Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.

[renaeden]

It is a game people play on their phones where they actually go outside and find Pokemon to capture. It shows up on the phone where they are.

I went out with Kayleigh and we found a few Pokemon around the foreshore. We found more people who were playing the game too.

Apparently there is a stink kicked up over where Pokemon can be found - like the Holocaust Museum for example and memorials as well. People think it's in bad taste for Pokemon to be located at those places.

[odeon]

So it's a bit like that GPS-based thing a few years back?

[FourAceDeal]

So it's a bit like that GPS-based thing a few years back?

But this one allows people to capture innocent animals and force them into gladiator battles for their own amusement.  What can be wrong about that?

[Gopher Gary]

I prefer to capture men and force them to cock fight. 

[Pyraxis]

So it's a bit like that GPS-based thing a few years back?

Yeah it's augmented reality along with a simple game mechanic. You hold up your phone and look through it to see Pokemon appearing as if in the real world. You collect them and there are things called gyms where you have to send your pokemon to fight and capture the gym for one of three teams. The gyms are located based on GPS coordinates.

[benjimanbreeg]

What race is this?

Well in "English Speaking People's" by Winston Churchill, he speaks of the British race.  No one really knows what race is though.  I'd imagine though he's speaking of the English people made up of a few different types and had basically assimilated over the last 1000 years.

Interestingly enough, there are differences.

In WWI and WWII, Scottish (and possibly Welsh?) soldiers experiences far more foot problems related to their boots than did the English. It turns out there is an average difference in the shape of their feet. English have more of a square shaped foot due to more interbreeding with continental Europeans. Scottish have a more triangular shaped foot and boots that were made for Englishmen didn't fit very well.

(I wish I could remember the source I got this from)

Mine are webbed 

[benjimanbreeg]

I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

Yeah this is a load of crap. I know you don't suffer fools, but I didn't know you went as far as thinking they should not be allowed to vote in a democracy. Every citizen should be equal under the law, because every citizen will have to live with the consequences of the vote. A country is not private property for an educated elite to be fucking around with.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

 

I like it when you make big political posts, you always prove that you know fuck all.   

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/09/anti-austerity-protesters-take-to-uk-streets-after-tory-election-victory

"Hundreds of protesters..."

Compare it to the millions of signers to the petition.

If you take away all the fake signatures, there was probably about 100    A bit like this I guess

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-snub-190000-strong-petition-calling-for-no-confidence-vote-in-david-cameron-a6740441.html

Oh, I'm fairly sure that there were still reasonably many signatures left, after they removed the fakes. Did they ever check those 190,000?

Not that any of it matters. I hear the petition was rejected.

Possibly.  Not that I heard of. 

Well I wouldn't worry too much, Blairite May will most likely strike us a deal that pretty much keeps where we are now.

Nope. You'll quite possibly leave the EU and forfeit your right to vote in anything having to do with them, but the all-important access to the single market will equal all of the things you thought you'd get rid of by voting "leave", so most of you lot will discover in time you are actually somewhat worse off. You won't save any money because your economy will shrink. Quite the opposite, in fact, because you'll still have to fund a number of things now funded by EU money.

And all of this was pointed out by economists long before the referendum, and in far greater detail, but, as Gove said, you've had your share of experts.

It's going to be interesting to see if she actually does invoke Article 50. It will be political suicide for her, so I can see why she might think twice first.

Well let's hope so, as that's what we voted for!  Na, things will just change.  It'll be difficult for a couple of years but things will pick up.  I don't care what your butthurt heroes are saying, they've been wrong on many occasions.  Well duh, the £20,000 a minute we stop paying to the EU can be used for funding, and if it isn't, there will be protests. 

It'll be political suicide if she doesn't. 

[benjimanbreeg]

"Get on with things" implies the Leave campaign had a plan. They didn't, or they are hiding it exceptionally well because all they have done after the referendum is to go back on their promises. But if you know better, then I think you should speak up, Al.

