skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What have they said?
Even the Financial Times have turned against the government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What have they said?
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.
Bloody remainer rag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bloody remainer rag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The FT is heavily Remain
The Financial Times declared itself pro remain in 2016 - what are you on about?
The Financial Times declared itself pro remain in 2016 - what are you on about?
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.
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.
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.And then we have those who voted leave and who defend it no matter what, even when the campaign was proven to have broken the law.
You’ve always been strangely quiet on that and have ignored it, you seem to only go on about the EU and remain voters.
It makes a mockery of your claim to look at it from both sides because you’re so inconsistent.
And now you’re even trying to justify what Johnson is doing, if it was the EU you’d probably explode. What he’s doing will set a very, very dangerous precedent for the future.
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.
The UK is in a much stronger position than you and your cronies would ever admit to.And even further ago you also claimed that the UK held all the cards and was in a very strong position.
Improved terms? Really?
He isn’t going to get better terms.
It’s going to be May’s deal but it’ll be repackaged and ultimately the same, the one you said that no one wanted.
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.
.
So you haven't been reading posts on here then where they are as one sided remain as yourself?What are you on about? Do you have any proof whatsoever for this weird rant against “some people” (47% of the country by that snap poll)?
It’s this kind of paranoid thinking that is the hallmark of the leave side and it’s not healthy.
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......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
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?
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.
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.
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......
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?
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.
I’m not twisting it. It’s a remain paper. They are pinning their hopes on Corbyn (as caretaker) to at least delay Brexit.
Tbf it has said that it respects the results and believes it should be implemented.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 !!!
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'
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.
He’s got no point
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'
Yeah, even Grendel put this forward as a compromise before.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.
Yeah, even Grendel put this forward as a compromise before.
I can at least read my own links.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?