Discussion:
Boris and policies no one voted for
Add Reply
Pamela
2019-07-28 13:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.

Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change to
immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third runway at
Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung all these on
us.

It's switch selling. What a con.

Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on what
runaway Boris is doing.
Joe
2019-07-28 14:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:49:44 +0100
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no
change to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway,
the third runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc.
Boris has sprung all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Why do you restrict your complaints to the choice of a Cabinet?

Nothing at all that any MP does is in any way under the control or
supervision of those who elected him/her. *Nothing*.

And in the last twenty years, the *only* guide for the electorate, the
manifesto promises, have ceased to have any meaning. They were once
sacred, as they constituted a contract between electors and elected.
Not any more.

Choosing a Cabinet and PM are actually among the more innocuous
activities of the UK Parliament, they will do much worse to us after
that.

Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
--
Joe
Norman Wells
2019-07-28 15:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Choosing a Cabinet and PM are actually among the more innocuous
activities of the UK Parliament, they will do much worse to us after
that.
Apart from the fact that Parliament does not choose the PM and does not
choose the Cabinet, your argument is flawless.
Tim Jackson
2019-07-28 15:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).

Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Fredxx
2019-07-28 15:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have the
final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.

Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger a
general election if they didn't like the selection.

One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people selected
the new EU president?
Tim Jackson
2019-07-28 16:49:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have the
final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger a
general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people selected
the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which made
the decision, you could make a point about that. But if anything,
that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.

At least we did directly elect our members of the European Parliament.
Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves as wreckers,
rather than contributing constructively to the selection of the EU
President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Fredxx
2019-07-28 17:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have the
final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger a
general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people selected
the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which made
the decision, you could make a point about that. But if anything,
that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European Parliament.
Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves as wreckers,
rather than contributing constructively to the selection of the EU
President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose from?
If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
Tim Jackson
2019-07-28 17:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have the
final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger a
general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people selected
the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which made
the decision, you could make a point about that. But if anything,
that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European Parliament.
Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves as wreckers,
rather than contributing constructively to the selection of the EU
President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose from?
If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
Let me repeat what I've already said, since you seem to have missed it:

"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states)."
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Fredxx
2019-07-28 18:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have the
final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger a
general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people selected
the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which made
the decision, you could make a point about that. But if anything,
that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European Parliament.
Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves as wreckers,
rather than contributing constructively to the selection of the EU
President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose from?
If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
Pamela
2019-07-28 18:36:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also
just acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not
even selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from
the member states) and subject to endorsement by the European
Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have
the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger
a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which
made the decision, you could make a point about that. But if
anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves
as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively to the selection
of the EU President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the EU --
whereas oris was elected by anyone who paid £25 to join a political group.

The former represents the whole public, whereas the latter represents a
small special interest group. Not truly comparable at all.
Fredxx
2019-07-28 18:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also
just acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not
even selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from
the member states) and subject to endorsement by the European
Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have
the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and trigger
a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their elected
politicians should represent them in the Council of Ministers which
made the decision, you could make a point about that. But if
anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves
as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively to the selection
of the EU President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the EU
Who is the UK minister I voted for?
Pamela
2019-07-28 22:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also
just acquired new management, by even less democratic methods,
not even selected from among MEPs. They are still our real
government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have
the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and
trigger a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers which made the decision, you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not an
EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves
as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively to the
selection of the EU President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the EU
Who is the UK minister I voted for?
I wouldn't be too surprised if you voted for a defeated candidate.

The government that we elect appoints a PM who is made a member of the EU
council of ministers which selects a candidate to nominate as the next EU
president. All very democratic.
Fredxx
2019-07-28 23:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also
just acquired new management, by even less democratic methods,
not even selected from among MEPs. They are still our real
government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members have
the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and
trigger a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers which made the decision, you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not an
EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote down
from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see themselves
as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively to the
selection of the EU President. Again, that's not the EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the EU
Who is the UK minister I voted for?
I wouldn't be too surprised if you voted for a defeated candidate.
The government that we elect appoints a PM who is made a member of the EU
council of ministers which selects a candidate to nominate as the next EU
president. All very democratic.
I'm please you agree the attendance by Boris to the EU council of
ministers is democratic. Some wouldn't agree with you.
Joe
2019-07-28 18:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:36:45 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has
also just acquired new management, by even less democratic
methods, not even selected from among MEPs. They are still
our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members
have the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the
PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and
trigger a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers which made the decision, you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not
an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote
down from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see
themselves as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively
to the selection of the EU President. Again, that's not the
EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the
EU -- whereas oris was elected by anyone who paid _25 to join a
political group.
The former represents the whole public, whereas the latter represents
a small special interest group. Not truly comparable at all.
Hang on, haven't you just been complaining that we *don't* elect
ministers? That ministers are appointed by whoever the majority party
in the HoC has chosen as its leader? Ministers aren't named before
General Elections, so no, nobody votes for them. Ministers in the UK
are almost always MPs, so they were elected, but they were elected as
*MPs*, not as *ministers*. Can you not see the distinction?

