UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Inverted said:

It's quite funny that the left-wing of the Labour Party has been calling the Tories authoritarian, murderous sociopaths for years. Now it seems that liberals and centrists, after poo-pooing and "both sides"-ing them the whole time, are just starting to grasp the reality. 

The Tories don't care about human life and they don't care about democracy. If it wasn't obvious years ago, it should be now. 

People need to realise that they can either keep playing the ridiculous tribalistic Brexit game, and enable no-deal along with another 5 years of this debacle. Or, they can get behind the opposition and give themselves at least a chance of keeping the country from total disaster. 

Yeah, but sadly I think people view politics as sport rather than where compromise can be made for the greater good.

I’d like to be wrong but I doubt it. That’s why there are so many people who once told us we’d never leave with No Deal frothing at the mouth about how we must leave now, deal or no deal

[RandoEFC+]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah, but sadly I think people view politics as sport rather than where compromise can be made for the greater good.

I’d like to be wrong but I doubt it. That’s why there are so many people who once told us we’d never leave with No Deal frothing at the mouth about how we must leave now, deal or no deal

Unfortunately this is all true. I saw that #SurrenderBill was trending on Twitter last night and clicked on it expecting to see a lot of people discussing the use of that sort of language in Parliament. Most of the tweets were actually people encouraging the use of that language and trying to get it trending, whilst laughing at how "triggered" the "Remoaner Snowflakes" in Parliament were by that use of language, also laughing off Boris' "humbug" comment towards Jo Cox and saying it was the Lib Dems/Labour MPs who were in the wrong for bringing her name into it. The list goes on of depressing things I read.

I know people think a second referendum would overturn the whole thing but I wouldn't be that surprised if Leave won again. Just because we don't interact with them, that doesn't change the fact there are so many angry, brainwashed people out there who fully buy into Boris Johnson's strongman image and unashamedly revel in the fact that the prime minister is willing to lie and break the law in order to deliver them what they think they want. It's nothing more than a point of principle for them now and an excuse to get angry. The majority of them couldn't have given two fucks about the EU before the referendum was tabled and if they're being honest with themselves probably don't give a shit about it now. All they care about is being proven 'right' and being on the winning side of the referendum.

The country will be toxic now whichever way we go with it. If we go through with Brexit the country will suffer for years, probably decades, and if it gets revoked or overturned through a second referendum there will probably be riots and violence encouraged through this exact use of language by the likes of Farage and Johnson continuing to call parliament 'traitors' and encouraging Brexiteers to 'take back control'. There will always be the question too of when we have a third referendum.

Dark times ahead.

[Dr. Gonzo]

26 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Unfortunately this is all true. I saw that #SurrenderBill was trending on Twitter last night and clicked on it expecting to see a lot of people discussing the use of that sort of language in Parliament. Most of the tweets were actually people encouraging the use of that language and trying to get it trending, whilst laughing at how "triggered" the "Remoaner Snowflakes" in Parliament were by that use of language, also laughing off Boris' "humbug" comment towards Jo Cox and saying it was the Lib Dems/Labour MPs who were in the wrong for bringing her name into it. The list goes on of depressing things I read.

I know people think a second referendum would overturn the whole thing but I wouldn't be that surprised if Leave won again. Just because we don't interact with them, that doesn't change the fact there are so many angry, brainwashed people out there who fully buy into Boris Johnson's strongman image and unashamedly revel in the fact that the prime minister is willing to lie and break the law in order to deliver them what they think they want. It's nothing more than a point of principle for them now and an excuse to get angry. The majority of them couldn't have given two fucks about the EU before the referendum was tabled and if they're being honest with themselves probably don't give a shit about it now. All they care about is being proven 'right' and being on the winning side of the referendum.

The country will be toxic now whichever way we go with it. If we go through with Brexit the country will suffer for years, probably decades, and if it gets revoked or overturned through a second referendum there will probably be riots and violence encouraged through this exact use of language by the likes of Farage and Johnson continuing to call parliament 'traitors' and encouraging Brexiteers to 'take back control'. There will always be the question too of when we have a third referendum.

