compromises we would have to make with the EU?

1
john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons and pec:

> That is a tired argument. The Government at the time promised in advance to implement the vote of the referendum; both major parties agreed.

One more time just in case you genuinely don't get it. Nobody considered the referendum advisory except the law. Had the law considered it binding we'd be rerunning it by now. Makes a bit of a mockery of the claim that the fraudulent referendum can have delivered a mandate to implement chaos.

3
bouldery bits - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I don't think the EU will be too worried about that given the quantity of other wackos who are also MEPs from other member states. 

1
David Riley - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

Nottingham Evening Post have done a poor survey.  But the figures given are very distinct of those polled.

Customs union  2% , May's deal 4% , cancel A50 / remain 28% ,  leave without a deal 48%.

2
wercat on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The politicians who did that are as to our constitution as the Boeing software team and engineers who gave us the recent computer generated deaths in terms of competence.  The whole thing was a shambles of concept and implementation, not to mention the stupid interpretation of the Referendum Result, particularly when taking account of the Machiavellis working on the Project Fear of the EU.

In War there is no such thing as a Tired Argument

> That is a tired argument. The Government at the time promised in advance to implement the vote of the referendum; both major parties agreed.

What is tired is your support for such a flawed and crooked process

Post edited at 09:33
1
RomTheBear on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> then they will turn to other parties which may well be extremists.

Better this than having mainstream parties becoming the extreme.

And that’s been the problem all along, the Tories are so scared of losing votes to the far right that they essentially absorbed it. If you think about it they have completely integrated UKIP’s policies.

4
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> ... Nobody considered the referendum advisory except the law. Had the law considered it binding we'd be rerunning it by now ...

Eh?

1
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to wercat:

> The politicians who did that are as to our constitution as the Boeing software team and engineers who gave us the recent computer generated deaths in terms of competence.  The whole thing was a shambles of concept and implementation

I agree.

> What is tired is your support for such a flawed and crooked process

Don't assume you know what I support. We are in a mess; the question is what to do next in order to resolve it, not what was done three years ago.

john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

It isnti difficult. There are no legal implications of a fraudulent ballot if it isn't directly linked to any action, so there's no legal recourse for any action taken following it. But were triggering A50 to have been a direct and inevitable consequence of the ballot, the illegality of the ballot would have been a constitutional matter.

Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> ... But were triggering A50 to have been a direct and inevitable consequence of the ballot ...

That was indeed the case: the Government promised to honour the result of the ballot, whichever way it went. And both major parties agreed.

1
MG - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

You're completely unconcerned by illegality surrounding the referendum? 

Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

> You're completely unconcerned by illegality surrounding the referendum? 

No, I'm not 'unconcerned' about any breaches of any electoral law (or indeed any other law.)

john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

A promise is not a legally binding commitment. That's the whole point you're seemingly intent on missing.

1
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

> A promise is not a legally binding commitment. That's the whole point you're seemingly intent on missing.

I'm not 'intent on missing' anything. However if the above is your principal claim - namely, that 'had the law considered it binding we'd be rerunning it by now' -  then I think you are simply incorrect.

Post edited at 11:59
4
john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I think you are simply incorrect.

You're welcome to think whatever you like.

1
MG - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well in that case why insist on politicians respect it without question. If the result is suspect, it makes no sense to follow it. 

Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

> Well in that case why insist on politicians respect it without question. If the result is suspect, it makes no sense to follow it. 


If you think that potential legal challenges to the actual result of the referendum can be made, by all means make them. (Other people - specifically Gina Millar - have shown the way in that regard.)

Otherwise, what is your suggested solution to this conundrum?

john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

It isn't the result that's in question, nobody is doubting that nearly 52% of those who cast a ballot opted for the Leave option. What's in question is the validity of that result as a true representation of the free and fair view of the electorate, to the degree that would be expected to be expressed in a legally conducted referendum. But as you already well know by now, acknowledging that it wasn't conducted legally and fairly won't change the fact that A50 was triggered by (a legal) act of Parliament and not (technically) as a result of the referendum outcome. 