And they are authorised to commit their home countries to decisions
made by the Council. How democratic is that? Committing the country to
decisions made up to five years *after* the last General Election.
You're seriously confusing that with 'democracy'?
--
Joe
Pamela
2019-07-28 22:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:36:45 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has
also just acquired new management, by even less democratic
methods, not even selected from among MEPs. They are still
our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members
have the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the
PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and
trigger a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers which made the decision, you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not
an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote
down from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see
themselves as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively
to the selection of the EU President. Again, that's not the
EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the
EU -- whereas oris was elected by anyone who paid _25 to join a
political group.
The former represents the whole public, whereas the latter represents
a small special interest group. Not truly comparable at all.
Hang on, haven't you just been complaining that we *don't* elect
ministers?
Not me. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?
Post by Joe
That ministers are appointed by whoever the majority party
in the HoC has chosen as its leader? Ministers aren't named before
General Elections,
The British PM who will be a member of the EU Council of Ministers is
known before we vote in a general elaction but amybe you should be having
this dicsussion with the person you think complained about not electing
ministers..
Post by Joe
so no, nobody votes for them. Ministers in the UK
are almost always MPs, so they were elected, but they were elected as
*MPs*, not as *ministers*. Can you not see the distinction?
And they are authorised to commit their home countries to decisions
made by the Council. How democratic is that? Committing the country to
decisions made up to five years *after* the last General Election.
You're seriously confusing that with 'democracy'?
Tim Jackson
2019-07-28 23:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:48:50 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:36:45 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:14:47 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:20:58 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
Post by Fredxx
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has
also just acquired new management, by even less democratic
methods, not even selected from among MEPs. They are still
our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states) and subject to endorsement by the
European Parliament (directly elected by voters in the member
states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who
elected Boris were selected by the British people?
The British people accepted Tory rules where the part members
have the final say in selecting their leader and ultimately the
PM.
Parliament, selected by the British people, can dissolve and
trigger a general election if they didn't like the selection.
One can ask a similar question, how many of the British people
selected the new EU president?
Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers which made the decision, you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit, not
an EU one.
One which Brexit will stop, so some good news. UK has a 8% vote
down from 17%.
Post by Tim Jackson
At least we did directly elect our members of the European
Parliament. Though the largest group of them seem to see
themselves as wreckers, rather than contributing constructively
to the selection of the EU President. Again, that's not the
EU's fault.
Are you now saying MEPs do get a selection of candidates to choose
from? If not then that is most definitely the EU's fault.
"Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives
from the member states)
You mean 'selected' in much the same Boris was 'elected' Prime Minister?
The main difference being the EU council of ministers is elected in
democratic national votes involving the whole electorate across the
EU -- whereas oris was elected by anyone who paid _25 to join a
political group.
The former represents the whole public, whereas the latter represents
a small special interest group. Not truly comparable at all.
Hang on, haven't you just been complaining that we *don't* elect
ministers? That ministers are appointed by whoever the majority party
in the HoC has chosen as its leader? Ministers aren't named before
General Elections, so no, nobody votes for them. Ministers in the UK
are almost always MPs, so they were elected, but they were elected as
*MPs*, not as *ministers*. Can you not see the distinction?
And they are authorised to commit their home countries to decisions
made by the Council. How democratic is that? Committing the country to
decisions made up to five years *after* the last General Election.
You're seriously confusing that with 'democracy'?
Again, let me repeat what I've already said above:

"Since the British people didn't directly chose which of their
elected politicians should represent them in the Council of
Ministers .... you could make a point about
that. But if anything, that's a British democratic deficit,
not an EU one."

It's up to each national country how they appoint their ministers.
Different countries have different systems. It's not the EU which
decides. [1]

_____________

[1] For example, Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France by a
popular vote of the whole French people. Boris was elected as an MP by
about 72,000 constituents of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and then as
Prime Minister of the UK by about 160,000 members of the Conservative
Party. [2]

[2] To be fair, however, there are two bodies with confusingly similar
names: the Council of Ministers and the European Council:

- Boris and Macron would normally attend the European Council. This is
made up of the heads of state or heads of government of the member
states, and deals with strategic and general policy matters.

- They would normally send their most relevant ministers to meetings of
the Council of Ministers, which deals in more detail with legislative
proposals. But again, how those ministers are elected or appointed is a
matter for each national country
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
JNugent
2019-07-28 16:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tim Jackson
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:06:43 +0100, Joe wrote...
Post by Joe
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Selected by the Council of Ministers (elected representatives from the
member states) and subject to endorsement by the European Parliament
(directly elected by voters in the member states).
Remind me again, how many of the Conservative Party members who elected
Boris were selected by the British people?
To which post did Conservative Party members elect Boris Johnson?

To which post did LibDem party members elect Joe Swanson?

To which post did Labour Party members elect Gordon Brown?
Pamela
2019-07-28 17:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:49:44 +0100
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no
change to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway,
the third runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc.
Boris has sprung all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Why do you restrict your complaints to the choice of a Cabinet?
Nothing at all that any MP does is in any way under the control or
supervision of those who elected him/her. *Nothing*.
And in the last twenty years, the *only* guide for the electorate, the
manifesto promises, have ceased to have any meaning. They were once
sacred, as they constituted a contract between electors and elected.
Not any more.
Choosing a Cabinet and PM are actually among the more innocuous
activities of the UK Parliament, they will do much worse to us after
that.
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Boris should have set out his stall far more clearly during his campaign
to be party leader. He hid many of these even though he would have known
them at the time.

Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished undiscussed
and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in North Korea. Roll
on the election.
Joe
2019-07-28 18:08:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do things
that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the
election.

Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would need
to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
--
Joe
Pamela
2019-07-28 18:15:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do things
that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the
election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would need
to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at
that.

A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's confirmed as
PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.

Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?

What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers expect to be
implemented? What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Fredxx
2019-07-28 18:32:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do things
that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the
election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would need
to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at
that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That is
only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates were
considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Pamela
2019-07-28 18:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do
things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before
the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would
need to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one
at that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That is
only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates were
considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Are you pleased Boris intends to do nothing about immigration? In fact,
one intepretation of what he said after being elected could mean more
immigrants.

Remember all those posts you made about how Brexit was very important to
you because it would lessen immigration and cause wages for Brits to rise?

Well, you can bin them now. lol
Fredxx
2019-07-28 18:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's
unpublished undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way
they do things in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a
General Election, a party which has gained a majority in the
HoC can do absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to
implement some or even all of its manifesto promises, it may
not. It will *certainly* do things that were not in its
manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by
consent. There are ways in which it could be improved, from our
point of view, but they would need to be implemented by people
who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That
is only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates
were considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Are you pleased Boris intends to do nothing about immigration?
Yes.
Post by Pamela
In fact, one intepretation of what he said after being elected could
mean more immigrants.
Just one, is that all? Amongst the thousands of interpretations that say
otherwise.
Post by Pamela
Remember all those posts you made about how Brexit was very important
to you because it would lessen immigration and cause wages for Brits
to rise?
The change has already happened. Only the workshy wouldn't notice. If
you worked you might notice your pay increasing too. Mine has as has my
colleagues. It's a way to hang onto your employees in a fluid employment
market. No wonder business owners don't like Brexit.
Post by Pamela
Well, you can bin them now. lol
Much like your desperate rants can be binned.
Pamela
2019-07-28 22:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly*
do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed
before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent.
There are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of
view, but they would need to be implemented by people who don't hold
our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That
is only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates
were considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Are you pleased Boris intends to do nothing about immigration?
Yes.
Boris does not intend to restict it. He's appointed a Home Secretray who
is a daughter of immigrants. Watch out she doesn't open the flood gates!
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
In fact, one intepretation of what he said after being elected could
mean more immigrants.
Just one, is that all? Amongst the thousands of interpretations that say
otherwise.
Post by Pamela
Remember all those posts you made about how Brexit was very important
to you because it would lessen immigration and cause wages for Brits
to rise?
The change has already happened.
We haven't left yet. Post Brexit immigration policy hasn't been passed.
Post by Fredxx
Only the workshy wouldn't notice. If you worked you might notice your
pay increasing too. Mine has as has my colleagues. It's a way to hang
onto your employees in a fluid employment market. No wonder business
owners don't like Brexit.
Post by Pamela
Well, you can bin them now. lol
Much like your desperate rants can be binned.
You can kiss goodbye to your dream of post-Brexit workers jacking up their
wages by refusing to work for less than high wages because there's no
competition.

You must be hopping mad at that.
Fredxx
2019-07-28 23:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly*
do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed
before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent.
There are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of
view, but they would need to be implemented by people who don't hold
our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That
is only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates
were considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Are you pleased Boris intends to do nothing about immigration?
Yes.
Boris does not intend to restict it. He's appointed a Home Secretray who
is a daughter of immigrants. Watch out she doesn't open the flood gates!
Boris is our transitory PM. As long as we have control of the borders
everything else will follow.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
In fact, one intepretation of what he said after being elected could
mean more immigrants.
Just one, is that all? Amongst the thousands of interpretations that say
otherwise.
Post by Pamela
Remember all those posts you made about how Brexit was very important
to you because it would lessen immigration and cause wages for Brits
to rise?
The change has already happened.
We haven't left yet. Post Brexit immigration policy hasn't been passed.
The effect is already felt. The workshy wouldn't notice.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Only the workshy wouldn't notice. If you worked you might notice your
pay increasing too. Mine has as has my colleagues. It's a way to hang
onto your employees in a fluid employment market. No wonder business
owners don't like Brexit.
Post by Pamela
Well, you can bin them now. lol
Much like your desperate rants can be binned.
You can kiss goodbye to your dream of post-Brexit workers jacking up their
wages by refusing to work for less than high wages because there's no
competition.
I disagree. I have already observed the reduction in immigration into
the workplace. Something workshy parasites wouldn't be aware of.
Post by Pamela
You must be hopping mad at that.
You are so out of touch.
Pamela
2019-07-29 07:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things
in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will
*certainly* do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise
discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by
consent. There are ways in which it could be improved, from our
point of view, but they would need to be implemented by people who
don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
The point is Boris was elected to extract the UK from the EU. That
is only controversial to the likes of you. All the other candidates
were considered less trustworthy than Boris.
Are you pleased Boris intends to do nothing about immigration?
Yes.
Boris does not intend to restict it. He's appointed a Home Secretray
who is a daughter of immigrants. Watch out she doesn't open the flood
gates!
Boris is our transitory PM. As long as we have control of the borders
everything else will follow.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
In fact, one intepretation of what he said after being elected could
mean more immigrants.
Just one, is that all? Amongst the thousands of interpretations that
say otherwise.
Post by Pamela
Remember all those posts you made about how Brexit was very important
to you because it would lessen immigration and cause wages for Brits
to rise?
The change has already happened.
We haven't left yet. Post Brexit immigration policy hasn't been passed.
The effect is already felt. The workshy wouldn't notice.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Only the workshy wouldn't notice. If you worked you might notice your
pay increasing too. Mine has as has my colleagues. It's a way to hang
onto your employees in a fluid employment market. No wonder business
owners don't like Brexit.
Post by Pamela
Well, you can bin them now. lol
Much like your desperate rants can be binned.
You can kiss goodbye to your dream of post-Brexit workers jacking up
their wages by refusing to work for less than high wages because
there's no competition.
I disagree. I have already observed the reduction in immigration into
the workplace. Something workshy parasites wouldn't be aware of.
Post by Pamela
You must be hopping mad at that.
You are so out of touch.
I'm so glad you think you're getting the immigration policies you expected
from Brexit. Boris has not only fooled you but made you a happy fool.
JNugent
2019-07-28 19:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do things
that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the
election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would need
to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at
that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate in
a referendum, on 31st October this year.

