skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What have they said?
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (71 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
What have they said?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Favouring a Corbyn caretaker government!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. It comes to something when the FT states in writing that it would rather see an IRA sympathising Labour leader be PM rather than the Tory leader as a direct response to the course of action a Tory leader has taken.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Financial Times declared itself pro remain in 2016 - what are you on about?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The point is that it’s a Conservative paper showing a preference to a socialist very left wing Labour leader over a Tory PM. Corbyn couldn’t be further away from its principles if he tried yet they’d rather see him PM than Boris. That’s a big statement.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which makes it even more shocking. We all know Corbyn is a leaver at heart and Boris is a remainer at heart.
I’m repeating a typical slur used to discredit any negative coverage surrounding Brexit for comedy effect as being pro-remain and denouncing the government while stating a preference for a Corbyn led caretaker government are vastly different things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They obviously view Remain in the short term over political allegiance. They mention ‘caretaker’ as they think Corbyn will stop/delay Brexit.
As I said yesterday I don’t agree with the methods but this will bring it to a ahead. WTF will another delay do (if the EU grants one)...we’ve already wasted two (if you include the short one) !
As I also said, this has never been about stopping No deal (Johnson doesn’t want this as it’s fraught with risk), it’s about stopping Brexit.
If that’s what people want then fair enough but say it. At least the Lib Dem leader was honest by saying even if the public voted out in a second ref she would still try to stop Brexit.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Do they? Based on what? Backing a socialist true leaver over a remainer at heart PM. Backing someone who did everything they could to avoid backing a second referendum? I think you must have your eyes shut to Corbyn’s true political ideology to make that statement.
Astute
Well-Known Member
1, Where did the leave campaign break the law. If you mean a part that wasn't official that overspent then why don't you mention both sides because both sides did so.
2 Justify what BJ has done? Oh the irony. I said that I see it as wrong but people like yourself who constantly defend the EU after they break laws, rules and regulations then have a go at BJ for doing something that hasn't broken laws, rules and regulations.
I don’t understand the point Tony. FT are remain, I’m guessing they now feel the best way of delaying/stopping Brexit is by Corbyn being appointed as caretaker PM.
Astute
Well-Known Member
The UK is in a much stronger position than you and your cronies would ever admit to.
Any terms better than now are improved terms. Or have you a way of spinning it so it wouldn't be true?
Did you want the so called May deal? Do you know anyone who wanted it? Can you see the same thing going through?
Ah so you concede there was illegal activity during the referendum and the democratic process was interfered with?
Why do you start your post with “where did the leave campaign break the law”? Surely you’re aware of what happened and that there is a police investigation pending? I’m sure you’re also aware it’s not just about overspending and also entails coordination between groups made out to be separate, data harvesting and opaquely sourced funds?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
So you haven't been reading posts on here then where they are as one sided remain as yourself?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It wasn't the leave campaign though was it. It was an independent section of it. The same was for the remain illegal activities. But you only want to point out one side of it. How unusual......
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Yes I can see it getting through if it went back to parliament.
If you genuinely believe thay the UK is now in a position to demand better terms will get them, then you're seriously deluded.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The FT is first and foremost a Conservative paper, that’s the point. Corbyn has no intention of stopping brexit, he just wants it to be on his terms so I’m not sure how you think that they’re pinning their hopes on Corbyn being the saviour of remain. The point that the FT is making isn’t even a point of brexit, it’s a point of democracy and to that end a Conservative publication has come out in support of making a socialist PM. Twist it all you like but that’s a big statement.
Last edited:
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
You'd think that if it was all above board they wouldn't have dropped their appeal.
And you constatly deflect and find excuses for Leave activities while continually going on about the EU and then wonder why you get called out on it. What you're supporting and justifying sets a very dangerous precendent for the future. If it were the EU you'd be going on about it for years.
The independent sections were receiving money and data from the main campaign, that was part of the activity and reason why it was referred to the police.
I’ve literally replied to your post above saying you acknowledge illegal activity went on when you’ve highlighted issues with the remain side yet as usual you just want to make excuses and deflect while saying everyone else is one sided.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Will any improved terms be as good as the have your cake and eat it terms promised by either the official or unofficial leave campaigns because Germany still wants to sell us cars, the French still want to sell us wine and cheese etc? The only honest answer is no.
As someone pointed out last night on C4 news, even before the referendum took place the EU had stated that no deal is better than a bad deal for the EU. It wasn’t May who coined that phrase but to coin one of her phrases nothing has changed with regards to that. There is no cake and eat it deal so no, the UK isn’t in a much stronger than any cronies will admit to. It’s just in a far weaker position than you and your cronies will admit to and actually the actions of both the last PM and the current one only confirms that. If we were in a stronger position than we are May would have got a better deal and Boris wouldn’t be doing things like threatening a no deal and proroguing parliament. These things are not a show of strength there a sign of weakness as he really has nothing else to sell. Boris is the boy who took his ball back.
Last edited:
I’m not twisting it. It’s a remain paper. They are pinning their hopes on Corbyn (as caretaker) to at least delay Brexit.
Ps It says ‘....since ousting Johnson in time to affect the Brexit process may also require the creation of caretaker government government under Labours Jeremy corbyn’ ie to be able to do something about Brexit everyone might need to accept Corbyn becoming caretaker.
I do take your point that this is rather ironic given that Corbyn is a massive leaver at heart !!!
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s a Conservative paper. They’re pinning their hopes on Corbyn becoming caretaker but not to stop brexit hard or otherwise, they’ve been very very clear on why they have all of a sudden backed Corbyn above a Tory PM. If it was for any other reason than the one given they’d have done it a long time ago. This has been triggered by one thing only.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Tbf it has said that it respects the results and believes it should be implemented.
Saying that though, I've said multiple times that the EEA option would have been an option worth exploring as a compromise, yet i'm accussed of being 'remain no matter what'
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Tbf it has said that it respects the results and believes it should be implemented.
Saying that though, I've said multiple times that the EEA option would have been an option worth exploring as a compromise, yet i'm accussed of being 'remain no matter what'
A lot of sensible people would see an agreement like this (or similar) as a way forward. The problem is that the No-Dealers and the A50 Revokers are not prepared to compromise.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He’s got no point
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I can at least read my own links.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Tbf it has said that it respects the results and believes it should be implemented.
Saying that though, I've said multiple times that the EEA option would have been an option worth exploring as a compromise, yet i'm accussed of being 'remain no matter what'
Ahem. I think you mean remoaner.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Yeah, even Grendel put this forward as a compromise before.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
As did Nigel. He’s allowed to change his mind though.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So can I. Interestingly another constitutional expert was on the bbc news last night and guess what? She said the PM will control the date if a no confidence vote results in no government and he can easily make it November
I don’t see why the hard Brexiters and no dealers have been pandered to so much throughout this process. They’re what, 25% of voters? Nobody is going to last as leader or get anything done until it’s accepted a compromise is required.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk