EU referendum...THE RESULT...and aftermath...

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Come on Frank you know how murky the world of politics is. The only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend by leave which looks more like a technical fault than a real one. This doesn't give grounds for another referendum. The only thing that may happen is the individual who registered the payment could get fined.
The only grounds for another referendum is that the side that lost refuses to accept the result. The same people that are calling the result undemocratic. Anyway you'd lose another referendum same as the first one. What then best of five?

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Can't argue with that.

Funny about all the fuss about Aaron Banks, fake news ect.
from the Biased Broadcasting Company,

The committee scrutinised the role of Arron Banks, who made Britain's largest ever political donation when he gave £8.4m to the campaign to leave the EU.

And no mention of the fact that Lord Sainsbury paid over £8m to remain. It's almost like we are only being fed one side of the story. And the rhetoric stinks. Aaron Banks 'largest ever political donation' is the same as Sainsburys that doesn't get a mention.

beesrus wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Can't argue with that.

You want another referendum to not vote in?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Come on Frank you know how murky the world of politics is. The only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend by leave which looks more like a technical fault than a real one. This doesn't give grounds for another referendum. The only thing that may happen is the individual who registered the payment could get fined.
The only grounds for another referendum is that the side that lost refuses to accept the result. The same people that are calling the result undemocratic. Anyway you'd lose another referendum same as the first one. What then best of five?

So if the only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend a 2nd referendum should take place because Leave cheated.

Anyway, you won. Deal with it. The clock is ticking....

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Come on Frank you know how murky the world of politics is. The only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend by leave which looks more like a technical fault than a real one. This doesn't give grounds for another referendum. The only thing that may happen is the individual who registered the payment could get fined.
The only grounds for another referendum is that the side that lost refuses to accept the result. The same people that are calling the result undemocratic. Anyway you'd lose another referendum same as the first one. What then best of five?

So if the only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend a 2nd referendum should take place because Leave cheated.

Anyway, you won. Deal with it. The clock is ticking....

Only in Remain world could a campaign that spent more than they did by about 30 odd percent be conceived as unfair. I'll deal with Brexit as I've dealt with life, on my own two feet sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I expect you'll continue to draw your government paycheck until Armageddon arrives?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Reading some interesting stuff from Guido Fawkes unforch it won't let me copy and paste but basically he's saying that Remain spent more than leave by about £5m. They got around the spending rules by funding five different campaigns which illegally held conference calls every day effectively making them one organisation which would then be clearly and massively in breach of spending rules. This is disregarding the £9m they spent on the project fear leaflet posted through every door in the country.
The figures spent are approx £13m by leave and £19m by remain and if you add the project fear bill in this comes to £13m v £28m. I'm not sure if this includes the near £10m that Lord Sainsbury (you know that pillar of the community that pays the minimum wage and has 'apprentice shelf stackers' and banks millions a year in profit subsidised by us in the form of WFTC topping up his staffs meagrely wages).
So in conclusion Remains claims that the ref was won unfairly hold no water at all. In fact if you took away the governments project fear, terrible bias by the BBC, Channel 4, ITV any comedian, musician or artist getting interviewed by any of the above and massive campaigns funded by large American lending institutions it makes you wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been a fair campaign? I'm saying 60-40 in favour of leave.
The leave campaign spent £600k illegally (as it wasn't declared in time) yet remain spent £14m more than them and had the media, the government and American banks on their side. Talk about false news.

Well if both sides cheated it’s probably best to have another referendum.

Come on Frank you know how murky the world of politics is. The only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend by leave which looks more like a technical fault than a real one. This doesn't give grounds for another referendum. The only thing that may happen is the individual who registered the payment could get fined.
The only grounds for another referendum is that the side that lost refuses to accept the result. The same people that are calling the result undemocratic. Anyway you'd lose another referendum same as the first one. What then best of five?

So if the only illegal thing that happened was the £600k overspend a 2nd referendum should take place because Leave cheated.

Anyway, you won. Deal with it. The clock is ticking....

Only in Remain world could a campaign that spent more than they did by about 30 odd percent be conceived as unfair. I'll deal with Brexit as I've dealt with life, on my own two feet sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I expect you'll continue to draw your government paycheck until Armageddon arrives?

Keep sticking your fingers up......or is it fingers in your ears going “la la la”?

Keeps the false news at bay old bean. Armageddon la la la......