So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't.

So what was it?
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's confirmed as
PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there.

You are mistaking the replacement of one party leader by another for a
General Election. They are not the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or
Gordon Brown.
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand?

You need to be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can
conclude that policy has changed.
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers expect to be
implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an acceptable
deal isn't available, without one at all.

There... that wasn't difficult.
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Pamela
2019-07-28 22:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do
things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before
the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would
need to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one
at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate in
a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's confirmed
as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement of
one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not the
same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference and
have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to slyly foist
upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party members) voted for.
Boris is a slippery one alright.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to be
clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude that
policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers expect
to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one example,
Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and there are 77
million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an acceptable
deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that wasn't
difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even know, as
I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know what changes he
wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state them.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed issue
in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical proposal when
he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of being elected. He's
clearly a con man, even to his backers.
JNugent
2019-07-29 01:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or even
all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly* do
things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed before
the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs are
fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many countries
get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There are ways in
which it could be improved, from our point of view, but they would
need to be implemented by people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one
at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate in
a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's confirmed
as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement of
one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not the
same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference and
have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to slyly foist
upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party members) voted for.
Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.

Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and (say)
Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to be
clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude that
policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers expect
to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one example,
Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and there are 77
million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an acceptable
deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that wasn't
difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even know, as
I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know what changes he
wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed issue
in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical proposal when
he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of being elected. He's
clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Pamela
2019-07-29 08:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly*
do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed
before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs
are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many
countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There
are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of view, but
they would need to be implemented by people who don't hold our point
of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one
at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate
in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's
confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement of
one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not the
same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference and
have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to slyly
foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party members)
voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and (say)
Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to be
clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude that
policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one example,
Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and there are 77
million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even know,
as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know what
changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in what
was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not explicitly
mentioned on the ballot paper? lol

Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.

I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
JNugent
2019-07-29 14:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in
North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will *certainly*
do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise discussed
before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs
are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many
countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent. There
are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of view, but
they would need to be implemented by people who don't hold our point
of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial one
at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate
in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a thorough
airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after he's
confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement of
one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not the
same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference and
have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to slyly
foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party members)
voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and (say)
Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to be
clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude that
policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one example,
Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and there are 77
million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even know,
as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know what
changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in what
was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not explicitly
mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.

I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).

What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably arises
directly from your unsupported claims.

So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Pamela
2019-07-29 16:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things
in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will
*certainly* do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise
discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs
are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many
countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent.
There are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of
view, but they would need to be implemented by people who don't
hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate
in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a
thorough airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after
he's confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected
policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement
of one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not
the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference
and have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to
slyly foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party
members) voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and
(say) Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to
be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude
that policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one
example, Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and
there are 77 million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even
know, as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know
what changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state
them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in
what was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not explicitly
mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.
I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).
What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably arises
directly from your unsupported claims.
So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Your question is entirely tangential to what I was discussing. I said
Boris has declared he intends to change immigration policy without having
mewntioned it during the leadership campaign and despite to being contrary
to what Brexit was expetced to deliver. He also sprung a number of other
undeclared policies on us.

Questions about where did the question appear on the ballot form are
irrelevant. The key drivers of the entire referendum campaign were
immigration and economic benefits. It looks like neither will be
delivered now.

No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants
already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
JNugent
2019-07-29 23:19:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do things
in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a General
Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC can do
absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement some or
even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will
*certainly* do things that were not in its manifesto nor otherwise
discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast. MPs
are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in many
countries get, but it's a long way from government by consent.
There are ways in which it could be improved, from our point of
view, but they would need to be implemented by people who don't
hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that he
would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the electorate
in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden" it
certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a
thorough airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after
he's confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected
policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the replacement
of one party leader by another for a General Election. They are not
the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference
and have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to
slyly foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party
members) voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and
(say) Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome more
immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to
be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude
that policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't remember
that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one
example, Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and
there are 77 million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even
know, as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know
what changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please state
them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in
what was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not explicitly
mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.
I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).
What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably arises
directly from your unsupported claims.
So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Your question is entirely tangential to what I was discussing.
Does that mean that there was no referendum question on immigration?
Post by Pamela
I said
Boris has declared he intends to change immigration policy without having
mewntioned it during the leadership campaign and despite to being contrary
to what Brexit was expetced to deliver. He also sprung a number of other
undeclared policies on us.
Please explain and elucidate.

What changes?
Post by Pamela
Questions about where did the question appear on the ballot form are
irrelevant.
Not if - as you did - one says that the referendum was about immigration.
Post by Pamela
The key drivers of the entire referendum campaign were
immigration
In that case, what was the referendum question on immigration?

What was the voting outcome on that question?
Post by Pamela
and economic benefits. It looks like neither will be
delivered now.
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants
already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the basis
of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now been -
allegedly - "broken"?

