1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

So what now for Brexit?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by dumpty, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Happygopolitely

    Happygopolitely Occasional commenter

    Do Cameron and/or govts sharpen lies in all referendum leaflets? Do remainers lie even about the clear outcome of a vote?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  2. Yoda-

    Yoda- Lead commenter

    This may be of some help to all of you...

     
    Happygopolitely likes this.
  3. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    Well certainly the Brexit party should get some seats. Mind you, they’ve split the Brexit vote quite well from UKIP. I’m not expecting a great deal. Farage hosted a warm up party and the people who showed up were very white and very very old.

    Is a vote in these EU elections for the tories a vote for Brexit or a vote for TM's deal? I think we are all unsure. To be fair, labour are trying their best to be an absolutely almost pro-confirmatory referendum (whilst our leader is naturally anti-Eu so your vote is safe) fudge. Enough for green and change to pick up five percents.

    What will happen is that Remain will get their vote out. Young people will get their vote out. Those that voted for the first time in their lives in the referendum will go back to not voting.

    No one is talking about the local council elections. They should be interesting. Bound to be some losses for your UKIP councillors.
     
    Startedin82 and irs1054 like this.
  4. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    So if you want to indicate remain in your vote who do you vote for?
     
  5. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    That would be the coal and steel union between six countries (not just the two that you thought)?

    I suggest that you try re-reading what it was formed for if you think it was "protectionist"- unless "protectionist" is yet another of your Humpty-Dumpty words that means something for you that is different from what the rest of us think it means.
    Ermm haven't you decried the privatisation of the UK's industries how were they any different if one considers that like the six countries in ECSC, British steel and British coal spanned different countries?
     
  6. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Other papers with a Pro-EU agenda? Not that I can think of particularly?
    but things like this were produced by the dozen
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    A
    ll from comfortably before the referendum. And that's without referring to the well known journalist B Johnson who was fired for telling one lie too many.


    Why not report them? If you are right they will have to print retractions/ be banned from running the ads, given the Torygraph's treatment it would be interesting to see if any of the Remainer papers are anything like as bad.

    You are a little bit polarised aren't you? What could convince you that the EU is any less that the Great Beast spawned upon the Earth?
    As I have said over years and many subjects- many of us discussing will not move, however some reading haven't invested in one camp or the other and can be swayed. I know I won't convince you of your mistakes, but I might just convince some people who are neutral.

    As a teacher you'll know that only a handful of kids are at either end of the behaviour spectrum, most will go with the flow. The same applies here. There's a few die-hard remainers and a few ultra-Brexiteers, and there's a lot who will read these posts and nod. And eventually be swayed one way or the other by things like our posts and the adverts they see and the headlines they read.
    As has been pointed out- there's been a little too much spent on advertising to think that it really doesn't work.
     
  7. nervousned

    nervousned Senior commenter

    Where did you get that information? When I looked earlier today, Canadians have to fulfil the same criteria as we do to migrate to the US. eg student visa, job already in place, etc. I saw no additional requirements for us.
     
  8. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Yet so many of the people running Leave campaigns said differently - as has been shown. Some had one plan others had different plans and very few didn't employ Unicorns- hence the current situation where the only reason that the WA hasn't been voted through is because some Leaves keep blocking it...
    And even that is mis-reported/ mis-represented and Remainers blocking it... Seriously the ERG & DUP are Remainers?

    But he gave a very big hint.

    That's fine, but it served y purpose when you challenged me over my observation that many brexiteers, for all their talk about snowflakes, are very thin-skinned.

    No I do accept that you made a mistake, that's not the issue, the point I'm trying to make is that you didn't consider the hint about who it was aimed at. That shows that the subtle use of simple English confused you (which I don't accept), or you were desperate to play the victim card (unlikely) or it shows that it's been mis-represented so often that mentally you remembered the misrepresentation without thinking.

    And that's a great example of how all those years of lies and anti- EU headlines work... repeat the lie and eventually it becomes the truth, or if not the truth at least what people remember as the truth.

    You are saying that a majority of the 17.4 did not vote for xenophobic reasons- I am allowed to ask where is your evidence for that claim am I not (even if I needed to post a correction to do so)?

    The various Leave organisations clearly thought that xenophobia was one of their trump cards- or did you miss all the stuff about the Turks coming, migrants assaulting people, and draining the NHS?
    For you to claim that xenophobia played hardly any effect on the leave vote is pretty deep into -La La I can't hear you land.
     
    dleaf12 and monicabilongame like this.
  9. Happygopolitely

    Happygopolitely Occasional commenter

    Do remainers rely on crystal balls, news in daily tabloids such as 'The Sun' , polls, lies in referendum leaflets, fake predictions, accusatory comments and a hope that society will stay in a jam ? Lets hope we can move soon to a multicultural society outside of the eu - everything remainers do not want.
     
    cherie_alamayonaika likes this.
  10. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    I watched an interesting talk that Tony Benn gave to the NUJ in 2006 this afternoon. It didn't have anything politically partisan in it, but was an observation of the power the media has, for both good and evil.

