There needs to be an official enquiry into the elite's wrecking of Brexit


Blackleaf
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
The humiliation that has befallen the United Kingdom over the past three years and four months as the direct result of the refusal of our political class to respect the EU referendum of June 2016 needs to be investigated by an official committee of inquiry.

For there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned about what went wrong with our broken politics, and how it can be fixed.

We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated...

ANDREW ROBERTS: Britain needs an official inquiry into how the elite turned Brexit into a national humiliation


By Andrew Roberts
20 October 2019
The Mail On Sunday

The humiliation that has befallen the United Kingdom over the past three years and four months as the direct result of the refusal of our political class to respect the EU referendum of June 2016 needs to be investigated by an official committee of inquiry.

For there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned about what went wrong with our broken politics, and how it can be fixed.

We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated.


If there is a Trade Descriptions Act for products and an Advertising Standards Authority, in what world can there be a party that calls itself Liberal and Democratic when its manifesto promises to overturn without another referendum the democratically expressed will of the people? Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson is pictured above

The prestige which we have lost as a country needs to be considered in terms of a major national catastrophe, and we need to recognise what has happened and why.

Fortunately, there is a good deal of precedent for such a Brexit committee of inquiry. Many such investigations have taken place – even after wars in which we were victorious.

The Roebuck Inquiry into the Crimean War uncovered many abuses and inefficiencies that led to important reforms of Victorian society, especially in its military and governmental spheres.


Why, the committee will ask, once Theresa May said that a bad deal was worse than No Deal, did the negotiators not dangle the genuine threat of No Deal before Brussels? Why did we have to wait for Boris Johnson to enter Downing Street?

After the Falklands War, the Franks Committee of privy counsellors investigated ‘the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion’, and is thought to have been a model of its kind.

There were no fewer than 146 Royal Commissions on different subjects between April 1896 and July 1993.


Precedents from the 17th Century were cited one minute and ignored the next. The Benn Act was passed without due process. Everything, right down to the ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ sticker on his car, would be investigated

And if it is possible to have one on subjects as esoteric as lighthouse administration (1906), the selection of JPs (1909), cross-river traffic in London (1926), Tyneside local government (1935) and university education in Dundee (1951), then something as important as Brexit can certainly be investigated for the lessons that can be learned about how so many members of the British elite came to the avowed conclusion that they had the moral right to subvert the decision of 17.4 million voters, simply because they disagreed with it.

Unlike so many earlier public inquiries, this one must not be commandeered by the Establishment, as it will be very largely the Establishment itself which will need to come under the microscope.

Nor can it be dominated by lawyers, as so often in the past, because one of the questions will be why the Supreme Court came up with such a suspiciously unanimous 11-nil verdict over the prorogation issue when other eminent judges such as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls had thrown out the same case only weeks earlier.

If the committee of inquiry considers there to be such homogeneity of assumptions and backgrounds and prejudices and political opinions among the Supreme Court, it must say so.

Once the committee of six or seven genuinely impartial privy counsellors are empanelled, they will be able to ask penetrating questions of all the key figures, without fear or favour.

They will be able to ask permanent under-secretaries of important Civil Service departments why there were so many damaging leaks against the Brexit process – which never led to any whistleblowers being prosecuted – but virtually none damaging to Remain.


We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated. Placards from the People's Vote March in London yesterday is pictured above

They will be able to ask senior BBC figures why the neutrality over Brexit during the referendum campaign so spectacularly collapsed across the Corporation the moment Leave had won, as John Humphrys’s recent comments, post-retirement, have confirmed.

A committee would almost certainly call the by then ex-Speaker John Bercow before it, and ask him to justify his claims he was neutral between Remainers and Brexiteers when his every major decision helped those who sought to ignore the people’s will and none helped those trying to implement it.

Precedents from the 17th Century were cited one minute and ignored the next. The Benn Act was passed without due process.

Everything, right down to the ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ sticker on his car, would be investigated.

The committee would examine whether the Royal prerogative, which it was thought over the past 300 years had legal force in this country, has instead been wholly passed over to the Supreme Court.

What about Orders in Council, made by the Queen on the advice of her privy counsellors? This country fought its trade wars against the Napoleonic Empire on the basis of Orders in Council. Do they still have legal validity?


After the Falklands War, the Franks Committee of privy counsellors investigated ‘the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion’, and is thought to have been a model of its kind. The British flag is pictured flying over Ajax Bay in 1982


Who now chooses when Parliament can and cannot be prorogued?

I suspect the moronic Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 will come under serious scrutiny by the committee and its authors questioned on why they never envisioned the present appalling constitutional impasse when they merrily passed it in order to keep the Lib Dems inside the Cameron coalition?