How do you break a promise you haven't made, again?
Pamela
2019-07-31 12:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do
things in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a
General Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC
can do absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement
some or even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will
*certainly* do things that were not in its manifesto nor
otherwise discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by
consent. There are ways in which it could be improved, from our
point of view, but they would need to be implemented by people
who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that
he would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the
electorate in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden"
it certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a
thorough airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after
he's confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected
policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the
replacement of one party leader by another for a General Election.
They are not the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference
and have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to
slyly foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party
members) voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and
(say) Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome
more immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to
be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude
that policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't
remember that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one
example, Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and
there are 77 million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even
know, as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know
what changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please
state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in
what was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not
explicitly mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.
I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).
What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably arises
directly from your unsupported claims.
So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Your question is entirely tangential to what I was discussing.
Does that mean that there was no referendum question on immigration?
Post by Pamela
I said Boris has declared he intends to change immigration policy
without having mewntioned it during the leadership campaign and despite
to being contrary to what Brexit was expected to deliver. He also
sprung a number of other undeclared policies on us.
Please explain and elucidate.
What changes?
Post by Pamela
Questions about where did the question appear on the ballot form are
irrelevant.
Not if - as you did - one says that the referendum was about
immigration.
Post by Pamela
The key drivers of the entire referendum campaign were immigration
In that case, what was the referendum question on immigration?
What was the voting outcome on that question?
Post by Pamela
and economic benefits. It looks like neither will be delivered now.
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants
already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the basis
of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now been -
allegedly - "broken"?
How do you break a promise you haven't made, again?
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected by a
different route than a PM in a general election which meant he did not
have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my very point?
I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then thought you needed
to explain your insight to me.

Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty eight
hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing policies
which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary to what he and
almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum campaign. This is
immigration.

I can't accept the premise of your question that all claims and
expectations in the referendum campaign had to be written on the ballot
paper.

There may have been a lot of woolliness in the campaign about some of the
benefits of Brexit but there was no woolliness at all about the benefit of
curbing immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of Brexit, whether or
not it was written on the ballot paper.

The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but with
Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign Boris alluded
to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but now all of a sudden
he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's Breaking Point poster gave
the clear impression to Brexiteers of the beenfit of reduced immigration.
How strange didn't Boris correct any voter misapprehension about this in
his Tory leadership campaign.
JNugent
2019-07-31 13:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do
things in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a
General Election, a party which has gained a majority in the HoC
can do absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to implement
some or even all of its manifesto promises, it may not. It will
*certainly* do things that were not in its manifesto nor
otherwise discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by
consent. There are ways in which it could be improved, from our
point of view, but they would need to be implemented by people
who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly controversial
one at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that
he would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the
electorate in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden"
it certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a
thorough airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours after
he's confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of unexpected
policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the
replacement of one party leader by another for a General Election.
They are not the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the difference
and have pointed out how the democratic deficit has been used to
slyly foist upon the country policies no one (not even Tory party
members) voted for. Boris is a slippery one alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader and
another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and
(say) Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome
more immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need to
be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can conclude
that policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which Leavers
expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't
remember that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one
example, Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU and
there are 77 million Turks which he warned could come to Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There... that
wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even
know, as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you know
what changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then please
state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently discussed
issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear his radical
proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced it with days of
being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all in
what was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not
explicitly mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.
I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).
What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point poster?
Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's welcome to
refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably arises
directly from your unsupported claims.
So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Your question is entirely tangential to what I was discussing.
Does that mean that there was no referendum question on immigration?
No answer ventured on that?

I wonder why.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
I said Boris has declared he intends to change immigration policy
without having mewntioned it during the leadership campaign and despite
to being contrary to what Brexit was expected to deliver. He also
sprung a number of other undeclared policies on us.
Please explain and elucidate.
What changes?
Post by Pamela
Questions about where did the question appear on the ballot form are
irrelevant.
Not if - as you did - one says that the referendum was about
immigration.
Post by Pamela
The key drivers of the entire referendum campaign were immigration
In that case, what was the referendum question on immigration?
What was the voting outcome on that question?
And no answer there, either.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
and economic benefits. It looks like neither will be delivered now.
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants
already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the basis
of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now been -
allegedly - "broken"?
How do you break a promise you haven't made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either.
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected by a
different route than a PM in a general election which meant he did not
have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my very point?
I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then thought you needed
to explain your insight to me.
So let's recap on what you have said:

(a) Boris didn't make any promises on immigration because he was elected
in a forum where a manifesto and electoral pledges were not required;

