is the tide turning

[fred]

cf leader in Daily Mail

[Andy Burns]

They have a new'ish editor, even the rabidly left-wing James O'Brien seems to like the Mail now.

[T i m]

The tide hasn't turned because as far as Brexit was concerned it was only ever slack water up a creek.

So, the DM has turned, I wonder if the fanatic Brexiteer worms will next?

All the sensible people on both sides and those in the middle are all still watching and waiting and if the only deal that gets offered is a bad one or nothing, we should be given the option to chose on those outcomes (or remaining) as it would then be pretty obvious to most that it would be a bad thing for most people.

Then all the fanatic Brexiteers can f-off to their own 'New Little England' somewhere as they obviously wouldn't want medical treatment from a fully trained Eastern European nurse or doctor and wouldn't want to wait whist we trained one up from outside the EU and wouldn't want to be cared for in a Care Home by an EU worker either (so we need to reserve the places for those who are appreciative of such people).

Cheers, T i m

[Handsome Jack]

fred posted

A classic case of a comment piece that destroys its own argument. "The easy explanation for this shift would be to attribute it to the new editor, Geordie Greig, who replaced Paul Dacre last month after a

26-year reign. That is a big factor. But the deeper reason is that the national mood is changing. "

No it isn't. The explanation is that the Mail has a new editor.

[fred]

and you know this how ?

[Anonymous]

The guarrdiann (on purpose spelling error, unlike them) was not as you say. It follows what comes out of the governemt, which gets its orders from the DM. Aka the "our boys" 5th column who have a proven history (unlike its "origin" of only being 700 years old) of putting its interests in place of the UK. The uuardian have been caught lying, now then what is new among the msm then!

[T i m]

A crystal ball, like all the other fanatic Brexiteer hopes and dreams.

We are currently in what looks like could be the first two years of what could be a much longer cooling off period ... where the electorate have a right to decide what they actually asked them to look into from the poll.

If it doesn't look like it will be better for 'most people', then our government has a constitutional right to make sure we don't do it ... not stumble on blindly into the abyss, just because (a subset of)

1/3rd of the electorate happened to put a X in a box after being fed a diet of lies and BS.

The *promise* was that the grass would be greener out of the EU (after then admitting it would probably die first and need re-turfing with turf bought elsewhere) and to get the (what turns out top be dead grass) we need to throw the baby out with the bath water as well.

The remainers are happy with 'a bird in the hand' till someone has an actual real issue (not some hypothetical one that will cost us all big time to 'fix').

Cheers, T i m

[Pamela]

On 11:37 24 Oct 2018, fred wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I was wondering that too. Perhaps Handsome Jack is in denial about the changing national mood and, as a result, he can't see it.

[T i m]

I do feel sorry for them (the fanatic Brexiteers). It can't be nice having a big issue about something when 'most people' don't share those views and then, thinking you have got away with something that you have been found out and the rug being pull out from under you? ;-(

Stepping back a second ... it's a small rebel group who have a range of (differing) views re our membership of the EU and have managed to scam *just* enough people to give them a marginal win using an inappropriate bastardised poll and after winning .... taking 2+ years to find out what they have actually won (which looks like a lame duck)?

What a poorly planned and implemented farce.

It's a farce because it's patently obvious it's not actually *wanted* by the majority, the benefits of doing it are questionable at best and the chances of the outcome being appreciated by the majority are just the propaganda of a minority of fanatics.

Now, none of that would matter if the *majority* (and by that I mean an electoral supermajority) had voted on it, as at least everyone would accept that as actually being the 'will of the people' (or as near as you can get to that in any good democratic system).

Cheers, T i m

[Andy Burns]

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Good you realise that with many newspapers facts don't come into it.

[Chris Hogg]

Quite, which applies equally to the Grauniad as to the DM. Their main purpose in life is to sell newspapers.

[whisky-dave]

does anyone have a choice, either way ?

could you define a good, bad or 'ugly' deal ?

I mean it takes trained EU negiotaitors 8 years or more to decide on such deals do you really think you could decide in a few minuites or even hours ?

So what would you put on the ballot paper and what would happen if some voted NOTA or drew penises.

What if 1/3 didn't vote would that be counted as remaining or agreeing or disagring to the deal. Or maybe as the curretn option is to leave then allnon-voting want the staus quo which is to leave.

Personally I wouldn't count non voters or penis drawers or NOTAs But I;m guessing that those that don;t go to football matches must dislike football or prefer cricket as the national sport.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

True - but the Mail was well known for telling porkies and bending the truth. The red line between the gutter and quality press.

[charles]

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story - anon

[Brian Gaff]

This is precisely the argument I used on friends before the original vote. Now of course if the EU had actually cut a bit of slack to the members and Mr Cameron, when he went over none of this nastiness would have happened. I think whatever happens to the UK unless the EU stop insisting the complete freedom of movement between vastly different economies is going to carry on lots more member will be pissing off. Brian

[T i m]

The problem is that there isn't much slack in the ?four freedoms? of EU membership. Also, one of the biggest 'reasons' for leaving (immigration from within the EU) was actually already manageable by the existing rules and another, the laws thing isn't actually a real world problem to anyone I know?

Ironically, I think there is a good chance many of the issues will be resolved in any case (if we leave or not) because they would want to stop others leaving and the only way they can do that is by changing stuff before they do (or threaten to).

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to the little Englanders who are most of the Brexiteers.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

And you still think everyone should be allowed the vote?

[whisky-dave]

No, I've never said that.