Speaking of the Lib Dems, any committee with teeth will probably report that there needs to be a wholesale alteration in the naming of our political parties to reflect the truth.

If there is a Trade Descriptions Act for products and an Advertising Standards Authority, in what world can there be a party that calls itself Liberal and Democratic when its manifesto promises to overturn without another referendum the democratically expressed will of the people?

The phrase Authoritarian Anti-Democratic Party might not have the same electoral appeal, but it is much closer to the literal truth.

Similarly, the committee will want to look at the proper future functioning of the House of Lords, an essential part of the constitution that merely rubber-stamped the Benn Act with its huge inbuilt Remainer majority, and whose membership is wildly unrepresentative of the overall public view of Britain’s relationship with Europe, and whose Lib Dem membership is out of all proportion to their numbers either in the Commons or in the public at large.

The committee of inquiry could expand its horizons beyond politics and ask for an explanation from the Archbishop of Canterbury as to how his anti-Leave pronouncements have not crossed the line by putting the prestige of his office and the Church of England on one side of the Brexit debate?


The Roebuck Inquiry into the Crimean War uncovered many abuses and inefficiencies that led to important reforms of Victorian society, especially in its military and governmental spheres. British officers are pictured above in 1855


It could ask the CEOs and chairmen of all the financial institutions who have spent the last four years threatening to move their companies to Frankfurt and Dublin why, so far, fewer than 1 per cent of City of London jobs have actually migrated there? (Of course it will be up to their shareholders to quiz them on the wasted millions involved in moving even that 1 per cent.)

With Britain largely a laughing stock in the international community over Brexit – not for having voted to leave the EU, but for its lamentable negotiating stance afterwards – there will be plenty of opportunity for the committee to drag those Foreign Office mandarins over hot coals, along with No 10 advisers and politicians who wasted three years negotiating Brexit so badly after the referendum result.

Why, the committee will ask, once Theresa May said that a bad deal was worse than No Deal, did the negotiators not dangle the genuine threat of No Deal before Brussels? Why did we have to wait for Boris Johnson to enter Downing Street?


We might even invite Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, above, to Westminster Great Hall – where the committee will sit in public – to tell us how they managed to play the British Government for such fools for so long

We might even invite Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker to Westminster Great Hall – where the committee will sit in public – to tell us how they managed to play the British Government for such fools for so long.

I suspect that the person who has most to fear from the inquiry, however, is not even Theresa May, but Jeremy Corbyn.

His time in front of the committee’s cameras will make great viewing as he is taken step by step through every single Labour change in policy, in nuance, in prediction.

We will all be shown with total clarity how at every turn he put ambition over patriotism and opportunism over principle.

History shows again and again that countries that face the horrible truths about traumatic periods of their recent past emerge better able to embrace reconciliation.

For that reason, the sooner the committee of inquiry sits once Brexit is done, the better. It has a lot of work to do.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...miliation.html
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The humiliation that has befallen the United Kingdom over the past three years and four months as the direct result of the refusal of our political class to respect the EU referendum of June 2016 needs to be investigated by an official committee of inquiry.

For there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned about what went wrong with our broken politics, and how it can be fixed.

We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated...

ANDREW ROBERTS: Britain needs an official inquiry into how the elite turned Brexit into a national humiliation


By Andrew Roberts
20 October 2019
The Mail On Sunday

The humiliation that has befallen the United Kingdom over the past three years and four months as the direct result of the refusal of our political class to respect the EU referendum of June 2016 needs to be investigated by an official committee of inquiry.

For there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned about what went wrong with our broken politics, and how it can be fixed.

We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated.


If there is a Trade Descriptions Act for products and an Advertising Standards Authority, in what world can there be a party that calls itself Liberal and Democratic when its manifesto promises to overturn without another referendum the democratically expressed will of the people? Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson is pictured above

The prestige which we have lost as a country needs to be considered in terms of a major national catastrophe, and we need to recognise what has happened and why.

Fortunately, there is a good deal of precedent for such a Brexit committee of inquiry. Many such investigations have taken place – even after wars in which we were victorious.

The Roebuck Inquiry into the Crimean War uncovered many abuses and inefficiencies that led to important reforms of Victorian society, especially in its military and governmental spheres.


Why, the committee will ask, once Theresa May said that a bad deal was worse than No Deal, did the negotiators not dangle the genuine threat of No Deal before Brussels? Why did we have to wait for Boris Johnson to enter Downing Street?

After the Falklands War, the Franks Committee of privy counsellors investigated ‘the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion’, and is thought to have been a model of its kind.

There were no fewer than 146 Royal Commissions on different subjects between April 1896 and July 1993.