And arguing that since there was a time when they weren't a member of the EU and everything worked just fine is a bit like saying that we've done without electricity before and we can again.

It was up to the elected government to have a plan, as the fucking referendum was in their manifesto last year.  The Tories didn't actually expect to get a majority and carry out their promise.  They had gotten away with their "cast iron" promise of a referendum in 2010 by being saved by the Lib Dems and would have hoped for something similar last year.  It was down to the Prime Minister to plan for either outcome on the referendum, but he only planned for one and then cried and resigned on the spot when it didn't go his way.

Promising a referendum was an exceptionally stupid decision. It should never have been part of their manifesto but they desperately wanted to win.

But for the Leave campaign to not have a plan means that they actually had no idea what they were advocating. They still don't.

Something needed to be done.  People have had enough of mass immigration and multiculturalism.  The establishment panicked when the BNP won a load of council seats around 2009, so then the media gave us UKIP and Nigel Farage from 2010, putting him on the BBC pretty much every week.  This gave UKIP lots of momentum and forced Cameron to offer a referendum again, if he hadn't, UKIP would have won lots of seats last year.  The British people had been imprisoned long enough and were crying out to be heard rather than being screamed down as racists for wanting to do something about outrageous changes to their communities, when they were never asked if they wanted it.  The majority wanted to become a sovereign state again and we voted to do so.  Now it's time for the politicians to act. 

It was up to David Cameron and the Tory government to have a plan, as I told you.  There shouldn't have even been a leave or remain campaign, people should have just been educated with the facts and then been left to make a choice, but then we'd have left with an overwhelming majority if everyone knew of the true evils.  At the least, they could have put up a decent leave campaign and would have helped to win the vote a lot more convincingly.

This is hilarious. How would this have been done in Benji-land?

Not difficult is it?  Just have some impartial body that can prosecute anyone found to be giving out misinformation and propaganda.  The lies from both sides balanced things out slightly anyway, even though the government, news stations and half of the media were on the 'remain' side.

What impartial body would that be? And how would they spot the liars? Or, for that matter, the people who told you the truth? How would they recognise the actual experts on finance and global economics, a majority of whom explained what would happen and why long before the referendum? Or would the people who warned you of the consequences be prosecuted in Benji-land?

You are funny, though.

Who knows.  But it sounds like you're not familiar with books.  They would write a pamphlet, the footnotes would be listed with sources for people to check.  It would get people thinking and researching more independently and there could be no complaints.  But I understand why you prefer the propaganda fest.  Most of what we were getting were predictions, scare stories, threats and lies.  They are not facts! 

[benjimanbreeg]

Those groups are what have made the British people, and the key also being that they are closer in a lot of ways.  We had formed a monotone culture pretty much.  White British people have become a minority in their own capital city in a matter of decades.  That's insane.  These policies have been carried out with evil intent and we're seeing the results more and more frequently now.

It's amusing that you don't seem to know your capital at all. London used to be the centre of an empire, like it or not, and the multiculturalism, like it or not, is not something new.

Nor is the fear for it, though.

It was never pretended that the non British people were part of the British race then.  Never have we had immigration on this scale, not even close.  We had a lot when Jews were seeking refuge over 100 years ago.  But now British people are a minority in England's capital city, which is insane.  When the start of the transformation was happening in the 50's and 60's, people were complaining then to their MP's, speaking of being the only British people left in their street.  A large majority of people agreed with Enoch Powell's 1968 speech, which would have meant repatriating the immigrant population if he'd become Prime Minister.  Lots of immigrants also wanted this, as they'd have been rewarded with £1000 each.  Both sides of my family have come from London, they say it's been completely rearranged.  Pretending it's always been this way is ludicrous, but what should I expect from a parrot like you.  Corrupt politicians spew the same tripe all the time.   

What race is this?

