The thought has often gone through my head that this is another Millenium Bug situation. The MSM whips us into a frenzy that the world will stop on the 31st (Dec 1999 in the MB case, Oct 2019 in this case) but I strongly suspect everything will continue as normal on the 1st. Have we learned nothing in 20years?
It will definitely not be as bad as the media would suggest, but there will be some bumps in the road for sure. Either way, if it's what needs doing then so be it
I did see that interview with calais director, it's quite enlightening how he says he is in full contact with the U.K. and has seen the proposals and we are far more advanced than the doom mongers think and it will be okay. as to lucas's proposal, her idea of creating a "national unity government" by banning 50% of the population because they are male sums up her thinking It also ignores the most powerful person in the eu, merkel, is wimmin, the new eu president is wimmin, new head of the european central bank is wimmin, in the U.K. May was wimmin, head of the greens is wimmin, head of the snp is wimmin, head of the lib dems is wimmin, head of the dup is wimmin, head of sinn fien is wimmin, head of plaid cymru is wimmin, head of scottish tories is wimmin, both tory and labours heads in the lords are wimmin no honestly, I can see her point
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote A long read
And to follow that, try this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/english-nationalism-brexit-remain-and-reform
I am having to block FBPE accounts on Twitter. They are clinically, demonstrably, insane, as a rule. There are some milder accounts with the #FBPE tag who appear to be parody accounts - however, the people doing the parodying are unable to keep up with the ever-increasing insanity from this cult so it's hard to tell : o )
Loud, obsesvive & tribal - of course Farage (and co) is none of those things? No, Farage is just the ordinary bloke at the pub... Give me a break!
Do their posts include things like Giant Owl wank sock, grass cutting implements, and miles and miles of fascists verbal diahorrea ?
And therein lies the problem, nobodies saying there aren't some obsessive leave voters, obviously farage being top of the tree, but you're missing the point of the article, rather ironically as it happens. It's written in the Guardian for a start (huge remain paper), and for the most part it's bang on in that some remain voters have become obsessed to such a degree they can't even recognise their condescending tone, insults they use daily, or see that they're no different when ranting and raving than the perceived 'far right' threat they imagine every leave voter to be. Had that been recognised and understood earlier then I dare say the opinions of many would have been changed by now. But in truth the arrogance and taking down of leave voters has just pissed away the last 3 years (I'm paraphrasing) Don't shoot the messenger, just understand the message
The irony for me would be that anyone claiming the behavior of one side of an arguement is wrong and not mentioning the excesses of the opposing group, is the pot calling kettle in its purest form. I don't care whether the Guardian published the article or not. That paper does not have a franchise on telling the plain truth in balanced articles as far as I know.
Its the extremes of both sides that are damaging the country. People like Anna Soubry (who at 1st I thought was on the money...) but prove to be a one trick pony. All she wanted was another referendum..her type had many opportunities for softer Brexit options. Now, it seems we are stuck with leave Brexiteers with more extreme views as a result of the failings of people un prepared to budge on both the sides of the divide. Its as if the loudest on both sides have drowned out the common sense in the middle. Unfortunately it also stifles real debate. Trump uses the technique to great affect.
But that's what it's saying, that there are excesses and fanatics on the remain side, something that's rarely touched on whilst fanatics on the leave side are regularly
The feral tribalism on both sides - I've seen both - is unhelpful in advancing the argument of either side. The disturbing element is the propagandising of the information by Remain and by Leave. On the one hand, you have a few vocal Leavers, Farage being one of the most visible … on the other hand, you have the FBPE cult, which has been radicalised by the Establishment and the MSM and who echo, in hysterical fashion, the messaging repeated endlessly by the BBC, Sky, Channel 4, The Grauniad, etc etc. I believe there is a case that one side is more to blame for the tribal madness than the other, but arguing over that will be about as useful as arguing the merits of Leave/Remain itself. YMMV. I am demonstrating my own bias in this post, of course but I have always been biased in favour of rational arguments and against appeals to emotion / outright scaremongering / insults. : o )
This is a parody account - its lunacy is a pale shadow of whom and what it parodies and is one of the examples I was thinking of in a previous post. Cheers!
And in further news this morning ....... a bid is taking place in Scotland to attempt to prevent Brexit occurring on 31/10. Legal bid to stop Westminster Brexit shutdown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49320773 An extract below; Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, which is supporting the latest challenge, said: "A man with no mandate seeks to cancel Parliament for fear it will stop him inflicting on an unwilling public an outcome they did not vote for and do not want. AFAIK the public did vote for a particular outcome it’s just that some of them are unwilling to accept the result.
That there are fanatics on both sides isn't news. The article is a tawdry rant, over long and boring with odd references. Citing Chukka Umnuna as a reference unless its for U Turns or self interest has to be a clue? Gina Miller didn't "argue that it would be illegal to invoke article 50 without a parliamentary vote"; Gina sponsored a case which at the High court proved Mays Government were wrong and leaving the EU without a parliamentry approval would be illegal. If Cohen had produced an article featuring excesses of both sides, it would have been interesting. Still I'm glad you liked it!