Precedents from the 17th Century were cited one minute and ignored the next. The Benn Act was passed without due process. Everything, right down to the ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ sticker on his car, would be investigated

And if it is possible to have one on subjects as esoteric as lighthouse administration (1906), the selection of JPs (1909), cross-river traffic in London (1926), Tyneside local government (1935) and university education in Dundee (1951), then something as important as Brexit can certainly be investigated for the lessons that can be learned about how so many members of the British elite came to the avowed conclusion that they had the moral right to subvert the decision of 17.4 million voters, simply because they disagreed with it.

Unlike so many earlier public inquiries, this one must not be commandeered by the Establishment, as it will be very largely the Establishment itself which will need to come under the microscope.

Nor can it be dominated by lawyers, as so often in the past, because one of the questions will be why the Supreme Court came up with such a suspiciously unanimous 11-nil verdict over the prorogation issue when other eminent judges such as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls had thrown out the same case only weeks earlier.

If the committee of inquiry considers there to be such homogeneity of assumptions and backgrounds and prejudices and political opinions among the Supreme Court, it must say so.

Once the committee of six or seven genuinely impartial privy counsellors are empanelled, they will be able to ask penetrating questions of all the key figures, without fear or favour.

They will be able to ask permanent under-secretaries of important Civil Service departments why there were so many damaging leaks against the Brexit process – which never led to any whistleblowers being prosecuted – but virtually none damaging to Remain.


We might even require changes to the British constitution, ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of open democracy-hatred is never repeated. Placards from the People's Vote March in London yesterday is pictured above

They will be able to ask senior BBC figures why the neutrality over Brexit during the referendum campaign so spectacularly collapsed across the Corporation the moment Leave had won, as John Humphrys’s recent comments, post-retirement, have confirmed.

A committee would almost certainly call the by then ex-Speaker John Bercow before it, and ask him to justify his claims he was neutral between Remainers and Brexiteers when his every major decision helped those who sought to ignore the people’s will and none helped those trying to implement it.

Precedents from the 17th Century were cited one minute and ignored the next. The Benn Act was passed without due process.

Everything, right down to the ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ sticker on his car, would be investigated.

The committee would examine whether the Royal prerogative, which it was thought over the past 300 years had legal force in this country, has instead been wholly passed over to the Supreme Court.

What about Orders in Council, made by the Queen on the advice of her privy counsellors? This country fought its trade wars against the Napoleonic Empire on the basis of Orders in Council. Do they still have legal validity?


After the Falklands War, the Franks Committee of privy counsellors investigated ‘the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion’, and is thought to have been a model of its kind. The British flag is pictured flying over Ajax Bay in 1982


Who now chooses when Parliament can and cannot be prorogued?

I suspect the moronic Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 will come under serious scrutiny by the committee and its authors questioned on why they never envisioned the present appalling constitutional impasse when they merrily passed it in order to keep the Lib Dems inside the Cameron coalition?

Speaking of the Lib Dems, any committee with teeth will probably report that there needs to be a wholesale alteration in the naming of our political parties to reflect the truth.

If there is a Trade Descriptions Act for products and an Advertising Standards Authority, in what world can there be a party that calls itself Liberal and Democratic when its manifesto promises to overturn without another referendum the democratically expressed will of the people?

The phrase Authoritarian Anti-Democratic Party might not have the same electoral appeal, but it is much closer to the literal truth.

Similarly, the committee will want to look at the proper future functioning of the House of Lords, an essential part of the constitution that merely rubber-stamped the Benn Act with its huge inbuilt Remainer majority, and whose membership is wildly unrepresentative of the overall public view of Britain’s relationship with Europe, and whose Lib Dem membership is out of all proportion to their numbers either in the Commons or in the public at large.

The committee of inquiry could expand its horizons beyond politics and ask for an explanation from the Archbishop of Canterbury as to how his anti-Leave pronouncements have not crossed the line by putting the prestige of his office and the Church of England on one side of the Brexit debate?


The Roebuck Inquiry into the Crimean War uncovered many abuses and inefficiencies that led to important reforms of Victorian society, especially in its military and governmental spheres. British officers are pictured above in 1855


It could ask the CEOs and chairmen of all the financial institutions who have spent the last four years threatening to move their companies to Frankfurt and Dublin why, so far, fewer than 1 per cent of City of London jobs have actually migrated there? (Of course it will be up to their shareholders to quiz them on the wasted millions involved in moving even that 1 per cent.)

With Britain largely a laughing stock in the international community over Brexit – not for having voted to leave the EU, but for its lamentable negotiating stance afterwards – there will be plenty of opportunity for the committee to drag those Foreign Office mandarins over hot coals, along with No 10 advisers and politicians who wasted three years negotiating Brexit so badly after the referendum result.