The judgements of the Electoral Commission regarding the conduct of the referendum means that the 'will of the people' was not expressed in any free and fair way in 2016, but A50 was nonetheless legally triggered by act of Parliament. Given that the only justification Parliament had for deciding upon this course of action was a fraudulent referendum result, he only reasonable ways to rectify this mistake would be either to retract A50 or to hold a referendum that isn't legally compromised by misconduct. Or both.

2
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to john arran:

Who - apart from you - has declared the result of the referendum to be 'fraudulent'?

6
Oceanrower - on 07 Apr 2019
john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Even the BBC reported the illegality:

Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

"The referendum was not legally binding, merely "advisory," according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act."

1
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

I am aware of the fines etc. But that is not the question I asked.

2
MG - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Perhaps you could be  a bit clearer about what your point is.  Mine, and I think many here think the combination of

1) A very close result

2) Corruption in the campaign

3) Near three years

4) Opinion polls suggesting a change in view among the population

4) Opposition from politicians, business, academia, professional societies, unions etc. to leaving in any but a controlled thought-through way

means blundering on because "will of the people" is a stupid policy.  If you disagree, perhaps explain why rather than a serious of supercilious one liners.

1
Oceanrower - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The question you asked was "who has declared the result of the referendum fraudulent"

If you don't get my point , I can only assume you don't see "breaking referendum law" as fraudulent. 

You might be in a minority there...

Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

> ... means blundering on because "will of the people" is a stupid policy.  If you disagree, perhaps explain why rather than a serious of supercilious one liners.

Well 'blundering on' is generally a bad move in any scenario; one needs a plan. Personally (but after all, who cares what I think? I'm just a.n.other person on the Internet) some final suggested definite outcome which is put to a confirmatory public vote would seem to be a reasonable approach to get out of the current situation.

What I don't think is productive is to try to wish away the position we're in by, for example, describing the referendum as 'fraudulent.' We're here now, and we need some resolution which doesn't result in permanent ongoing bitterness and rancour.

5
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> The question you asked was "who has declared the result of the referendum fraudulent"

> If you don't get my point , I can only assume you don't see "breaking referendum law" as fraudulent. 

> You might be in a minority there...


Breaking the law is breaking the law, and in this case it's been punished to the extent the UK law allows.

I fully 'get your point.' But I am specfically interested in whether or not anybody in authority has ever described the result of the referendum to be 'fraudulent.'

2
Oceanrower - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

That would depend on what you mean by "authority". The LSE, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Electorial Commission, etc., etc. certainly did but,  I assume, they don't have any authority.

That noise you can hear? It's the bottom of a barrel being scraped to within an inch of its life...

1
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> That would depend on what you mean by "authority". The LSE, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Electorial Commission, etc., etc. certainly did but,  I assume, they don't have any authority.

Can you point me to quotes from the above which use the word 'fraudulent' to describe the result?

(Double points if you can find such a quote from the Telegraph btw.)

Post edited at 15:34
1
john arran - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Can anyone else hear the unmistakable sound of one hair splitting?

4
Oceanrower - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Will you accept fraud rather than fraudulent? If so, therre's one, at least, in the post above.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/fraud-unravels-everything-brexit/

Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Will you accept fraud rather than fraudulent? If so, therre's one, at least, in the post above.

Thanks. I am (despite what John Arran implies with his absurd reference to hair-splitting) not obsessed with the word itself; what I am trying to establish is whether or not anybody in authority would agree that the proven malpractice by Vote Leave and friends during the referendum campaign renders the result of the referendum 'fraudulent.' Because that is the claim which John Arran and others repeatedly make.

You've referenced The Guardian above to support your claim, but its leader article of yesterday makes it clear that this is in fact not the position it takes. (I will quote the relevant paragraph in full below, for clarity.)

The blog post by Ewan McGaughey of the LSE no doubt presents a serious and educated claim - but still, just a claim which ultimately needs to be tested. And,  in the UK, the place to test such claims is in court.

My understanding is that the 'Wilson v Prime Minister' case was brought precisely to test such a claim, and that the final result is that the case has not been upheld.

---------------------------

From yesterday's Guardian:

" We cannot know to what degree the breach of campaign funding laws by Vote Leave, the official and supposedly respectable wing of the leave campaign, changed the outcome of the 2016 referendum. But we do know that its punishment - a £60,000 fine imposed by the Electoral Commission - was minimal. The lesson for any political operative is clear."