Dark times ahead.

With how divided everyone is right now, maybe some suffering that we all feel together is what’s needed for a return to political normalcy. Bit fucked though if that’s the case.

[...Dan]

 

[Inverted]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

With how divided everyone is right now, maybe some suffering that we all feel together is what’s needed for a return to political normalcy. Bit fucked though if that’s the case.

Or you know, a party which is willing to hold another referendum whilst staying technically neutral. 

That position might be slightly more popular if there was anyone in the media with the brainpower or integrity to explain why that's possibly a good idea, instead of banging out "HURR CORBYN REFUSES TO TAKE A STAND ON BREXIT" endlessly. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Or you know, a party which is willing to hold another referendum whilst staying technically neutral. 

That position might be slightly more popular if there was anyone in the media with the brainpower or integrity to explain why that's possibly a good idea, instead of banging out "HURR CORBYN REFUSES TO TAKE A STAND ON BREXIT" endlessly. 

Even if a party tried to hold another referendum without while staying technically neutral... you'd have the same issue. A divided electorate that's firmly divided on the issue and has grown more divisive. The Brexit side is not going to want to have their vote split with "Leave with No Deal" and "Leave with a Deal," so you'll always have accusations of one side flaunting democracy and the will of the people - and it'll just create further divisiveness on the same fucking issue. And what then if that divisiveness keeps growing? Referendums on the UK's membership in the EU for eternity - as public opinion on the EU sways back and forth?

A second referendum is something that sounds good to me in theory, but I just think in practice it'll be very difficult. If it's not worded the exact same, I think you'll have leave voters up in arms complaining about how it's not fair that their vote is split. Meanwhile, if you've got the wording the exact same as the first time, then it's not really specific enough - there are probably still voters out there that want to leave the EU but they don't want to leave with no deal. Have their opinions changed now that they've seen how Brexit negotiations have gone? Maybe. But I don't fucking know how these people think.

But it's my own personal opinion that the referendum was very reckless in the first place - it asked too broad of a question for the electorate to decide. Especially with disinformation campaigns and flaunted election laws (broken with no real punishment either). And I'm not sure that another referendum can "fix" the reckless decision to have the first referendum. IMO this is Parliament's job to resolve and get the best result for the UK. If Parliament ultimately decides another referendum will decide our EU membership (or lack of it)… I really fucking hope it's come after we've withdrawn Article 50 so we can start the process over again though.

As irritating as starting the process over again might be... a new "original" referendum can probably be done in a way that's less deceptive and misleading to the public. If there has to be another referendum on this. Don't ask me how we'd make a new and better referendum because I have no idea. But to be honest, I doubt anyone around Westminster knows what the fuck to do either. Since Article 50 was submitted, we've needed some sort of creative problem solving from the political leadership in all our parties and... well we don't have it.

Also we should all throw stones at David Cameron if we ever see that twat.

[Inverted]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if a party tried to hold another referendum without while staying technically neutral... you'd have the same issue. A divided electorate that's firmly divided on the issue and has grown more divisive. The Brexit side is not going to want to have their vote split with "Leave with No Deal" and "Leave with a Deal," so you'll always have accusations of one side flaunting democracy and the will of the people - and it'll just create further divisiveness on the same fucking issue. And what then if that divisiveness keeps growing? Referendums on the UK's membership in the EU for eternity - as public opinion on the EU sways back and forth?

A second referendum is something that sounds good to me in theory, but I just think in practice it'll be very difficult. If it's not worded the exact same, I think you'll have leave voters up in arms complaining about how it's not fair that their vote is split. Meanwhile, if you've got the wording the exact same as the first time, then it's not really specific enough - there are probably still voters out there that want to leave the EU but they don't want to leave with no deal. Have their opinions changed now that they've seen how Brexit negotiations have gone? Maybe. But I don't fucking know how these people think.