Why, the committee will ask, once Theresa May said that a bad deal was worse than No Deal, did the negotiators not dangle the genuine threat of No Deal before Brussels? Why did we have to wait for Boris Johnson to enter Downing Street?


We might even invite Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, above, to Westminster Great Hall – where the committee will sit in public – to tell us how they managed to play the British Government for such fools for so long

We might even invite Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker to Westminster Great Hall – where the committee will sit in public – to tell us how they managed to play the British Government for such fools for so long.

I suspect that the person who has most to fear from the inquiry, however, is not even Theresa May, but Jeremy Corbyn.

His time in front of the committee’s cameras will make great viewing as he is taken step by step through every single Labour change in policy, in nuance, in prediction.

We will all be shown with total clarity how at every turn he put ambition over patriotism and opportunism over principle.

History shows again and again that countries that face the horrible truths about traumatic periods of their recent past emerge better able to embrace reconciliation.

For that reason, the sooner the committee of inquiry sits once Brexit is done, the better. It has a lot of work to do.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...miliation.html


That include the lies told by both sides to get Brexit passed?
 
Blackleaf
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

That include the lies told by both sides to get Brexit passed?

Politicians always tell lies. That's normal. When it comes to Brexit, though, the Remainers tell far more.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Politicians always tell lies. That's normal. When it comes to Brexit, though, the Remainers tell far more.


Yes they do.


What about your lies?
 
Blackleaf
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Yes they do.


What about your lies?

What lies did the Leave side make?
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

What lies did the Leave side make?


...


Not that you'll read any of these, but...



https://www.independent.co.uk/infact...-a8113381.html


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-were-lied-to


https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ond-referendum


Also explains why people are STILL protesting the initial vote.
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

...
Not that you'll read any of these, but...
https://www.independent.co.uk/infact...-a8113381.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-were-lied-to
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ond-referendum
Also explains why people are STILL protesting the initial vote.

Remainers are lying when they accuse the wording on Boris's Brexit bus during the referendum campaign of being a lie. Remainers always keep saying that it promised £350 million a week for the NHS, but it didn't. Either Remainers just haven't read it properly or they are lying.

Last edited by Blackleaf; 3 weeks ago at 06:35 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#8
The Guardian rag also has another example of the Remainers lying that the Leavers lied.

The newspaper quotes Leaver Daniel Hannan saying that "absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market." But this is yet another dirty smear campaign by the vile Remainers.

Anatomy of a smear: Daniel Hannan and UK membership of the EU “Single Market”


JUNE 27, 2017

One word is all it takes to become the victim of a smear campaign.



Some Remainers are still re-litigating the Brexit referendum – and using the pre-referendum period to make claims about the nature of the UK’s exit from the European Union. One of the most common ‘memes’ is that prominent Vote Leave supporter Daniel Hannan actually praised or supported the UK remaining a member of the EU Single Market pre-referendum, but has cynically abandoned this position post-referendum.

This “hypocrisy” is apparently supposed to prove that there is no mandate for the UK leaving the Single Market following the result, or at the very least that one of the most high profile Leave supporters is a liar.

However, this meme is a deliberate smear - it takes Hannan’s words out of context, both within the same interview in which he made them, and his published book on the topic. In this article I want to look at the origin of the smear, how it was peddled since, and what Hannan actually said, and meant.

The purpose of doing this isn’t to defend Hannan per se, or criticise anyone innocently using it on social media without knowing its origin. Rather, it’s to give you an insight into the level of deliberate dishonesty it takes to come up with a smear like this in the first place. And, hopefully it will get you to ask this question: if the folks at Open Britain really believe they are right about the nature of the UK’s exit from the EU, why do they need to smear people to back up their claims?



Origin of the smear

Jan 2016: Pre-Referendum

The very first usage of the claim is the Stronger In campaign during the EU referendum. On Jan 7 2016 it published a video mash-up of so-called hypocritical claims made about the Single Market by Leave supporters – as prominently reported here by The Guardian. This video included a very short 3-4 second clip of Daniel Hannan saying the following (taken from a live interview with Channel 4 news on May 12 2015, 7 months earlier):

“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”
— Daniel Hanan, as quoted by Stronger In video

https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY


This was presented by Stronger In as some sort of “gotcha”, or something they unearthed – of course Daniel Hannan had already published the unedited video of the whole interview on his own YouTube channel months earlier - a rather unusual way of keeping this view under wraps.

Nov 2016 & Jan 2017: Post-Referendum

After Leave won the referendum 51.9% to 48.1%, Stronger In reformed as “Open Britain” and made the exact same claims again about Hannan (and others) on Nov 27 2016, announcing it was releasing "a new video".