1
Oceanrower - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> The blog post by Ewan McGaughey of the LSE no doubt presents a serious and educated claim - but still, just a claim which ultimately needs to be tested. And,  in the UK, the place to test such claims is in court.

But that, I believe, is the main point of most</i> of the above recent discussion.

As the referrendum was not legally binding it CANNOT be tested in court.

If it HAD been legally binding it could (indeed would, according to the Electoral Commission) have been challenged in front of m'learned friends...

 

Post edited at 18:43
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> As the referendum was not legally binding it CANNOT be tested in court.

> If it HAD been legally binding it could (indeed would, according to the Electoral Commission) have been challenged in front of m'learned friends...

There is obviously scope for questioning that since the validity of the referendum was challenged in the case I've referenced. And the ruling does not (to my reading, anyway - please correct me if I'm wrong) hinge on whether or not the referendum was or was not 'binding.'

Post edited at 18:50
Martin W on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

>> The only reason it hasn't been taken to a higher court is that it was supposedly only advisory, so technically had no consequences in and of itself.

> That is a tired argument.

Tired possibly, but it is nonetheless true: in legal terms the referendum was advisory, not binding.  The government was not legally obliged to implement the result.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

 And that was one of the reasons the court gave for refusing to annul the result: because the referendum wasn't binding, annulling the result would make no difference.

> The Government at the time promised in advance to implement the vote of the referendum; both major parties agreed.

Those were political promises, not legally binding.  Pretty much the same as manifesto pledges.

Although revoking article 50 might p1ss off a large number of people, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it in law precisely because the government was not legally bound to hunour the result of the referendum.  Which could well be why the nastier end of the nasty party start making bellicose noises whenever the prospect appears to be becoming less unlikely: they know there would be nothing they could do to stop it happening if parliament agreed to it, so they resort to threats of unrest.  So, tired argument or not, even the most rabid Brexiters directly involved in the political process do actually seem to know the facts.

There are constitutional problems with binding referendums in the UK, because they undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (which is, ironically, one form of the "control" that we were supposedly voting to "take back").  The only legally binding UK-wide referendum that has ever been held was the 2011 alternative vote referendum.

1
Rob Parsons on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Martin W:

>  And that was one of the reasons the court gave for refusing to annul the result: because the referendum wasn't binding, annulling the result would make no difference.

Which court? And which case? Thanks.

1
pec on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

> WTF!! It was negotiated by Davies and Raab,  two arch  leavers.  Cut the stab in the back crap. Your side failed to implement brexit and we are now in this mess because of them. 


You really haven't been paying attention have you. Why on earth do you think Davies would have resigned over the deal if he'd arranged it himself?

Did you listen to his resignation interview or read his letter.  He had fundamental disagreements with the PM over the negotiations and was being undermined by Olly Robbins to the point where he could no longer sign up to the process.

Everyone (who is up to speed) knows the defacto Brexit secretary was Olly Robbins

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42777986

8
summo on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

One things for certain I think after the next general election strictly come I'm a celebrity on ice etc.. will be over run with ex MPs looking for a bit of pocket money. 

MG - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

Oh, I'm sure your right, if it wasn't for enemies of the people, traitors, bogey-men and monsters under the bed, Brexit would be going swimmingly. 

Still, you'll probably have your blue passport soon. Think how immensly proud and important you'll feel. 

6
Sir Chasm - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> You really haven't been paying attention have you. Why on earth do you think Davies would have resigned over the deal if he'd arranged it himself?

> Did you listen to his resignation interview or read his letter.  He had fundamental disagreements with the PM over the negotiations and was being undermined by Olly Robbins to the point where he could no longer sign up to the process.

> Everyone (who is up to speed) knows the defacto Brexit secretary was Olly Robbins

And we're back to it all being someone else's fault.

2
Sir Chasm - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> One things for certain I think after the next general election strictly come I'm a celebrity on ice etc.. will be over run with ex MPs looking for a bit of pocket money. 

They're going to Sweden?