(b) he has broken a pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty eight
hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing policies
which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary to what he and
almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum campaign. This is
immigration.
I can't accept the premise of your question that all claims and
expectations in the referendum campaign had to be written on the ballot
paper.
There may have been a lot of woolliness in the campaign about some of the
benefits of Brexit but there was no woolliness at all about the benefit of
curbing immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of Brexit, whether or
not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but with
Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign Boris alluded
to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but now all of a sudden
he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's Breaking Point poster gave
the clear impression to Brexiteers of the beenfit of reduced immigration.
How strange didn't Boris correct any voter misapprehension about this in
his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Pamela
2019-07-31 22:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 18:54:50 +0100 Pamela
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished
undiscussed and unelected policies. It's the way they do
things in North Korea. Roll on the election.
As I pointed out, it's the way we do it here also. After a
General Election, a party which has gained a majority in the
HoC can do absolutely anything it likes. It may choose to
implement some or even all of its manifesto promises, it may
not. It will *certainly* do things that were not in its
manifesto nor otherwise discussed before the election.
Your democratic power in the UK ends when your ballot is cast.
MPs are fire-and-forget. That's still more say than people in
many countries get, but it's a long way from government by
consent. There are ways in which it could be improved, from
our point of view, but they would need to be implemented by
people who don't hold our point of view.
The point is Boris had a hidden agenda and a highly
controversial one at that.
Boris said during his campaign for election as party leader that
he would seek for the UK to leave the EU, as mandated by the
electorate in a referendum, on 31st October this year.
So it can't be that which you say was "hidden", because "hidden"
it certainly wasn't. So what was it?
We are talking about post-Brexit policies. Not the date of Brexit.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
A party does not get elected in a general election without a
thorough airing of its policies. In Boris's case, 48 hours
after he's confirmed as PM he starts making a stream of
unexpected policies.
There's your problem right there. You are mistaking the
replacement of one party leader by another for a General
Election. They are not the same thing. Ask Jim Callaghan or
Gordon Brown.
I am not mistaking those two. I am acutely aware of the
difference and have pointed out how the democratic deficit has
been used to slyly foist upon the country policies no one (not
even Tory party members) voted for. Boris is a slippery one
alright.
You should expect a difference in approach as between one leader
and another.
Can you now see the difference(s) between (say) Clement Attlee and
(say) Jezza "The IRA Forever" Corbyn?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Did you expect the man voted in to implement Brexit to welcome
more immigrants? What do Brexit voters think of that?
What was the party's policy on immigration beforehand? You need
to be clear about that - and what it is now - before you can
conclude that policy has changed.
Listen to Boris's pledges in the last week. Listen to Priti Patel.
I can't. They're not here. They must be with you. What are they saying?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What will Boris do with other cornerstone policies which
Leavers expect to be implemented?
Which but of the referendum dealt with immigration? I can't
remember that question at all.
You must have slept through the campaign in that case. As one
example, Boris himself said Turkey would soon be joining the EU
and there are 77 million Turks which he warned could come to
Britain.
So what was the referendum question on immigration and how did the
electorate vote on it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
What form of Brexit does he want to implement? Do you know?
We all know. Even you do. Preferably with "a deal", but if an
acceptable deal isn't available, without one at all. There...
that wasn't difficult.
No we don't know what deal Boris is going to get. We don't even
know, as I wrote, what deal Boris is going to aim for. If you
know what changes he wants to make to Theresa May's plan then
please state them.
We don't know what deal the UK will get. Quite right.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
So far, we can see it doesn't contain much about immigration.
Again... which part of the referendum was about immigration?
Immigration was probably the biggest and most frequently
discussed issue in the campaign. Why didn't Boris makes clear
his radical proposal when he was canvassing votes but announced
it with days of being elected. He's clearly a con man, even to
his backers.
So what was the question and what was the vote outcome on that question?
Are you alleging expectations about immigration had no part at all
in what was expected from Brexit because "immigration" was not
explicitly mentioned on the ballot paper? lol
I'm not alleging anything.
I'm asking you a *question* in order to gain some clarity on your
assertions (which have no basis).
What is the answer?
Post by Pamela
Perhaps you have forgotten all the debates and phone-ins during the
campaign. Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's Breaking Point
poster? Perhaps you have forgotten Farage's claim that Merkel's
welcome to refugees is behind the referendum outcome? Etc etc etc.
I enjoy watching you wriggle. :)
I am the one asking a straightforward question which inevitably
arises directly from your unsupported claims.
So once again... what was the referendum question on immigration and
what were the voting figures on it?
Your question is entirely tangential to what I was discussing.
Does that mean that there was no referendum question on immigration?
No answer ventured on that?
I wonder why.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
I said Boris has declared he intends to change immigration policy
without having mewntioned it during the leadership campaign and
despite to being contrary to what Brexit was expected to deliver. He
also sprung a number of other undeclared policies on us.
Please explain and elucidate. What changes?
Post by Pamela
Questions about where did the question appear on the ballot form are
irrelevant.
Not if - as you did - one says that the referendum was about
immigration.
Post by Pamela
The key drivers of the entire referendum campaign were immigration
In that case, what was the referendum question on immigration? What
was the voting outcome on that question?
And no answer there, either.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
and economic benefits. It looks like neither will be delivered now.
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal
immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now
been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you haven't
made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either.
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected by
a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he did
not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my very
point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then thought
you needed to explain your insight to me.
(a) Boris didn't make any promises on immigration because he was elected
in a forum where a manifesto and electoral pledges were not required;
(b) he has broken a pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.

Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you personally
want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by trying to tell
me you big insight was that Boris became party leader by a different route
and with different disclosure requirements that for a PM in a general
election -- after I had just said exactly that. Duh!

Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.

Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a hidden
agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in findng
someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary to
what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum campaign.
This is immigration.
I can't accept the premise of your question that all claims and
expectations in the referendum campaign had to be written on the ballot
paper.
There may have been a lot of woolliness in the campaign about some of
the benefits of Brexit but there was no woolliness at all about the
benefit of curbing immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of
Brexit, whether or not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but
with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign Boris
alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but now all of
a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's Breaking Point
poster gave the clear impression to Brexiteers of the beenfit of
reduced immigration. How strange didn't Boris correct any voter
misapprehension about this in his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful to
many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
JNugent
2019-08-01 00:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal
immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now
been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you haven't
made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either.
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected by
a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he did
not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my very
point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then thought
you needed to explain your insight to me.
(a) Boris didn't make any promises on immigration because he was elected
in a forum where a manifesto and electoral pledges were not required;
(b) he has broken a pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.
Ah... a slight change in your position... now you are miffed that Boris
didn't make enough promises that he could later be accused of breaking.

Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you personally
want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by trying to tell
me you big insight was that Boris became party leader by a different route
and with different disclosure requirements that for a PM in a general
election -- after I had just said exactly that. Duh!
Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.
Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a hidden
agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in findng
someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
So anyone who fails to make promises has a hidden agenda.

Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary to
what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum campaign.
This is immigration.
I can't accept the premise of your question that all claims and
expectations in the referendum campaign had to be written on the ballot
paper.
There may have been a lot of woolliness in the campaign about some of
the benefits of Brexit but there was no woolliness at all about the
benefit of curbing immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of
Brexit, whether or not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
No attempt at an answer. Not surprising given the foregoing, of course.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but
with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign Boris
alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but now all of
a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's Breaking Point
poster gave the clear impression to Brexiteers of the beenfit of
reduced immigration. How strange didn't Boris correct any voter
misapprehension about this in his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful to
many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?

Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.

In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
Pamela
2019-08-01 06:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal
immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now
been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you haven't
made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either. Instead, we are given an attempt
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected
by a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he
did not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my
very point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then
thought you needed to explain your insight to me.
So let's recap on what you have said: (a) Boris didn't make any
promises on immigration because he was elected in a forum where a
manifesto and electoral pledges were not required; (b) he has broken a
pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.
Ah... a slight change in your position... now you are miffed that Boris
didn't make enough promises that he could later be accused of breaking.
Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you
personally want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by
trying to tell me you big insight was that Boris became party leader by
a different route and with different disclosure requirements that for a
PM in a general election -- after I had just said exactly that. Duh!
Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.
Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a
hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in
findng someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
So anyone who fails to make promises has a hidden agenda.
Got it. Thanks.
Even now you don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. Didn't I
express it clearly enough for you that Boris has a hidden agenda and
revealled it 48 hours after being appointed? I think there's some cognitve
problem there, as I have repeated that poit for your benefit seevral
timesalready.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary
to what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum
campaign. This is immigration. I can't accept the premise of your
question that all claims and expectations in the referendum campaign
had to be written on the ballot paper. There may have been a lot of
woolliness in the campaign about some of the benefits of Brexit but
there was no woolliness at all about the benefit of curbing
immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of Brexit, whether or
not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
No attempt at an answer. Not surprising given the foregoing, of course.
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but
with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign
Boris alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but
now all of a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's
Breaking Point poster gave the clear impression to Brexiteers of the
beenfit of reduced immigration. How strange didn't Boris correct any
voter misapprehension about this in his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful to
many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?
Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.
In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it contained highly
contentious policies. I'm pleased you're finally closer to understanding
what I wrote although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought
of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.

No wonder there is no a petition from anti-immigration supporters who are
against Boris's talk of an amnesty. Although that's simple enough you might
want to run your comprehension by a candidate assistant in case you're having
trouble but don't realise it. Age-related cognitive problems are notorious
for a lack of insight.
Roger
2019-08-01 06:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal
immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now
been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you haven't
made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either. Instead, we are given an attempt
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected
by a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he
did not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my
very point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then
thought you needed to explain your insight to me.
So let's recap on what you have said: (a) Boris didn't make any
promises on immigration because he was elected in a forum where a
manifesto and electoral pledges were not required; (b) he has broken a
pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.
Ah... a slight change in your position... now you are miffed that Boris
didn't make enough promises that he could later be accused of breaking.
Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you
personally want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by
trying to tell me you big insight was that Boris became party leader by
a different route and with different disclosure requirements that for a
PM in a general election -- after I had just said exactly that. Duh!
Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.
Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a
hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in
findng someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
So anyone who fails to make promises has a hidden agenda.
Got it. Thanks.
Even now you don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. Didn't I
express it clearly enough for you that Boris has a hidden agenda and
revealled it 48 hours after being appointed? I think there's some cognitve
problem there, as I have repeated that poit for your benefit seevral
timesalready.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary
to what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum
campaign. This is immigration. I can't accept the premise of your
question that all claims and expectations in the referendum campaign
had to be written on the ballot paper. There may have been a lot of
woolliness in the campaign about some of the benefits of Brexit but
there was no woolliness at all about the benefit of curbing
immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of Brexit, whether or
not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
No attempt at an answer. Not surprising given the foregoing, of course.
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but
with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign
Boris alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but
now all of a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's
Breaking Point poster gave the clear impression to Brexiteers of the
beenfit of reduced immigration. How strange didn't Boris correct any
voter misapprehension about this in his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful to
many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?
Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.
In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it contained highly
contentious policies. I'm pleased you're finally closer to understanding
what I wrote although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought
of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
No wonder there is no a petition from anti-immigration supporters who are
against Boris's talk of an amnesty. Although that's simple enough you might
want to run your comprehension by a candidate assistant in case you're having
trouble but don't realise it. Age-related cognitive problems are notorious
for a lack of insight.
Another boring thread that gnaws on.....

Two fundamental points:

1) BJ's policies do not differ much from the 2016 campaign, in fact it appears he would be happy to accept May's deal Vertabim as long as there is no backstop. The conservatives do not and never have pledged to send immigrants home (nor has the Brexit party or UKIP come to that); Their post Brexit immigration policy proposes applying the same rules to all people irrespective of their origin....something I find far less rascist than current EU policy ;-)

2) Potential Conservative party leaders are selected by the MP's; this is to ensure they will have the MP's support, which is pretty fundamental for a UK PM. The party members only got to choose between the 2 shortlisted ones.
JNugent
2019-08-01 10:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to Boris's
additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000 illegal
immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has now
been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you haven't
made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either. Instead, we are given an attempt
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected
by a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he
did not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my
very point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then
thought you needed to explain your insight to me.
So let's recap on what you have said: (a) Boris didn't make any
promises on immigration because he was elected in a forum where a
manifesto and electoral pledges were not required; (b) he has broken a
pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.
Ah... a slight change in your position... now you are miffed that Boris
didn't make enough promises that he could later be accused of breaking.
Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you
personally want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by
trying to tell me you big insight was that Boris became party leader by
a different route and with different disclosure requirements that for a
PM in a general election -- after I had just said exactly that. Duh!
Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.
Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a
hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in
findng someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
So anyone who fails to make promises has a hidden agenda.
Got it. Thanks.
Even now you don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. Didn't I
express it clearly enough for you that Boris has a hidden agenda and
revealled it 48 hours after being appointed? I think there's some cognitve
problem there, as I have repeated that poit for your benefit seevral
timesalready.
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?