But it's my own personal opinion that the referendum was very reckless in the first place - it asked too broad of a question for the electorate to decide. Especially with disinformation campaigns and flaunted election laws (broken with no real punishment either). And I'm not sure that another referendum can "fix" the reckless decision to have the first referendum. IMO this is Parliament's job to resolve and get the best result for the UK. If Parliament ultimately decides another referendum will decide our EU membership (or lack of it)… I really fucking hope it's come after we've withdrawn Article 50 so we can start the process over again though.

As irritating as starting the process over again might be... a new "original" referendum can probably be done in a way that's less deceptive and misleading to the public. If there has to be another referendum on this. Don't ask me how we'd make a new and better referendum because I have no idea. But to be honest, I doubt anyone around Westminster knows what the fuck to do either. Since Article 50 was submitted, we've needed some sort of creative problem solving from the political leadership in all our parties and... well we don't have it.

Also we should all throw stones at David Cameron if we ever see that twat.

That's why Labour's policy is to remove No Deal as an option, and make it Remain vs a soft-ish Brexit -  the kind of Brexit which everyone in the Leave campaign initially promised we would go for. 

Removing No Deal is the first priority as that outcome was never mooted at the time of the vote, and no majority would accept it. 

If Ref 2 were to take place under a Remain-supporting gov, there is zero chance that any Brexit voter would accept an outcome for Remain. So maintaining technical neutrality is the next priority, ensuring there is at least some chance of a legitimate cancellation of Brexit. 

In a worst-case scenario, the result is a mandate for an exit under terms even more moderate than May's deal, if such terms can be secured. 

The only real flaw of the policy is that it depends on a new agreement being negotiable. I think however that with a new government, a clearer mandate, and also an offer of a closer future relationship than currently on offer, there would some possibility for future negotiations.

Another flaw is that it requires a majority of the country not to be tribalistic mouth-breathers. 

But it is literally the only possible way of avoiding No Deal without destroying the democratic legitimacy of the state forever.

[Rucksackfranzose]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if a party tried to hold another referendum without while staying technically neutral... you'd have the same issue. A divided electorate that's firmly divided on the issue and has grown more divisive. The Brexit side is not going to want to have their vote split with "Leave with No Deal" and "Leave with a Deal," so you'll always have accusations of one side flaunting democracy and the will of the people - and it'll just create further divisiveness on the same fucking issue. And what then if that divisiveness keeps growing? Referendums on the UK's membership in the EU for eternity - as public opinion on the EU sways back and forth?

A second referendum is something that sounds good to me in theory, but I just think in practice it'll be very difficult. If it's not worded the exact same, I think you'll have leave voters up in arms complaining about how it's not fair that their vote is split. Meanwhile, if you've got the wording the exact same as the first time, then it's not really specific enough - there are probably still voters out there that want to leave the EU but they don't want to leave with no deal. Have their opinions changed now that they've seen how Brexit negotiations have gone? Maybe. But I don't fucking know how these people think.

But it's my own personal opinion that the referendum was very reckless in the first place - it asked too broad of a question for the electorate to decide. Especially with disinformation campaigns and flaunted election laws (broken with no real punishment either). And I'm not sure that another referendum can "fix" the reckless decision to have the first referendum. IMO this is Parliament's job to resolve and get the best result for the UK. If Parliament ultimately decides another referendum will decide our EU membership (or lack of it)… I really fucking hope it's come after we've withdrawn Article 50 so we can start the process over again though.

As irritating as starting the process over again might be... a new "original" referendum can probably be done in a way that's less deceptive and misleading to the public. If there has to be another referendum on this. Don't ask me how we'd make a new and better referendum because I have no idea. But to be honest, I doubt anyone around Westminster knows what the fuck to do either. Since Article 50 was submitted, we've needed some sort of creative problem solving from the political leadership in all our parties and... well we don't have it.

Also we should all throw stones at David Cameron if we ever see that twat.

 

15 minutes ago, Inverted said:

That's why Labour's policy is to remove No Deal as an option, and make it Remain vs a soft-ish Brexit -  the kind of Brexit which everyone in the Leave campaign initially promised we would go for. 

Removing No Deal is the first priority as that outcome was never mooted at the time of the vote, and no majority would accept it. 

If Ref 2 were to take place under a Remain-supporting gov, there is zero chance that any Brexit voter would accept an outcome for Remain. So maintaining technical neutrality is the next priority, ensuring there is at least some chance of a legitimate cancellation of Brexit. 

In a worst-case scenario, the result is a mandate for an exit under terms even more moderate than May's deal, if such terms can be secured. 

The only real flaw of the policy is that it depends on a new agreement being negotiable. I think however that with a new government, a clearer mandate, and also an offer of a closer future relationship than currently on offer, there would some possibility for future negotiations.

Another flaw is that it requires a majority of the country not to be tribalistic mouth-breathers. 

But it is literally the only possible way of avoiding No Deal without destroying the democratic legitimacy of the state forever.

As for the bolded parts, both of you underrate the patience the other Eu members have shown towards the UK. I can only speak for the public opinion in Germany but this patience has come to an end. The deal is on the table: take it or leave it, but the Germans are fed up with your attempts at cherry picking and won't agree to new negotiations. Can't speak for the other nations but wouldn't be surprised if they shared our point of view. In my opinion there are only three realistic options for you: no deal, May's deal or remain. I can't imagine the EU to agree to start negotiations all over again, there  are more issues to solve for this federation than Brexit only. Neither the world nor the EU revolve around Great Britain.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

 

As for the bolded parts, both of you underrate the patience the other Eu members have shown towards the UK. I can only speak for the public opinion in Germany but this patience has come to an end. The deal is on the table: take it or leave it, but the Germans are fed up with your attempts at cherry picking and won't agree to new negotiations. Can't speak for the other nations but wouldn't be surprised if they shared our point of view. In my opinion there are only three realistic options for you: no deal, May's deal or remain. I can't imagine the EU to agree to start negotiations all over again, there  are more issues to solve for this federation than Brexit only. Neither the world nor the EU revolve around Great Britain.

Nah I appreciate how patient the EU has been with negotiations and I don't assume that the world or EU revolve around us, because it pretty clearly doesn't and that's why a lot of people are worried about No Deal. And I wouldn't expect the EU to be willing to negotiate, even if they did agree to a deadline to allow us to have a General Election.

I just think it's more realistic to actually procedurally start over than believe that we will negotiate a better deal than May's poor deal in any limited amount of time.

[Inverted]

Even at this desperate stage you have figures like Rutte, Bettel, and Maas calling out a lack of new suggestions - which means in principle that new suggestions could be listened to. 

That might be a tiny, almost atomically small bit of wriggle room, but I imagine that a little more could be gained without the 31st October deadline, with a new more sympathetic government, and also with a new negotiating position which offers a much closer relationship and ergo less of an adjustment down the line. 

Without a change in government or in negotiating position, of course it makes sense that the EU would just cut its losses and accept No Deal. But I think they are at least reasonable enough to give a chance for a new government - one which explicitly rules out a No Deal scenario - to make some proposals. Particularly if those proposals are more moderate than in May's deal. 

[Vegan Kel]

These people are just actors playing roles on a world stage. They all read from the same script, all push the same agenda and they all pretend they have your interests at heart. The political class are only interested in extracting as much wealth and power from the rest of us as they can and the Fractional Reserve Banking scam is the main way they do it.

Why do you think private bankers under the guise of 'The Bank of England'/'The Federal Reserve' lend money (in actuality, numbers on a computer screen) at interest that we are forced to pay by the extortion that is income tax rather than print debt free currency as is their right? Because the bankers run the government, not the other way around. Whenever any 'leader' attempts to go back to the gold standard they get a bullet in their head and a fictional story in the media as to who, how and why.

The system is a scam and all the while people take it seriously, vote for people who all push the same agenda and are all selected by the same people and discuss them as though they are real the more enslaved we will get. Why would you even vote for someone to rule over you anyway? That's mad.

People are esily distracted and manipulated

[SirBalon]

And while I leave the fact the EU will be implementing the prosecution and chasing of those with off-shore accounts that try to escape their tax duties in EU States, plus the fact that many of the elite British establishment have bet on the collapse of Pound Sterling with a ‘No Deal Brexit’

I offer you the common Brexit voter who has the permission to vote and alter my life, that of my family and friends.

 

[Kowabunga]

On 26/09/2019 at 21:34, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if a party tried to hold another referendum without while staying technically neutral... you'd have the same issue. A divided electorate that's firmly divided on the issue and has grown more divisive. The Brexit side is not going to want to have their vote split with "Leave with No Deal" and "Leave with a Deal," so you'll always have accusations of one side flaunting democracy and the will of the people - and it'll just create further divisiveness on the same fucking issue. And what then if that divisiveness keeps growing? Referendums on the UK's membership in the EU for eternity - as public opinion on the EU sways back and forth?

A second referendum is something that sounds good to me in theory, but I just think in practice it'll be very difficult. If it's not worded the exact same, I think you'll have leave voters up in arms complaining about how it's not fair that their vote is split. Meanwhile, if you've got the wording the exact same as the first time, then it's not really specific enough - there are probably still voters out there that want to leave the EU but they don't want to leave with no deal. Have their opinions changed now that they've seen how Brexit negotiations have gone? Maybe. But I don't fucking know how these people think.

But it's my own personal opinion that the referendum was very reckless in the first place - it asked too broad of a question for the electorate to decide. Especially with disinformation campaigns and flaunted election laws (broken with no real punishment either). And I'm not sure that another referendum can "fix" the reckless decision to have the first referendum. IMO this is Parliament's job to resolve and get the best result for the UK. If Parliament ultimately decides another referendum will decide our EU membership (or lack of it)… I really fucking hope it's come after we've withdrawn Article 50 so we can start the process over again though.

As irritating as starting the process over again might be... a new "original" referendum can probably be done in a way that's less deceptive and misleading to the public. If there has to be another referendum on this. Don't ask me how we'd make a new and better referendum because I have no idea. But to be honest, I doubt anyone around Westminster knows what the fuck to do either. Since Article 50 was submitted, we've needed some sort of creative problem solving from the political leadership in all our parties and... well we don't have it.

Also we should all throw stones at David Cameron if we ever see that twat.

Cancelling A50 and starting negotiations again would be clearly seen as a case of perversion of rules by the EU and EU member states. Surely, the EU would offer the May Deal and refuse to engage into any new negotiation.

[Vegan Kel]

19 hours ago, SirBalon said:

And while I leave the fact the EU will be implementing the prosecution and chasing of those with off-shore accounts that try to escape their tax duties in EU States, plus the fact that many of the elite British establishment have bet on the collapse of Pound Sterling with a ‘No Deal Brexit’

I offer you the common Brexit voter who has the permission to vote and alter my life, that of my family and friends.

 

I'm sure I remember you saying you voted Leave...

[SirBalon]

31 minutes ago, Vegan Kel said:

I'm sure I remember you saying you voted Leave...

I did indeed... I'm one of the conned. My character has never been one of digging my heels in when I've plainly seen an error I've committed. I did feel stupid for a while before admitting to friends and family that had warned me I was making an error... Just another victim but one that redeemed himself.

[Vegan Kel]

3 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

I did indeed... I'm one of the conned. My character has never been one of digging my heels in when I've plainly seen an error I've committed. I did feel stupid for a while before admitting to friends and family that had warned me I was making an error... Just another victim but one that redeemed himself.

Both sides were conned. It's a scam

[SirBalon]

1 minute ago, Vegan Kel said:

Both sides were conned. It's a scam

That's not correct Kel. You can't con someone on something they already have and knows full well it's not perfect. You can con someone to give up what they have by promising them what they'll get instead will be supremely better that what they previously had.

[Vegan Kel]

5 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

That's not correct Kel. You can't con someone on something they already have and knows full well it's not perfect. You can con someone to give up what they have by promising them what they'll get instead will be supremely better that what they previously had.

Why do you think the EU are any different to any other elite political organisation designed to subjugate the 'plebs'? Centralisation of power is never a good thing.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, Vegan Kel said:

Why do you think the EU are any different to any other elite political organisation designed to subjugate the 'plebs'? Centralisation of power is never a good thing.

So with your words and your avatar, I assume you are vying for some sort of anarchy?

We require the rule of law and regulations to defend everyone including and fundamentally those less fortunate. We need mediation and an intermediary regulator for our safety and standards. What we plainly have here including Boris Johnson's own sister is telling us that what those that con are searching for is to give the 1% a big pay day while the poverty imposed upon this society has been imposed by our own government while scapegoating the EU.

Politics are extremely important, but politics that answer to the rule of law and regulations that work for all. There is nothing perfect, but better withing the bed of power to work for the betterment for all than what will inevitably punish those with less.

[Vegan Kel]

50 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

So with your words and your avatar, I assume you are vying for some sort of anarchy?

We require the rule of law and regulations to defend everyone including and fundamentally those less fortunate. We need mediation and an intermediary regulator for our safety and standards. What we plainly have here including Boris Johnson's own sister is telling us that what those that con are searching for is to give the 1% a big pay day while the poverty imposed upon this society has been imposed by our own government while scapegoating the EU.

Politics are extremely important, but politics that answer to the rule of law and regulations that work for all. There is nothing perfect, but better withing the bed of power to work for the betterment for all than what will inevitably punish those with less.

my avatar is of a hoody made by a vegan ethical clothing company so not sure where anarchy comes into it. The 'rule of law' sentences people to imprisonment for not paying taxes (or extortion to give it the correct term), punishes people for choosing what they can and cannot put into their own bodies and criminalises people for prostitution which literally has nothing to do with anyone bar the prostitute and the punter. Why would anyone accept the laws implemented onto them by a privileged class of criminals, thieves and paedophiles? 

Why are you talking about BJ's sister as though she is some paragon of truth? Politicians and their families protect their own interests. They have nothing in common with 99% of the people and they have done nothing but harm since as far back as anyone can remember.

The centralised fractional reserve banking system literally enslaves people via debt. It creates 'money' out of thin air and these bankers cause booms and busts whenever they desire and they use their media outlets to convince the gullible masses that it's just a normal occurrence. And they believe it because it was in the liespapers they read and the ten o'clock lies on TV. 

The system is failed and it will continue to fail until people realise that the only people preventing us all having a prosperous life are the ones behind the people idiots vote for because they are too daft to see that it's all a scam, and a very obvious one at that.

Look at how house prices have risen in the last 30 years, the cost of living rising at a far greater rate than wages while the CEO's of these corporations who run governments have had massive pay increases. This is not by accident. The system is designed that way. 

Divide and conquer occurs by controlling all parties and making it seem like they oppose each other. They are no different to Iron Sheikh and Hacksaw Jim Duggan hating each other in the ring and then getting busted doing coke in a car afterwards and politics deserves to be taken as seriously as sane people take wrestling. 

Why do you think what passes for 'journalists' these days never ever investigate anything? Whenever a 'terrorist attack' occurs there is zero investigation. They literally just parrot the official state line and we are supposed to believe it without question and most people do because they are unbelievably fucking dense.

"It's easier to fool people to convince people they have been fooled". Amen to that.

Why does Jeremy Corbyn, the man of the people, never ever mention ending the fractional reserve banking system? Because he is part of the establishment. Opposed the EEC/EU all his life then suddenly becomes pro-EU when (s)elected as Labour Leader, the same Labour who are funded by the Fabian Society. Have a look at their logo. Do you think they are trying to tell us something?