David Riley - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

>  your right

You're right

2
MG - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

Quite so. I'm sure brexit will prevent all low-level grammar errors too. And tiresome clever dick pedants. 

Tyler - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

> You really haven't been paying attention have you. Why on earth do you think Davies would have resigned over the deal if he'd arranged it himself?

Are we still talking about "the easiest deal in history"?

Pete Pozman - on 07 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> One things for certain I think after the next general election strictly come I'm a celebrity on ice etc.. will be over run with ex MPs looking for a bit of pocket money. 

Is The Jump still on? I'd like to see Mogg in that... and wearing his top hat. 

Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to pec:

So Pec and the other leavers still decline to answer my questions from yesterday regarding whether the views of the 48% should be ignored and on what sort of a deal would they have liked to have been done with the EU?

No surprises there then!  Maybe they don't have an answer?

Post edited at 08:29
summo on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Is The Jump still on? I'd like to see Mogg in that... and wearing his top hat. 

I'd have thought any airborne Tom-foolery was Boris's remit. 

David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

I replied yesterday.

Nottingham Evening Post have done a poor survey.  But the figures given are very distinct of those polled.

Customs union  2% , May's deal 4% , cancel A50 / remain 28% ,  leave without a deal 48%.

2
thomasadixon - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

It’s a dumb question.  When the Welsh referendum was 50.3-49.7 should the 49.7s views mean that the assembly shouldn’t be created?  It can’t be half created.

When Labour win a general election should they incorporate half of Tory policy to account for Tory voters?

Post edited at 09:16
3
Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I'm not sure what relevance a small survey conducted in Nottingham has or how that answered the questions I posed?

1
MG - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s a dumb question.  When the Welsh referendum was 50.3-49.7 should the 49.7s views mean that the assembly shouldn’t be created?  It can’t be half created.

Actually it can and was.  The Welsh assembly has considerably fewer powers than  the Scottish one, in part reflecting the less solid support for it.  In the same way, there are many versions of brexit other than a ultra-hard destructive version proposed.  

Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s a dumb question.  When the Welsh referendum was 50.3-49.7 should the 49.7s views mean that the assembly shouldn’t be created?  It can’t be half created.

> When Labour win a general election should they incorporate half of Tory policy to account for story voters?

So you have cleverly deduced from such a narrow margin of victory by leave three years ago that this equals a hard blown full on no deal Brexit instead of a soft Brexit with single market access, freedom of movement etc.

It seems you have spun/twisted the result of the referendum into meaning what you want it to mean rather than one reflecting the closeness of the result.  It seems you are perfectly happy to ignore the 48% (which by the way has now become between 52% - 60% depending on which poll you think is accurate)? 

2
thomasadixon - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

The plan was never for it to be equivalent to the Scottish Parliament, so that’s a lie.

MG - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

No its not. Why do you think that was the plan? Why do you think it hasn't gained powers to the same degree the Scots Parliament has. As always, stop  seeing the world as black and white. You'll find it less confusing. 

David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

The referendum majority was Leave.  It was a choice between two options, not a direction of travel.  If Remain had not lost we would have stayed fully in the EU. There would have been no intermediate option to take into account the Leave voters.  Leave voters expected no deal unless a good deal was agreed.  No deal is the most popular outcome for Leave voters and a large number of Remain voters want to accept we are leaving.  Support for the various half in half out solutions is lower than for no deal..

6
Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> The referendum majority was Leave.  It was a choice between two options, not a direction of travel.  If Remain had not lost we would have stayed fully in the EU. There would have been no intermediate option to take into account the Leave voters.  Leave voters expected no deal unless a good deal was agreed.  No deal is the most popular outcome for Leave voters and a large number of Remain voters want to accept we are leaving.  Support for the various half in half out solutions is lower than for no deal..

Even you know full well that if the referendum had been between Remain or No Deal Leave that Remain would have won by a landslide.

2
David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

No.

3
thomasadixon - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to MG:

> No its not. Why do you think that was the plan? Why do you think it hasn't gained powers to the same degree the Scots Parliament has. As always, stop  seeing the world as black and white. You'll find it less confusing. 

I remember it, I had Welsh TV at the time.

See wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Welsh_devolution_referendum

Pete Pozman - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> I'd have thought any airborne Tom-foolery was Boris's remit. 