Well in "English Speaking People's" by Winston Churchill, he speaks of the British race.  No one really knows what race is though.  I'd imagine though he's speaking of the English people made up of a few different types and had basically assimilated over the last 1000 years.

I believe he meant the English-speaking peoples, so the Commonwealth and pretty much any colony you lot had at some point in the past. Basically, anywhere where English was ever the official language. At least, that's what the books referred to, IIRC.

In other words, Churchill most certainly included what you refer to as the "non British people" in his "race", actually about 800 million of them after WWII, because they were all allowed to live and work in the UK without a visa following the aptly-named British Nationality Act in the late 1940s.

There have been a number of attempts to limit this since then, of course.

Interestingly, the freedom of movement in the EU means that about 430 million or so people could theoretically be stopped at the borders once Brexit is complete but that would't affect the commonwealth. It also wouldn't affect the status of refugees under Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh fuck off, an ignorant cunt like you would not have known a thing about the book, you've just used your favorite site wikipedia to catch up and pretend you aren't the clueless cunt that you are.  I missed the "-" because it's a book that I have actually read a lot of, a long time ago.  I'm referring to the first volume where he writes about how the British people were formed. 

Late 40's?  Well he wasn't in power then if you were suggesting that he introduced it?!  Maybe you weren't aware that Churchill lost the election in 1945?  If you know anything about Churchill, you would know he did not see non whites as British.  He saw non whites as inferior. 

[odeon]

I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

Yeah this is a load of crap. I know you don't suffer fools, but I didn't know you went as far as thinking they should not be allowed to vote in a democracy. Every citizen should be equal under the law, because every citizen will have to live with the consequences of the vote. A country is not private property for an educated elite to be fucking around with.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

 

I like it when you make big political posts, you always prove that you know fuck all.   

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/09/anti-austerity-protesters-take-to-uk-streets-after-tory-election-victory

"Hundreds of protesters..."

Compare it to the millions of signers to the petition.

If you take away all the fake signatures, there was probably about 100    A bit like this I guess

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-snub-190000-strong-petition-calling-for-no-confidence-vote-in-david-cameron-a6740441.html

Oh, I'm fairly sure that there were still reasonably many signatures left, after they removed the fakes. Did they ever check those 190,000?

Not that any of it matters. I hear the petition was rejected.

Possibly.  Not that I heard of. 

Well I wouldn't worry too much, Blairite May will most likely strike us a deal that pretty much keeps where we are now.

Nope. You'll quite possibly leave the EU and forfeit your right to vote in anything having to do with them, but the all-important access to the single market will equal all of the things you thought you'd get rid of by voting "leave", so most of you lot will discover in time you are actually somewhat worse off. You won't save any money because your economy will shrink. Quite the opposite, in fact, because you'll still have to fund a number of things now funded by EU money.

And all of this was pointed out by economists long before the referendum, and in far greater detail, but, as Gove said, you've had your share of experts.

It's going to be interesting to see if she actually does invoke Article 50. It will be political suicide for her, so I can see why she might think twice first.

Well let's hope so, as that's what we voted for!  Na, things will just change.  It'll be difficult for a couple of years but things will pick up.  I don't care what your butthurt heroes are saying, they've been wrong on many occasions.  Well duh, the £20,000 a minute we stop paying to the EU can be used for funding, and if it isn't, there will be protests. 

It'll be political suicide if she doesn't.

Actually, the shrinking of your economy will negate more than what you save on leaving the EU. I believe most economists agree on this.

And yeah, she's fucked either way.

[odeon]

"Get on with things" implies the Leave campaign had a plan. They didn't, or they are hiding it exceptionally well because all they have done after the referendum is to go back on their promises. But if you know better, then I think you should speak up, Al.

And arguing that since there was a time when they weren't a member of the EU and everything worked just fine is a bit like saying that we've done without electricity before and we can again.