    He made references to historical facts we are aware of, such as having access to the bible was once regarded as heresy and being punishable by death, but he also made reference to Hansard (the individual) who was locked up for recording what was said in parliament. I had to look it up on Wikipedia to learn more.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard#Origins

    "Before 1771, the British Parliament had long been a highly secretive body. The official record of the actions of the House was publicly available, but there was no record of the debates. The publication of remarks made in the House became a breach of Parliamentary privilege, punishable by the two Houses of Parliament. As the populace became interested in parliamentary debates, more independent newspapers began publishing unofficial accounts of them. The many penalties implemented by the government, including fines, dismissal, imprisonment, and investigations, are reflective of "the difficulties faced by independent newspapermen who took an interest in the development of Upper Canada, and who, in varying degrees, attempted to educate the populace to the shortcomings of their rulers"

    Once the printing press was invented, it became obvious to the powers that be that it was going to be impossible to prevent the ordinary person to make what they will of the word of god, rather than the particular spin the clergy wanted to put on it; and once the courts ruled that parliament couldn't punish those who recorded what went on inside its chambers, the only way to retain control was to infiltrate the media, by using the media to spin the messages it wants to be heard.

    @Burndenpark makes reference to Johnson's journalistic efforts, but we can't ignore those of other leading Brexiteers who exploit the media in the name of journalism.

    We imagine the Internet is giving us the ability to discuss politics and influence things, which I think it does do to a limited extent, but I also think it's 99.9% irrelevant noise.

    Only the powerful have access to having their voices heard in mainstream media. You can argue on here until you're blue in the face about Brexit, but no politician is listening and sadly since social media is open to the opinions of all and sundry, without any of the filters required to become a representative of the people and express an opinion in parliament, what we say means absolutely nothing.

    Brexit won't be resolved by what anyone has to say on the Intenet. It will eventually get sorted one way or the other by wheelings and dealings in the corridors of power, just as power stuggles have always been done.

    It seems to me that Internet forums are little more than venues to express our frustrations and possibly a means to expose our weaknesses for our masters to abuse us further.

    Be careful what you say. History will tell you how horrible the deaths of those those who did no more than question what those in power were up to.

    The best Joe Public can do is hope it blows over and vote for something different next time round, anticipating there will be sufficient people who think similarly.

    But Joe public hasn't a hope in Hell of controlling the media.
     
    harsh-but-fair likes this.
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    As you like it.
     
  12. Happygopolitely

    Happygopolitely Occasional commenter

    Do uk mps exploit their position to have more of an influence, say and vote than they were ever intended to?
     
    cherie_alamayonaika likes this.
  13. EmanuelShadrack

    EmanuelShadrack Star commenter

    Is asking all these questions an attempt to resurrect our dearly missed friend?
     
    Happygopolitely likes this.
  14. EmanuelShadrack

    EmanuelShadrack Star commenter

    monicabilongame likes this.
  15. SirPurrAlot

    SirPurrAlot Established commenter

    The WA hasn't been voted through because 234 Labour MPs voted against it. Most of the ERG voted for it (including Rees-Mogg and Johnson) - the remaining 20 and the 10 DUP votes would have made no difference if Labour hadn't decided to keep kicking the can down the road, losing more British jobs to the continent with their delaying tactics in order to play politics.
     
    cherie_alamayonaika likes this.
  16. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Look at the margin by which it was defeated (58)
    Subtract the 30 votes you mention (actually 34 + 10- but we know you're not so good with numbers) from the votes against and add them to the number of votes for.

    By my reckoning- just the Tories voting for it would have been enough.

    Then tell me if it would still have lost.

    Numbers are here if you don't trust me
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47752017

    I expect, given your busy schedule and fragile ego you won't find time to admit your mistake, but at least you'll know not to repeat it.
     
  17. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    [This comment/section/image has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]
     
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.
  18. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    [​IMG]
     
    cherie_alamayonaika likes this.
  19. SirPurrAlot

    SirPurrAlot Established commenter

    But if you had a better understanding of arithmetic, you would know that had Labour voted for it, the Withdrawal Deal would have sailed through with a huge majority.

    If you work hard at your maths you might eventually realize that 234 is a bigger number than 58.

    You are not so good at research. The additional 10 were not Tories.
     
    cherie_alamayonaika likes this.
  20. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    If labour had been in power and negotiated exactly the same WA and had put it to the commons then nearly all of the tories would have voted against it, and the DUP, and probably the Lib Dems and greens. It is the nature of the game. The numbers are perfect to ensure neither side can achieve Brexit.
     

Share This Page