You're right! Nobody will ever forget the zipwire photo- Brexit made flesh- and that's our next Prime Minister!

Andy Hardy on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> The referendum majority was Leave.  It was a choice between two options, not a direction of travel.  If Remain had not lost we would have stayed fully in the EU. There would have been no intermediate option to take into account the Leave voters.  Leave voters expected no deal unless a good deal was agreed.  No deal is the most popular outcome for Leave voters and a large number of Remain voters want to accept we are leaving.  Support for the various half in half out solutions is lower than for no deal..


The leave option was never defined, that's why we're in this mess. Norway are not in the EU, and, as a pre referendum Farage was at regular pains to point out, are doing "rather well". Having won the referendum, suddenly leaving the EU is not enough, and "no deal" is the settled will of the people? It clearly isn't and for many good reasons.

David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Rubbish.

10
Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Rubbish.

Brexiteer fails to respond to a reasoned argument with a reasoned argument shocker!

1
jkarran - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Nottingham Evening Post have done a poor survey.  But the figures given are very distinct of those polled.

Interesting. I just undertook a poor survey. It's 50% for a ratification referendum, 50% don't know (but does want dog biscuits).

As much fun as this is we thankfully don't have to rely on poor surveys to read the runes, we have professional psephologists performing large and rigorous studies continually. For example:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/04/what-do-public-think-about-no-deal-brexit

* No deal exit is the preferred option of only one quarter of Britons (by which they mean 1/4 of the electorate)

* 50% believe a no-deal is a bad outcome

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/22/britains-changing-expectations-brexit

* Repeat polling is starting to portray a discernible loss of Leavers' faith in the original promise of Brexit

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/brexit/all Have a read for yourself, you might be surprised.

The thing is if you look at the numbers you'll see a referendum is still quite winnable for a very hard brexit option, we've done nothing to prevent the same lines of attack leave used last time being exploited again since 16. A referendum is frankly probably your best shot at achieving and maintaining the very hard brexit you inexplicably think you want, convince us it really is the will of the people and it might just weather the storm it'll bring. This is the irony of the situation, those of us who want a vote so as to proceed or turn back deliberately are most likely to lose it but we press for it anyway because we value the process, we value the opportunity.

jk

Post edited at 09:58
MG - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Having won the referendum, suddenly leaving the EU is not enough,

I see he's actually moved on the the WHO now.  Apparently this has experts in too...

thomasadixon - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

“If Britain was faced with a stark choice between remaining or no deal then by 44% to 42% people would prefer to leave”

Did you read your link?

David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

The official polls you linked seem to support the view that no deal is now the most popular outcome at 26%.

3
Andy Hardy on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

Interesting that this says we will have " a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation" so not really anything about crashing out on WTO terms...more like what we already have (or, cake and eat it, with added unicorns)

1
jkarran - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> The official polls you linked seem to support the view that no deal is now the most popular outcome at 26%.

Wrong. I know you can read better than this and you're too bright to make such an easily demonstrably false claim so as to mislead so let's just chalk this one up to not enough coffee yet today or some similar excuse:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/04/what-do-public-think-about-no-deal-brexit

26% for 'no-deal' is still trailing well behind a referendum at 37%

jk

Graeme Alderson on 08 Apr 2019
David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

That is not what it says. 37% for a referendum if it was going to produce a Remain result (implemented without acknowledging Leave voters of course) . The Nottingham poll had a referendum at 6% and no deal at 48%.

Post edited at 11:17
3
jkarran - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> That is not what it says. 37% for a referendum if was going to produce a Remain result (implemented without acknowledging Leave voters of course) .

My mistake giving you the benefit of the doubt, I now see it was straightforward dishonesty. A referendum is still a referendum, you can't just disregard by far the most popular answer because you don't like it! I'm not sure how you implement a referendum with at least one leave option on it without acknowledging leave voters, it's a vote on how to leave the EU that we're faced with because of leave voters!

> The Nottingham poll had a referendum at 6% and no deal at 48%.

The poll you said was and I quote "poor"? I'm embarrassed for you.