Of course, this wasn’t a “new video” at all, in the case of Hannan's comments, it was the exact same video released 11 months earlier - that voters had been able to take into account during the referendum campaign itself, and which a majority of voters at least indirectly rejected by voting to Leave.

In a typical example of most mainstream coverage, The Huffington Post reported the Open Britain press release like this: “Open Britain Exposes All The Times Brexiters Promised We Wouldn’t Leave The Single Market”. The fact it wasn't a new video wasn't mentioned, nor that Open Britain didn't provide any links to the original videos/interviews in their full context so the claim could be properly evaluated

The smear itself

The smear breaks down into these basic components:

Hannan says: “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”
The implication is that the UK would remain full members of the Single Market even if it voted to leave the EU
Hannan now says the UK shouldn’t be a member of the Single Market, or doesn’t have to be
Ergo, he’s a hypocrite/liar/changed his tune, and voters were misled
This bolsters the argument that the UK should remain in the Single Market after it Leaves the EU

Why the claim is a smear

First - yes Hannan did make the statement attributed to him - the video isn’t made up or "fake news". However, his use of the term “Single Market” is extremely likely to be because he misspoke towards the end of a live TV interview. And he misspoke by one word – saying “Single", when he meant to say "Free". That’s it. The smear instantly collapses once you take this into account.

Open Britain and anyone using this meme would have you believe that mis-stating one word overrides what Hannan said elsewhere in the very same interview, in numerous published opinion pieces on the internet, and in his best-selling, 240 page book ‘Why Vote Leave’ (see below for more on a comparison to the book).

The video is deliberately truncated at the start.

Word for word, Hannan actually said this: “But to repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”. The part in bold – “but to repeat” was cut out of Open Britain's video because it would raise an obvious question – what statement was Hannan repeating from earlier?

“Single Market” is deliberately taken out of context, within the same interview.

What Hannan was repeating was a much broader and precise statement from the beginning of the interview. Bear in mind that Open Britain had to have listened to this - which is less than 1 minute into the interview - and then deliberately chosen to ignore it. Note the use of the words "Free Market", not "Single Market":

“First of all, absolutely nobody is suggesting we would give up our position in the free market in Europe, no-one in Brussels, and no-one except some tendentious British pro-Europeans. I’ve never heard anyone here [In Brussels] suggest we wouldn’t have the same sort of deal that Switzerland has, or that the Channel Islands have, if you think that Switzerland’s too exotic. In other words, free movement of goods, and services and capital, living under our own laws. So I don’t see that there would be any impact - in that sense. What there would be, is *far* greater opportunity to sign bi-lateral trade deals with countries outside the EU”
— Daniel Hannan, interview with Channel 4 News, May 12 2015


https://youtu.be/zzykce4oxII


I'll unpack this statement into Hannan's key points:

Post-Brexit, the UK's position would be within a FREE Market” in Europe – i.e. NOT the Single Market of the European Union
The deal the UK would negotiate would be similar to that of Switzerland (NOT a member of the Single Market)
Alternatively, the deal would be similar to that of the Channel Islands (NOT a member of the Single Market, though it is partially inside it for trade in goods)
The deal would respect 3 of the “4 freedoms” of the Single Market – free movement of goods, services and capital (NOT people)
The UK would gain the ability to sign bi-lateral trade deals with countries outside the EU - so by implication, the UK would also leave the EU's Customs Union
Clearly Hannan is referring to a free trading arrangement with the EU post-Brexit, perhaps similar to Switzerland. As this proposed deal would involve only 3 of the freedoms, it would not be membership of the current Single Market. Later in the same interview (5 mins 08 secs) - which is the origin of the smear - Hannan refers to his prior statement - "but to repeat" - but then as I noted above, erroneously uses one word – single, when he should have said free:

“There are plenty of exporters and entrepreneurs that understand there are better opportunities than under the current deal. But to repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”
To prove this beyond what I think is any reasonable doubt: in the same interview (5 mins 49 secs), Hannan says the costs of the Single Market outweigh its benefits, and correctly re-states his original position that the UK won’t be excluded from the “Free Market”:

“[businesses say] the costs of EU regulation outweigh the benefits of the Single Market ... I’m going to say this one last time: no-one in Brussels – I’ve been here for 16 years – has ever suggested that if we withdrew from the political aspects of union we would be excluded from the Free Market”
So if you are keeping score, Hannan refers to a "Free Market" twice, and says the costs of the Single Market outweigh its benefits. When repeating his statement about the Free Market from earlier, he uses the word “single”, erroneously - and only once - in the context of a live TV interview, with a reasonably hostile interviewer and a quite passive-aggressive guest presenting the Remain viewpoint.

In the context of the whole interview, Open Britain were deliberately deceptive in using this 3-4 second video as if it represented Hannan's position on the Single Market - especially as Hannan's free market statement comes first, is more detailed, his misspoken error is only in the context of repeating this first statement, and he later goes on to repeat "free market" in his final comments.


https://www.kingdomcomment.com/blog/...ear-dan-hannan


So, as you can see, many of the Remainer claims that the Leavers lied are themselves lies.
Last edited by Blackleaf; 3 weeks ago at 06:53 AM..
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Remainers are lying when they accuse the wording on Boris's Brexit bus during the referendum campaign of being a lie. Remainers always keep saying that it promised £350 million a week for the NHS, but it didn't. Either Remainers just haven't read it properly or they are lying.


I see.


So... you're being an idiot on purpose. No shock there.


BTW, as it is worded on that bus, YES it DOES infer that the 350 million would go to the NHS. The inclusion of "instead" at the end of the sentence is the proof.



Are you sure you're English? Cause that's plain English right there.
 
Blackleaf
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

I see.
So... you're being an idiot on purpose. No shock there.
BTW, as it is worded on that bus, YES it DOES infer that the 350 million would go to the NHS. The inclusion of "instead" at the end of the sentence is the proof.
Are you sure you're English? Cause that's plain English right there.

The great Brexit bus delusion

Brendan O'Neill
19 September 2017
The Spectator



I know many Leave voters. Most of my family. Around half of my friends. Lots of the people in the immigrant community in London I grew up in. (We’re bad immigrants, being anti-EU, so we never feature in the migrant-sympathetic commentary of EU-pining hacks.) And not one of them has ever said they chose Brexit because of that £350m-for-the-NHS thing on the side of a bus. The idea that that bus swung the referendum, that it duped the voting hordes, has become one of the great, and nasty, myths of the Brexit era.

The bloody bus is back in the news this week after Boris Johnson said he’d like to get our cash back from the EU and possibly give some of it to the NHS. Judging from the reaction to his words — reams of press outrage, a finger-wagging letter of condemnation from the UK Statistics Authority, a Twitterati on the floor, fanning itself, struggling to breath — you’d think Boris had driven the actual bus down Oxford Street or repeated verbatim its questionable claims. But he didn’t. All he said in his Telegraph column is that leaving the EU will give us more control over ‘roughly’ £350m a week, and it would be good ‘if a lot of that money went on the NHS’.

So contrary to all the aghast op-edding, he didn’t say leaving the EU would boost NHS coffers by a tidy £350m a week. He said it would give us say-so over a certain amount of money, and we could choose to spend that money on health if we like. That’s it. The End. And breathe.

The misrepresentation of his comments was perfectly summed up in a New Statesman piece, which opened:

‘In a column for the Telegraph, Boris Johnson has repeated the false claim that Brexit will result in £350m a week for the NHS. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week,” he writes. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”’

This is hilarious: the one-line summary of Boris’s comments — leaving the EU would ‘result in £350m a week for the NHS’ — is directly contradicted by his actual comments:

‘It would be a fine thing if that money went on the NHS.’

I know standards are slipping in the media, but journalists surely understand the word ‘if’? It’s a conjunction that signals something will happen if something else happens first. In this case if we make a choice to spend that wad of EU-released cash on the NHS. ‘If’ is not ‘it will result in’; ‘if’ is ‘it might result in’. The difference is colossal. For the media to mangle Boris’s words in articles about how Leavers mangled the facts is pretty cute.

What’s really striking is that even the actual bus, that accursed bus, didn’t say ‘will result in’. Really. Its wording was: ‘We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.’ This is fairly vague. Some might say dishonestly vague, which is cool, they’re probably right. But it doesn’t say, ‘We will spend £350m a week on the NHS’. It basically says: ‘We give loads of money to the EU. We should use that money in other ways.’ Even the bus, which I think was naff, didn’t make a cast-iron cash promise.

Boris, and others, are also getting it in the neck over the actual amount we’ve been paying into the EU and will now save. There’s a spat over whether he’s confusing gross and net. This is what the UK Stats Authority arrogantly tells him off for. Some say our weekly contribution, and thus saving, is closer to £200m per week. Okay. But that is also a vast amount of money. It’s remarkable that the kind of people who usually insist that public spending be well-aimed and used to assist the less well-off can be so cavalier about our pumping of 200 million a week into the EU. This Brussels black-hole suck on British cash will remind many Leavers why they voted against the EU: they see it as a distant, uncaring, filthy-rich oligarchy. Some people, I fear, don’t appreciate how ridiculous they sound to the struggling, everyday Brexiteer when they scoff: ‘Actually, I think you’ll find we only give the EU £200m a week…’