Leaving aside for a second who cheated, who said what in the referendum, and whether or not there should be another one, there has been(and I'm sure will continue to be) an enormous amount of rhetoric around our leaving.

Now, in everything I have read, everything I have seen in the media, whether from remainers or leavers, not one person, nobody at all, has been able to give any sort of indication about the benefits of us leaving the EU. Quite the contrary, things are probably going to get that little bit more difficult, a little more expensive and we, as a country, will be that little more isolated.

For what it's worth, I can't see how there can possibly be another referendum. The majority have voted to leave. Unless of course, a very brave politician with a coherent vision of the future says to the public - this is the deal, or we can't a deal with the EU, do you still want to leave?

And there is no-one of any political persuasion with the balls to do that.

There have been many many arguments in favour of the benefits of leaving they have been ignored.

The Institute of Economic Affairs have been keeping a close eye on any perceived or real bias by the BBC.  

In the 18 months since the referendum, It’s two flagship political panel programmes, Question Time and Any Questions, has had just under 600 guests.

Of those, 68% backed remain and 32% backed leave.

This comes as no surprise at all.

The planet is fecked, brexit is merely a side show as we slip to our doom. All the Tories are concerned with is a cozy retirement income.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Funny about all the fuss about Aaron Banks, fake news ect.
from the Biased Broadcasting Company,

The committee scrutinised the role of Arron Banks, who made Britain's largest ever political donation when he gave £8.4m to the campaign to leave the EU.

And no mention of the fact that Lord Sainsbury paid over £8m to remain. It's almost like we are only being fed one side of the story. And the rhetoric stinks. Aaron Banks 'largest ever political donation' is the same as Sainsburys that doesn't get a mention.

Probably because it got declared and it came from Sainsbury’s not Russia.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Funny about all the fuss about Aaron Banks, fake news ect.
from the Biased Broadcasting Company,

The committee scrutinised the role of Arron Banks, who made Britain's largest ever political donation when he gave £8.4m to the campaign to leave the EU.

And no mention of the fact that Lord Sainsbury paid over £8m to remain. It's almost like we are only being fed one side of the story. And the rhetoric stinks. Aaron Banks 'largest ever political donation' is the same as Sainsburys that doesn't get a mention.

Probably because it got declared and it came from Sainsbury’s not Russia.

Or the millions form Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and other American banks?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Funny about all the fuss about Aaron Banks, fake news ect.
from the Biased Broadcasting Company,

The committee scrutinised the role of Arron Banks, who made Britain's largest ever political donation when he gave £8.4m to the campaign to leave the EU.

And no mention of the fact that Lord Sainsbury paid over £8m to remain. It's almost like we are only being fed one side of the story. And the rhetoric stinks. Aaron Banks 'largest ever political donation' is the same as Sainsburys that doesn't get a mention.

Probably because it got declared and it came from Sainsbury’s not Russia.

Or the millions form Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and other American banks?

I suggest you report your concerns to the Electoral Commission.

Until they reach another judgement Leave remains the only illegally run campaign and mysteriously funded campaign that has been found to have broken the law.

One of the many laws that sum to the British Sovereignty that is so precious to so many.

Leave was in breach of British Law as voted for by a British Parliament and adjudicated on by the appropriate arm of the British judiciary and also considered by a cross-party committee of British MPs who were elected by British voters to a British parliament.

Leave has been found guilty. Nobody else.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Project Fear [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or maybe [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Ive lost track now

The first project fear was "OMG, there's too many immigrants, our englishness is under threat" That's been running for ever.

This speaks for itself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You can have Brexit or an NHS but not both.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Where's the bit about that nasty Mr. Putin ?

I thought twas the Wushins what did it, or is that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You can have Brexit or an NHS but not both.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nonsense.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You can have Brexit or an NHS but not both.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Scraping the barrel now, what a load of crap

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You can have Brexit or an NHS but not both.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Statistics can kick you in the bollox

Total NHS nurses 357,099

British nurses 281,214 (78%)

Non EU nurses 26,630 (8%)

EU nurses 20,560 (6%)

Your statement doesn’t stack up

Lord Melbury wrote:

Where's the bit about that nasty Mr. Putin ?

I thought twas the Wushins what did it, or is that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ?

Are you talking Novichok or Brexit ? What bit do you believe Melbers, or is it a moveable feast ?