Perhaps you could spare 10 minutes to read this https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/?fbclid=IwAR1W761QLS4y0Eibd04xJIcAVe7b7mlrtUdPEZRraylUPxkpdWJ86qWwE14

jk

Post edited at 11:23
1
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> The referendum majority was Leave.  It was a choice between two options, not a direction of travel.  

Yes, a binary choice. We either stay members of the EU or become non-members of the EU. There are no intermediate options, plans for being non-members with close ties to EU are leave.

Northern Star on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Yes, a binary choice. We either stay members of the EU or become non-members of the EU. There are no intermediate options, plans for being non-members with close ties to EU are leave.

Yes exactly, and Leaving the EU but staying in the single market, and allowing free movement of people is still Leave.  However the most vocal of Leavers seem to think that this would be a betrayal for some strange reason?

As a remainer I would of course rather not have Brexit at all, but I am willing to compromise and I see the above solution as the most representative way to honour the original referendum.  The same incredibly close 52/48% referendum result that the leavers insist on being upheld.  So it's a Leave the EU - but only just.

1
jkarran - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Yes exactly, and Leaving the EU but staying in the single market, and allowing free movement of people is still Leave.  However the most vocal of Leavers seem to think that this would be a betrayal for some strange reason?

The sadly simple answer to this is because for many months now there has been an evidently well funded and directed (by whom and by whom?) campaign to convince them of this.

jk

pasbury on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I fear the people of Nottingham are suffering from hysteria.

David Riley - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to pasbury:

On the contrary. Nottingham people have a reputation for being sensible, hard working, and non militant.  One of the reasons I moved my business here from Wimbledon.

jkarran - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> ...from Wimbledon.

...notorious not just for lawn tennis and Wombles but its ferocious revolutionary zeal!

Have you read the Peter Oborne piece yet? He sounds like a man very much after your own heart.

jk

Post edited at 14:23
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> ...notorious not just for lawn tennis and Wombles but its ferocious revolutionary zeal!

I thought that was Tooting...

Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> On the contrary. Nottingham people have a reputation for being sensible, hard working, and non militant.  One of the reasons I moved my business here from Wimbledon.

It's not the only reputation they have https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6894537/Nottingham-dishonest-place-UK-Plymouth-Liverpool-truthful.html

pec on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> So Pec and the other leavers still decline to answer my questions from yesterday regarding whether the views of the 48% should be ignored and on what sort of a deal would they have liked to have been done with the EU?

> No surprises there then!  Maybe they don't have an answer?


I do have an answer but I've had more important things to do since Saturday.

The points you raised have all been addressed by others above i.e. that all previous referenda have been fully implemented regardless of the closeness of the result (and BTW the Welsh assembly was never intended to have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, the clue is in the name, assembly V parliament).

I could outline my ideal Brexit scenario but I gave up arguing about the rights and wrongs of Brexit itself some time ago because in a remain echo chamber such as this it's become completely pointless, rational debate is longer possible, as evidenced by your responses above.

10
krikoman - on 08 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Did I hear the other day JRM company had made billions and they've not paid Corporation tax for the last 5 years?

If so how can any working man align themselves with this self serving cnut. Worried about scroungers and paying FA themselves.

fred99 - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> On the contrary. Nottingham people have a reputation for being sensible, hard working, and non militant.  One of the reasons I moved my business here from Wimbledon.


If this statement is anything like as accurate as your usual ones, it doesn't say a lot for the people of Nottingham.

David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

What have I ever said that was not accurate ?

2
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

26 > 37

David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

You were dishonest about your claim   "26% for 'no-deal' is still trailing well behind a referendum at 37%"

YouGov did not state 37% want a referendum.  But that 37% voted for "Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all."  So did the interviewer say "Would you vote for a referendum if you knew remain would win ?"  What about the people who want another referendum,  but want leave to win ?  This statement excludes those people.  So is the number actually more than 37% ?   How many would have voted for a referendum if the interviewer added  " if you knew it would lead to world peace " , or perhaps " if you were paid £10,000" ?   Other polls put no-deal higher than second referendum.

8
Sir Chasm - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

You can read the questions here Internal_190401_BrexitTrackers_w.pdf

Or you could make up stuff, like normal.

jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

You said 26% for no deal was the most popular option. You didn't say the most popular leave outcome.