It was up to the elected government to have a plan, as the fucking referendum was in their manifesto last year.  The Tories didn't actually expect to get a majority and carry out their promise.  They had gotten away with their "cast iron" promise of a referendum in 2010 by being saved by the Lib Dems and would have hoped for something similar last year.  It was down to the Prime Minister to plan for either outcome on the referendum, but he only planned for one and then cried and resigned on the spot when it didn't go his way.

Promising a referendum was an exceptionally stupid decision. It should never have been part of their manifesto but they desperately wanted to win.

But for the Leave campaign to not have a plan means that they actually had no idea what they were advocating. They still don't.

Something needed to be done.  People have had enough of mass immigration and multiculturalism.  The establishment panicked when the BNP won a load of council seats around 2009, so then the media gave us UKIP and Nigel Farage from 2010, putting him on the BBC pretty much every week.  This gave UKIP lots of momentum and forced Cameron to offer a referendum again, if he hadn't, UKIP would have won lots of seats last year.  The British people had been imprisoned long enough and were crying out to be heard rather than being screamed down as racists for wanting to do something about outrageous changes to their communities, when they were never asked if they wanted it.  The majority wanted to become a sovereign state again and we voted to do so.  Now it's time for the politicians to act. 

It was up to David Cameron and the Tory government to have a plan, as I told you.  There shouldn't have even been a leave or remain campaign, people should have just been educated with the facts and then been left to make a choice, but then we'd have left with an overwhelming majority if everyone knew of the true evils.  At the least, they could have put up a decent leave campaign and would have helped to win the vote a lot more convincingly.

This is hilarious. How would this have been done in Benji-land?

Not difficult is it?  Just have some impartial body that can prosecute anyone found to be giving out misinformation and propaganda.  The lies from both sides balanced things out slightly anyway, even though the government, news stations and half of the media were on the 'remain' side.

What impartial body would that be? And how would they spot the liars? Or, for that matter, the people who told you the truth? How would they recognise the actual experts on finance and global economics, a majority of whom explained what would happen and why long before the referendum? Or would the people who warned you of the consequences be prosecuted in Benji-land?

You are funny, though.

Who knows.  But it sounds like you're not familiar with books.  They would write a pamphlet, the footnotes would be listed with sources for people to check.  It would get people thinking and researching more independently and there could be no complaints.  But I understand why you prefer the propaganda fest.  Most of what we were getting were predictions, scare stories, threats and lies.  They are not facts!

I've heard of them, these "books". I'd love to see how you persuade the British public to read this particular book, assuming for a moment that it could be written and accepted by both sides. Because you do want a democracy, right?

A bunch of economists predicted what will happen, a vast majority of them stating that "leave" will mostly mean bad things. I'd consider some a few of them to be reasonably independent, as they are employed by universities in non-EU countries, but I'd probably trust those with personal stakes in the referendum more--they'd be the ones watching with horror what happens to their jobs because their country allowed the referendum in the first place.

[odeon]

Those groups are what have made the British people, and the key also being that they are closer in a lot of ways.  We had formed a monotone culture pretty much.  White British people have become a minority in their own capital city in a matter of decades.  That's insane.  These policies have been carried out with evil intent and we're seeing the results more and more frequently now.

It's amusing that you don't seem to know your capital at all. London used to be the centre of an empire, like it or not, and the multiculturalism, like it or not, is not something new.

Nor is the fear for it, though.

It was never pretended that the non British people were part of the British race then.  Never have we had immigration on this scale, not even close.  We had a lot when Jews were seeking refuge over 100 years ago.  But now British people are a minority in England's capital city, which is insane.  When the start of the transformation was happening in the 50's and 60's, people were complaining then to their MP's, speaking of being the only British people left in their street.  A large majority of people agreed with Enoch Powell's 1968 speech, which would have meant repatriating the immigrant population if he'd become Prime Minister.  Lots of immigrants also wanted this, as they'd have been rewarded with £1000 each.  Both sides of my family have come from London, they say it's been completely rearranged.  Pretending it's always been this way is ludicrous, but what should I expect from a parrot like you.  Corrupt politicians spew the same tripe all the time.   