Here’s the great irony. That bus started life as a rubbish piece of Leave propaganda but has now become a rather sinister exhibit in Remainer propaganda. The reason they elevate this bus above all else, above all the other BS both Leave and Remain spouted last year, is because they genuinely think it turned voters. That it dazzled our little minds. That it duped the throng. It is so deeply patronising. And it is also a lie. The idea that we voted against the EU to get a bit more bob for nurses is a laughable and historic delusion. Some people obsess over this bus because they cannot face the truth: huge numbers of people voted against the EU, not because they want more hospital beds, but because they wanted to upturn the arrogant establishment and revolt against politics as we know it. A bus? This was a juggernaut.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...-bus-delusion/
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The great Brexit bus delusion
Brendan O'Neill
19 September 2017
The Spectator

I know many Leave voters. Most of my family. Around half of my friends. Lots of the people in the immigrant community in London I grew up in. (We’re bad immigrants, being anti-EU, so we never feature in the migrant-sympathetic commentary of EU-pining hacks.) And not one of them has ever said they chose Brexit because of that £350m-for-the-NHS thing on the side of a bus. The idea that that bus swung the referendum, that it duped the voting hordes, has become one of the great, and nasty, myths of the Brexit era.
The bloody bus is back in the news this week after Boris Johnson said he’d like to get our cash back from the EU and possibly give some of it to the NHS. Judging from the reaction to his words — reams of press outrage, a finger-wagging letter of condemnation from the UK Statistics Authority, a Twitterati on the floor, fanning itself, struggling to breath — you’d think Boris had driven the actual bus down Oxford Street or repeated verbatim its questionable claims. But he didn’t. All he said in his Telegraph column is that leaving the EU will give us more control over ‘roughly’ £350m a week, and it would be good ‘if a lot of that money went on the NHS’.
So contrary to all the aghast op-edding, he didn’t say leaving the EU would boost NHS coffers by a tidy £350m a week. He said it would give us say-so over a certain amount of money, and we could choose to spend that money on health if we like. That’s it. The End. And breathe.
The misrepresentation of his comments was perfectly summed up in a New Statesman piece, which opened:
‘In a column for the Telegraph, Boris Johnson has repeated the false claim that Brexit will result in £350m a week for the NHS. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week,” he writes. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”’
This is hilarious: the one-line summary of Boris’s comments — leaving the EU would ‘result in £350m a week for the NHS’ — is directly contradicted by his actual comments:
‘It would be a fine thing if that money went on the NHS.’
I know standards are slipping in the media, but journalists surely understand the word ‘if’? It’s a conjunction that signals something will happen if something else happens first. In this case if we make a choice to spend that wad of EU-released cash on the NHS. ‘If’ is not ‘it will result in’; ‘if’ is ‘it might result in’. The difference is colossal. For the media to mangle Boris’s words in articles about how Leavers mangled the facts is pretty cute.
What’s really striking is that even the actual bus, that accursed bus, didn’t say ‘will result in’. Really. Its wording was: ‘We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.’ This is fairly vague. Some might say dishonestly vague, which is cool, they’re probably right. But it doesn’t say, ‘We will spend £350m a week on the NHS’. It basically says: ‘We give loads of money to the EU. We should use that money in other ways.’ Even the bus, which I think was naff, didn’t make a cast-iron cash promise.
Boris, and others, are also getting it in the neck over the actual amount we’ve been paying into the EU and will now save. There’s a spat over whether he’s confusing gross and net. This is what the UK Stats Authority arrogantly tells him off for. Some say our weekly contribution, and thus saving, is closer to £200m per week. Okay. But that is also a vast amount of money. It’s remarkable that the kind of people who usually insist that public spending be well-aimed and used to assist the less well-off can be so cavalier about our pumping of 200 million a week into the EU. This Brussels black-hole suck on British cash will remind many Leavers why they voted against the EU: they see it as a distant, uncaring, filthy-rich oligarchy. Some people, I fear, don’t appreciate how ridiculous they sound to the struggling, everyday Brexiteer when they scoff: ‘Actually, I think you’ll find we only give the EU £200m a week…’
Here’s the great irony. That bus started life as a rubbish piece of Leave propaganda but has now become a rather sinister exhibit in Remainer propaganda. The reason they elevate this bus above all else, above all the other BS both Leave and Remain spouted last year, is because they genuinely think it turned voters. That it dazzled our little minds. That it duped the throng. It is so deeply patronising. And it is also a lie. The idea that we voted against the EU to get a bit more bob for nurses is a laughable and historic delusion. Some people obsess over this bus because they cannot face the truth: huge numbers of people voted against the EU, not because they want more hospital beds, but because they wanted to upturn the arrogant establishment and revolt against politics as we know it. A bus? This was a juggernaut.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...-bus-delusion/


That doesn't matter.