> The official polls you linked seem to support the view that no deal is now the most popular outcome at 26%.

Your statement is demonstrably and it is now clear, deliberately incorrect. This was pointed out to you as politely as possible leaving clear opportunity for a face saving climb down. As usual you chose to double down on your bullshit rather than admit a mistake or misinterpretation.

Find me a referendum proponent that doesn't know 'remain' could lose and heavily. Frankly I think most of us know we're likely to if you look at the surging polls for 'no-deal' the campaign for that while still below the surface is very clearly paying dividends. Christ knows what it's costing or who's paying of course, we probably never will. We just want the chance for people from both sides of the divide having now seen what brexit really is to make an informed choice. That is all.

Of course people who want a referendum and want leave to win should be added to the 37% in favour of a referendum who want remain to win, both mutually exclusive groups want a referendum after all. You're attacking your own argument for me you fool!

jk

Post edited at 12:54
David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

It is difficult to decide what you are saying, since you are not very concise.

I think you are claiming that "Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all." is a popular option.   But , of course,  it is not an option at all.  The option would be to have a referendum.   Not have a referendum and win.

2
Tyler - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I can't believe you and all those other dishonest tw*ts are banging on as if no deal is anything other than a catastrophic failure. Even when South Sudan acrimoniously separated from Sudan they sorted some deals because to do otherwise is f*cking childish. Day 1 after no deal every govt body in the UK would be rushing to do a deal with their European equivalent because that's how the world works, you can't just sulk, even north Korea recognises this. If you really think anyone was contemplating this this back in 2016 have a read of what the current no deal hawks (Johnson) had to say back then:

"There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment.


"EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI - the BDI - has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

"The only change - and it will not come in any great rush - is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU's extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal."

Post edited at 13:03
4
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I'm quite clearly saying a referendum polled at least 11 points higher than 'no-deal' when a number of options were put to the public. It was the most popular option. Your ongoing denial of this is ridiculous, you're making a fool of yourself.

jk

1
fred99 - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> What have I ever said that was not accurate ?


I rest my case.

David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Are you going to address the points I made ?

David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

So what have I said that was not accurate ?

5
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I already did, indeed you did too, you shot a hole right through your own argument with your final flourish.

Again I'm going to suggest you read this, you won't listen to me but perhaps you will to someone who made all the same arguments you do https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/?fbclid=IwAR1W761QLS4y0Eibd04xJIcAVe7b7mlrtUdPEZRraylUPxkpdWJ86qWwE14 3

jk

Post edited at 13:22
David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> So did the interviewer say "Would you vote for a referendum if you knew remain would win ?"

I see I was entirely correct in my guess of the question.  It was "Imagine that the final outcome of Brexit was Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all.  Would you consider this to be..." The 37% answer was not even a vote for it.   But only a view that it would be a good outcome.

So you cannot claim from this that 37% want a referendum can you ?

This seems to be your only evidence for your claims that I have been inaccurate , am dishonest, a fool, or I make things up.

Pefa on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Did I hear the other day JRM company had made billions and they've not paid Corporation tax for the last 5 years?

> If so how can any working man align themselves with this self serving cnut. Worried about scroungers and paying FA themselves.

I gave a wee like for that but remember that there is a massive gravy train called the EU for many others and that the EU is very happy to let big businesses and individuals pay no and practically no tax. 

They are all as bad as each when it comes to that imo. 

Post edited at 13:48
2
Rob Parsons on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> I gave a wee like for that but remember that there is a massive gravy train called the EU for many others and that the EU is very happy to let big businesses and individuals pay no and practically no tax. 

Juncker himself has a bad record:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

1
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

Christ on a bike! Your willingness to make up stuff that anyone can check with a single mouse-click is fully Trumpian.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/04/what-do-public-think-about-no-deal-brexit

"And if you had to choose one outcome of brexit what would you prefer to see?"

37% Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all

26% Britain leaving the EU without any deal

...

This clearly shows you were wrong to claim this poll shows 'no-deal' to be the most popular outcome. It is only if you accidentally overlook the much more popular option listed directly above. We all make mistakes but anyone with a shred of dignity would have simply shrugged and acknowledged their mistake when called on it.

jk

Post edited at 14:51
David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Point to something I made up.   I did not.