What race is this?

Well in "English Speaking People's" by Winston Churchill, he speaks of the British race.  No one really knows what race is though.  I'd imagine though he's speaking of the English people made up of a few different types and had basically assimilated over the last 1000 years.

I believe he meant the English-speaking peoples, so the Commonwealth and pretty much any colony you lot had at some point in the past. Basically, anywhere where English was ever the official language. At least, that's what the books referred to, IIRC.

In other words, Churchill most certainly included what you refer to as the "non British people" in his "race", actually about 800 million of them after WWII, because they were all allowed to live and work in the UK without a visa following the aptly-named British Nationality Act in the late 1940s.

There have been a number of attempts to limit this since then, of course.

Interestingly, the freedom of movement in the EU means that about 430 million or so people could theoretically be stopped at the borders once Brexit is complete but that would't affect the commonwealth. It also wouldn't affect the status of refugees under Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh fuck off, an ignorant cunt like you would not have known a thing about the book, you've just used your favorite site wikipedia to catch up and pretend you aren't the clueless cunt that you are.  I missed the "-" because it's a book that I have actually read a lot of, a long time ago.  I'm referring to the first volume where he writes about how the British people were formed. 

Late 40's?  Well he wasn't in power then if you were suggesting that he introduced it?!  Maybe you weren't aware that Churchill lost the election in 1945?  If you know anything about Churchill, you would know he did not see non whites as British.  He saw non whites as inferior.

Books, not one book. At least that's how I was introduced to them a long time ago by my grandmother. The books I read had been translated to Finnish, though.

The 1948 (looked it up) Act was about codifying the rights of the Commonwealth citizens when the empire, of which Churchill was an advocate, was falling apart. Before the Act, they were simply British Subjects, just as everyone else, and Churchill certainly respected their rights as British Subjects. Pretty sure they were included in the history of the English-speaking peoples.

Of course, I'm well aware of his racist tendencies (I'd give him the benefit of a doubt, though) but I'm also fairly certain that he respected the rights of British Subjects, regardless of colour.

[benjimanbreeg]

I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

Yeah this is a load of crap. I know you don't suffer fools, but I didn't know you went as far as thinking they should not be allowed to vote in a democracy. Every citizen should be equal under the law, because every citizen will have to live with the consequences of the vote. A country is not private property for an educated elite to be fucking around with.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

 

I like it when you make big political posts, you always prove that you know fuck all.   

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/09/anti-austerity-protesters-take-to-uk-streets-after-tory-election-victory

"Hundreds of protesters..."

Compare it to the millions of signers to the petition.

If you take away all the fake signatures, there was probably about 100    A bit like this I guess

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-snub-190000-strong-petition-calling-for-no-confidence-vote-in-david-cameron-a6740441.html

Oh, I'm fairly sure that there were still reasonably many signatures left, after they removed the fakes. Did they ever check those 190,000?

Not that any of it matters. I hear the petition was rejected.

Possibly.  Not that I heard of. 

Well I wouldn't worry too much, Blairite May will most likely strike us a deal that pretty much keeps where we are now.

Nope. You'll quite possibly leave the EU and forfeit your right to vote in anything having to do with them, but the all-important access to the single market will equal all of the things you thought you'd get rid of by voting "leave", so most of you lot will discover in time you are actually somewhat worse off. You won't save any money because your economy will shrink. Quite the opposite, in fact, because you'll still have to fund a number of things now funded by EU money.

And all of this was pointed out by economists long before the referendum, and in far greater detail, but, as Gove said, you've had your share of experts.

It's going to be interesting to see if she actually does invoke Article 50. It will be political suicide for her, so I can see why she might think twice first.