What the bus says is The UK gives the EU 350 Million pounds a week.

It'd be great if that money was spent on the NHS INSTEAD.

Now, as you said, politicians lie.


And it was this lie, on a bus, that helped influence people to vote for Brexit.


Do you see now why people are upset? It was lies like this that twisted things up for the vote. That's why people got pissed and wanted a 'do over'.
 
Blackleaf
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

That doesn't matter.
What the bus says is The UK gives the EU 350 Million pounds a week.
It'd be great if that money was spent on the NHS INSTEAD.
Now, as you said, politicians lie.
And it was this lie, on a bus, that helped influence people to vote for Brexit.
Do you see now why people are upset? It was lies like this that twisted things up for the vote. That's why people got pissed and wanted a 'do over'.

Why was it a lie to say that it would be great if the money we send to the EU was spent on the NHS instead?

The only people who are upset by the mythical lie on the Brexit bus are those idiotic Remainers who haven't read it properly and take it out of context.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Why was it a lie to say that it would be great if the money we send to the EU was spent on the NHS instead?

The only people who are upset by the mythical lie on the Brexit bus are those idiotic Remainers who haven't read it properly and take it out of context.


Have I told you yet that you're about as thick as thick can be?


I mean dumb, dumb as a goddamn post.


Absolutely no intelligence to your person what so ever.


Your brain has vacated and left nothing behind but a rotting corpse.


Actually no, a rotting corpse would still be more intelligent...
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Have I told you yet that you're about as thick as thick can be?
I mean dumb, dumb as a goddamn post.
Absolutely no intelligence to your person what so ever.
Your brain has vacated and left nothing behind but a rotting corpse.
Actually no, a rotting corpse would still be more intelligent...

And yet you're the one who, like the Remainers, accused the Leavers of lying on the bus, when they clearly didnt.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

And yet you're the one who, like the Remainers, accused the Leavers of lying on the bus, when they clearly didnt.


As the wording is on the bus - yes, yes they did.
 
Blackleaf
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

As the wording is on the bus - yes, yes they did.

So it's a lie because it's written on a bus?
 
Hoid
#17
how can you wreck something that doesn't exist

Brexit is without definition.

It means whatever someone wants it to mean.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

how can you wreck something that doesn't exist

Brexit is without definition.

It means whatever someone wants it to mean.

Brexit

noun

"the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and the political process associated with it"


OED
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#19
Did people understand the political process when they voted for it?
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Did people understand the political process when they voted for it?

They thought we would leave the EU.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#21
But were they like you and didn’t really understand the process?
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

But were they like you and didn’t really understand the process?

They were like me and didn't foresee that the BRITISH Parliament would spend the next three years trying to thwart their democratic vote.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#23
But were they like you and didn’t really understand the process?
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

So it's a lie because it's written on a bus?


It's a lie because what's written on the bus is a lie.


The bus promoted 350 million a week to NHS.


Later that was proven a lie.


Yet the bus was used as promotion FOR Brexit, as an excuse to leave the EU. A very, very visible promotion.


Are you really that idiotic to think people wouldn't see it and vote that way because they believed it?
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

It's a lie because what's written on the bus is a lie.
The bus promoted 350 million a week to NHS.
Later that was proven a lie.
Yet the bus was used as promotion FOR Brexit, as an excuse to leave the EU. A very, very visible promotion.
Are you really that idiotic to think people wouldn't see it and vote that way because they believed it?

The bus said that it would be nice to stop sending the EU £350 million a week to fund Spanish olive growers, pigsties for Polish farms and Juncker's drinks cabinet and instead spend that £350 million of British taxpayers' money on the NHS instead.

How is that a lie?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#26
So the bus was misleading...much like the entire Brexit campaign. People have the right to be angry.
 
Blackleaf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

So the bus was misleading...much like the entire Brexit campaign. People have the right to be angry.

It wasn't misleading, you goit.

Stating that you'd like to stop giving £350 million a week to the EU and you would like to spend it on the NHS instead isn't misleading.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The bus said that it would be nice to stop sending the EU £350 million a week to fund Spanish olive growers, pigsties for Polish farms and Juncker's drinks cabinet and instead spend that £350 million of British taxpayers' money on the NHS instead.

How is that a lie?


So now you agree with me, it was a lie?


That's one hell of a flip you just did.
 
Blackleaf
#29
I can see I'm dealing with intellectual lightweights here.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

I can see I'm dealing with intellectual lightweights here.



Blackie...


You said originally that the claim on the bus was a lie, that the money would not go to the NHS.


I said that it did claim so, that by ending the sentence with "instead" meant that the money would go to the NHS itself, INSTEAD of the EU.


Now you're saying the opposite?


I think the intellectual 'lightweight' is you, not us.