But you are partly right.  Looking back over the thread I see I did make a mistake in my wording that I hadn't realized. You could have just pointed it out.  I said  "The official polls you linked SEEM to support the view that no deal is now the most popular OUTCOME at 26%."  I meant most popular option.  But probably repeated the word outcome from the poll.  It was a reply after a quick glance at a link given by Northern Star to justify his claim "Even you know full well that if the referendum had been between Remain or No Deal Leave that Remain would have won by a landslide."  To justify that the poll needs to be of options that you would choose to vote for.  Not eventual outcomes that you would like to see.

"And if you had to choose one outcome of brexit what would you prefer to see?"

37% Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all

26% Britain leaving the EU without any deal"

I always debate honestly and in good faith.  Can you not do the same ?

10
Northern Star on 09 Apr 2019
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Point to something I made up.   I did not.

This:

> The official polls you linked seem to support the view that no deal is now the most popular outcome at 26%.

This. Is. Demonstrably. Untrue.

WTAF are you on about, calling it an option rather than an outcome doesn't change the simple fact there is an option or outcome (as you wish) that is 11 points more popular!

> But you are partly right.  Looking back over the thread I see I did make a mistake in my wording that I hadn't realized. You could have just pointed it out.  I said  "The official polls you linked SEEM to support the view that no deal is now the most popular OUTCOME at 26%."  I meant most popular option.

You've had well over a day of me and others pointing out exactly the mistake you made including offering you the possibility that you were simply mistaken or that you mis-spoke so you could climb down with your dignity intact but every time you blustered and dug deeper.

> I always debate honestly and in good faith.  Can you not do the same ?

I've been straight with you the whole way linking my sources, explaining my reasoning, offering you a dignified escape from the hole you dug.

jk

Post edited at 16:26
Frank4short - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Typically at this point he'll take umbrage to some benign turn of phrase, accuse you of being abusive. Say something like that's what remoaners are like and storm off in pseudo offence because his demonstrably untrue quasi logic has been shown to be the con that it is. 

Post edited at 16:22
David Riley - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

The only mistake I have made is putting in one wrong word  You have alternated the words yourself.

You said 26% for no deal was the most popular OPTION. (I meant to. You even said I did.)  You didn't say the most popular leave OUTCOME.

> The official polls you linked seem to support the view that no deal is now the most popular outcome at 26%

The Nottingham poll showed the option of no deal at 48% and the option of having another referendum at 6%.

You can't compare that to another poll showing a preferred outcome of winning a referendum.  Do you think you can ?

9
jkarran - on 09 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> The only mistake I have made is putting in one wrong word  You have alternated the words yourself.

I use them interchangeably because in this context they are essentially interchangeable!

> You said 26% for no deal was the most popular OPTION. (I meant to. You even said I did.)  You didn't say the most popular leave OUTCOME.

The key difference now while you blather about option and outcome is you're trying to inject the word 'leave' to legitimise your pretence that the most popular option by some margin isn't a remain one. I offered you this get out many embarrassing messages ago but you just kept digging.

> The Nottingham poll showed the option of no deal at 48% and the option of having another referendum at 6%.

The one you said was 'poor'. I didn't think I could be much clearer: I couldn't care less about the straw poll in your local rag.

> You can't compare that to another poll showing a preferred outcome of winning a referendum.  Do you think you can ?

The key difference between the two polls isn't the words option and outcome (again, they are essentially interchangeable in this context) but the sample (and likely the methodological rigour). So yes we could compare them but I see no merit in doing so.

jk

Post edited at 19:14
2
David Riley - on 10 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

The purpose of debate is to work together, break down differences to find agreement, and get to the truth. You antagonize and treat it as warfare always avoiding the issues raised in favour of scoring point.s.   Why ?   Nobody will learn anything, and you will have no influence.

11
willworkforfoodjnr - on 10 Apr 2019
In reply to David Riley:

FFS just accept you were wrong already

La benya - on 10 Apr 2019
In reply to Frank4short:

nailed it 🙄👆🏻


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.