Well let's hope so, as that's what we voted for!  Na, things will just change.  It'll be difficult for a couple of years but things will pick up.  I don't care what your butthurt heroes are saying, they've been wrong on many occasions.  Well duh, the £20,000 a minute we stop paying to the EU can be used for funding, and if it isn't, there will be protests. 

It'll be political suicide if she doesn't.

Actually, the shrinking of your economy will negate more than what you save on leaving the EU. I believe most economists agree on this.

And yeah, she's fucked either way.

Most 'economists' said that Osborne did a wonderful job, even though he was horrific.  It's about what people you keep happy.  You can do an awful job, but if you say the right things, suck the right dick and keep the right people rich while starving others, you will get praised. 

[benjimanbreeg]

"Get on with things" implies the Leave campaign had a plan. They didn't, or they are hiding it exceptionally well because all they have done after the referendum is to go back on their promises. But if you know better, then I think you should speak up, Al.

And arguing that since there was a time when they weren't a member of the EU and everything worked just fine is a bit like saying that we've done without electricity before and we can again.

It was up to the elected government to have a plan, as the fucking referendum was in their manifesto last year.  The Tories didn't actually expect to get a majority and carry out their promise.  They had gotten away with their "cast iron" promise of a referendum in 2010 by being saved by the Lib Dems and would have hoped for something similar last year.  It was down to the Prime Minister to plan for either outcome on the referendum, but he only planned for one and then cried and resigned on the spot when it didn't go his way.

Promising a referendum was an exceptionally stupid decision. It should never have been part of their manifesto but they desperately wanted to win.

But for the Leave campaign to not have a plan means that they actually had no idea what they were advocating. They still don't.

Something needed to be done.  People have had enough of mass immigration and multiculturalism.  The establishment panicked when the BNP won a load of council seats around 2009, so then the media gave us UKIP and Nigel Farage from 2010, putting him on the BBC pretty much every week.  This gave UKIP lots of momentum and forced Cameron to offer a referendum again, if he hadn't, UKIP would have won lots of seats last year.  The British people had been imprisoned long enough and were crying out to be heard rather than being screamed down as racists for wanting to do something about outrageous changes to their communities, when they were never asked if they wanted it.  The majority wanted to become a sovereign state again and we voted to do so.  Now it's time for the politicians to act. 

It was up to David Cameron and the Tory government to have a plan, as I told you.  There shouldn't have even been a leave or remain campaign, people should have just been educated with the facts and then been left to make a choice, but then we'd have left with an overwhelming majority if everyone knew of the true evils.  At the least, they could have put up a decent leave campaign and would have helped to win the vote a lot more convincingly.

This is hilarious. How would this have been done in Benji-land?

Not difficult is it?  Just have some impartial body that can prosecute anyone found to be giving out misinformation and propaganda.  The lies from both sides balanced things out slightly anyway, even though the government, news stations and half of the media were on the 'remain' side.

What impartial body would that be? And how would they spot the liars? Or, for that matter, the people who told you the truth? How would they recognise the actual experts on finance and global economics, a majority of whom explained what would happen and why long before the referendum? Or would the people who warned you of the consequences be prosecuted in Benji-land?

You are funny, though.

Who knows.  But it sounds like you're not familiar with books.  They would write a pamphlet, the footnotes would be listed with sources for people to check.  It would get people thinking and researching more independently and there could be no complaints.  But I understand why you prefer the propaganda fest.  Most of what we were getting were predictions, scare stories, threats and lies.  They are not facts!

I've heard of them, these "books". I'd love to see how you persuade the British public to read this particular book, assuming for a moment that it could be written and accepted by both sides. Because you do want a democracy, right?

A bunch of economists predicted what will happen, a vast majority of them stating that "leave" will mostly mean bad things. I'd consider some a few of them to be reasonably independent, as they are employed by universities in non-EU countries, but I'd probably trust those with personal stakes in the referendum more--they'd be the ones watching with horror what happens to their jobs because their country allowed the referendum in the first place.