Until people stop blaming the Tories, Labour, Republicans, Democrats, some random freemason pretending to be a world leader, blacks, whites, Muslims, Christians, gays, straight people, foreigners etc for their woes and actually wake up to how society is structured and to who is really the enemy of 99% of humanity then the situation will never change for the better. The best slaves are the ones who don't realise they are slaves because then they have no reason to rebel against the system that enslaves them. Sadly people are more interested in Love island, men kicking a dead cow round a bit of grass for 90 minutes or playing dumb games on their computers to bother researching anything. if it was true it'd be on the news right? Kinell

Edited September 28, 2019 by Vegan Kel

[SirBalon]

32 minutes ago, Vegan Kel said:

my avatar is of a hoody made by a vegan ethical clothing company so not sure where anarchy comes into it. The 'rule of law' sentences people to imprisonment for not paying taxes (or extortion to give it the correct term), punishes people for choosing what they can and cannot put into their own bodies and criminalises people for prostitution which literally has nothing to do with anyone bar the prostitute and the punter. Why would anyone accept the laws implemented onto them by a privileged class of criminals, thieves and paedophiles? 

Why are you talking about BJ's sister as though she is some paragon of truth? Politicians and their families protect their own interests. They have nothing in common with 99% of the people and they have done nothing but harm since as far back as anyone can remember.

The centralised fractional reserve banking system literally enslaves people via debt. It creates 'money' out of thin air and these bankers cause booms and busts whenever they desire and they use their media outlets to convince the gullible masses that it's just a normal occurrence. And they believe it because it was in the liespapers they read and the ten o'clock lies on TV. 

The system is failed and it will continue to fail until people realise that the only people preventing us all having a prosperous life are the ones behind the people idiots vote for because they are too daft to see that it's all a scam, and a very obvious one at that.

Look at how house prices have risen in the last 30 years, the cost of living rising at a far greater rate than wages while the CEO's of these corporations who run governments have had massive pay increases. This is not by accident. The system is designed that way. 

Divide and conquer occurs by controlling all parties and making it seem like they oppose each other. They are no different to Iron Sheikh and Hacksaw Jim Duggan hating each other in the ring and then getting busted doing coke in a car afterwards and politics deserves to be taken as seriously as sane people take wrestling. 

Why do you think what passes for 'journalists' these days never ever investigate anything? Whenever a 'terrorist attack' occurs there is zero investigation. They literally just parrot the official state line and we are supposed to believe it without question and most people do because they are unbelievably fucking dense.

"It's easier to fool people to convince people they have been fooled". Amen to that.

Why does Jeremy Corbyn, the man of the people, never ever mention ending the fractional reserve banking system? Because he is part of the establishment. Opposed the EEC/EU all his life then suddenly becomes pro-EU when (s)elected as Labour Leader, the same Labour who are funded by the Fabian Society. Have a look at their logo. Do you think they are trying to tell us something?

Until people stop blaming the Tories, Labour, Republicans, Democrats, some random freemason pretending to be a world leader, blacks, whites, Muslims, Christians, gays, straight people, foreigners etc for their woes and actually wake up to how society is structured and to who is really the enemy of 99% of humanity then the situation will never change for the better. The best slaves are the ones who don't realise they are slaves because then they have no reason to rebel against the system that enslaves them. Sadly people are more interested in Love island, men kicking a dead cow round a bit of grass for 90 minutes or playing dumb games on their computers to bother researching anything. if it was true it'd be on the news right? Kinell

This is a whole different debate, an interesting and complexed one but one that has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit or the European Union. We could easily add it in there but in reality due to its fantastical nature calling for an anarchic state with no rule of law of government, then like I said, it's a debate all of its own and you could open a pertinent thread which would be interesting to read although it does require a high end of intellectual acumen.

[6666]

I always knew Alex Jones was a Man Utd fan. The crazy bastard.

[Vegan Kel]

Alex Jones is even more of an obvious shill than Joe Rogan. Only thick cunts think he is genuine

[SirBalon]

This is Brexit and Brexiters... THIS IS ENGLAND!

Disclamer: Have to omit Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar (Wales is a different kettle of fish, they seem to be SM fanatics)

 

[SirBalon]

This isn’t even some photoshop joke. This is real!