It's not up to anyone to persuade people.  They would just be sent through doors rather than the shit we got.  Nothing is perfect and we'd still get people denying facts, but it would've been far more sensible than what did happen. 

We have no idea what's going to happen yet and will not until we leave, have formed a deal and let that pan out for a few years. 

[benjimanbreeg]

Those groups are what have made the British people, and the key also being that they are closer in a lot of ways.  We had formed a monotone culture pretty much.  White British people have become a minority in their own capital city in a matter of decades.  That's insane.  These policies have been carried out with evil intent and we're seeing the results more and more frequently now.

It's amusing that you don't seem to know your capital at all. London used to be the centre of an empire, like it or not, and the multiculturalism, like it or not, is not something new.

Nor is the fear for it, though.

It was never pretended that the non British people were part of the British race then.  Never have we had immigration on this scale, not even close.  We had a lot when Jews were seeking refuge over 100 years ago.  But now British people are a minority in England's capital city, which is insane.  When the start of the transformation was happening in the 50's and 60's, people were complaining then to their MP's, speaking of being the only British people left in their street.  A large majority of people agreed with Enoch Powell's 1968 speech, which would have meant repatriating the immigrant population if he'd become Prime Minister.  Lots of immigrants also wanted this, as they'd have been rewarded with £1000 each.  Both sides of my family have come from London, they say it's been completely rearranged.  Pretending it's always been this way is ludicrous, but what should I expect from a parrot like you.  Corrupt politicians spew the same tripe all the time.   

What race is this?

Well in "English Speaking People's" by Winston Churchill, he speaks of the British race.  No one really knows what race is though.  I'd imagine though he's speaking of the English people made up of a few different types and had basically assimilated over the last 1000 years.

I believe he meant the English-speaking peoples, so the Commonwealth and pretty much any colony you lot had at some point in the past. Basically, anywhere where English was ever the official language. At least, that's what the books referred to, IIRC.

In other words, Churchill most certainly included what you refer to as the "non British people" in his "race", actually about 800 million of them after WWII, because they were all allowed to live and work in the UK without a visa following the aptly-named British Nationality Act in the late 1940s.

There have been a number of attempts to limit this since then, of course.

Interestingly, the freedom of movement in the EU means that about 430 million or so people could theoretically be stopped at the borders once Brexit is complete but that would't affect the commonwealth. It also wouldn't affect the status of refugees under Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh fuck off, an ignorant cunt like you would not have known a thing about the book, you've just used your favorite site wikipedia to catch up and pretend you aren't the clueless cunt that you are.  I missed the "-" because it's a book that I have actually read a lot of, a long time ago.  I'm referring to the first volume where he writes about how the British people were formed. 

Late 40's?  Well he wasn't in power then if you were suggesting that he introduced it?!  Maybe you weren't aware that Churchill lost the election in 1945?  If you know anything about Churchill, you would know he did not see non whites as British.  He saw non whites as inferior.

Books, not one book. At least that's how I was introduced to them a long time ago by my grandmother. The books I read had been translated to Finnish, though.

The 1948 (looked it up) Act was about codifying the rights of the Commonwealth citizens when the empire, of which Churchill was an advocate, was falling apart. Before the Act, they were simply British Subjects, just as everyone else, and Churchill certainly respected their rights as British Subjects. Pretty sure they were included in the history of the English-speaking peoples.

Of course, I'm well aware of his racist tendencies (I'd give him the benefit of a doubt, though) but I'm also fairly certain that he respected the rights of British Subjects, regardless of colour.

Different volumes of the same title.  OK, i'll give you the benefit of doubt. 

Who knows, perhaps it was a desperate act by Churchill to try and save the Empire he'd destroyed.  He would have seen them as separate to the British race/heritage.   

He was all about money.  He was a bigot and a war mongering alcoholic.