What is your "evidence" for it?
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is contrary
to what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the referendum
campaign. This is immigration. I can't accept the premise of your
question that all claims and expectations in the referendum campaign
had to be written on the ballot paper. There may have been a lot of
woolliness in the campaign about some of the benefits of Brexit but
there was no woolliness at all about the benefit of curbing
immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of Brexit, whether or
not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
No attempt at an answer. Not surprising given the foregoing, of course.
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not but
with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the campaign
Boris alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million Turks but
now all of a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly, Farage's
Breaking Point poster gave the clear impression to Brexiteers of the
beenfit of reduced immigration. How strange didn't Boris correct any
voter misapprehension about this in his Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful to
many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?
Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.
In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it contained highly
contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what those
agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for it.
Post by Pamela
I'm pleased you're finally closer to understanding
what I wrote although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought
of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no a petition from anti-immigration supporters who are
against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
Post by Pamela
Although that's simple enough you might
want to run your comprehension by a candidate assistant in case you're having
trouble but don't realise it. Age-related cognitive problems are notorious
for a lack of insight.
Pamela
2019-08-01 11:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder Brexiteers are at the forefront of opposition to
Boris's additional policy of declaring an amnesty to 500,000
illegal immigrants already in the UK. They feel swizzed.
They feel "swizzed" because a promise that was never made, on the
basis of a question that was never asked and never answered, has
now been - allegedly - "broken"? How do you break a promise you
haven't made, again?
No answer attempted to that, either. Instead, we are given an
Post by Pamela
You goofed by ever so sincerely pointing out that Boris was elected
by a different route than a PM in a general election which meant he
did not have a manifesto or make electoral pledges. Wasn't that my
very point? I'm not sure how you missed it in what I wrote and then
thought you needed to explain your insight to me.
So let's recap on what you have said: (a) Boris didn't make any
promises on immigration because he was elected in a forum where a
manifesto and electoral pledges were not required; (b) he has broken
a pledge, or pledges, that he didnt make.
Those are irrelevant to the discussion which centres around how Boris
failed to make clear his position.
Ah... a slight change in your position... now you are miffed that
Boris didn't make enough promises that he could later be accused of
breaking.
Got it. Thanks.
Post by Pamela
Have you been following this thread at all or is it that you are
desperately trying to drag this discussion to another topic you
personally want to discuss but which it is not about. You goofed by
trying to tell me you big insight was that Boris became party leader
by a different route and with different disclosure requirements that
for a PM in a general election -- after I had just said exactly that.
Duh!
Why not ask your doctor for an increase in your Aricept. Maybe also
something to prevent increasingly frequent narcolepsy.
Remind your failing memory that I wrote, "The point is Boris had a
hidden agenda and a highly controversial one at that". Good luck in
findng someone who wants to talk about the wording on the ballot paper!
So anyone who fails to make promises has a hidden agenda.
Got it. Thanks.
Even now you don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. Didn't
I express it clearly enough for you that Boris has a hidden agenda and
revealled it 48 hours after being appointed? I think there's some
cognitve problem there, as I have repeated that poit for your benefit
seevral timesalready.
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden agenda in
the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial evidence
surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Boris was made PM without hinting at his imminent policies. Forty
eight hours after being appointed leader Boris unveils his amazing
policies which he's been carefully hiding and one policy is
contrary to what he and almost all Leavers stood for in the
referendum campaign. This is immigration. I can't accept the
premise of your question that all claims and expectations in the
referendum campaign had to be written on the ballot paper. There
may have been a lot of woolliness in the campaign about some of the
benefits of Brexit but there was no woolliness at all about the
benefit of curbing immigration. It was a cornerstone objective of
Brexit, whether or not it was written on the ballot paper.
Quote the manifesto pledge or other promise which proves that, please.
No attempt at an answer. Not surprising given the foregoing, of course.
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
The whole issue is not about what the referendum mandates or not
but with Boris's shiftiness. Regarding immigration, in the
campaign Boris alluded to the threat of an invasion of 77 million
Turks but now all of a sudden he welcomes immigration. Similarly,
Farage's Breaking Point poster gave the clear impression to
Brexiteers of the beenfit of reduced immigration. How strange
didn't Boris correct any voter misapprehension about this in his
Tory leadership campaign.
See just above that last paragraph.
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful
to many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?
Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.
In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it contained
highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what those
agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for it.
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can bring
yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.

Until then perhaps you could avoid presenting me with some
counter-argument which is exactly what I observed in my post.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration supporters
who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed and
can use Google without guidance.

https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Although that's simple enough you might want to run your comprehension
by a candidate assistant in case you're having trouble but don't
realise it. Age-related cognitive problems are notorious for a lack of
insight.
JNugent
2019-08-01 11:34:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden agenda in
the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial evidence
surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves your
thesis?

Interesting...

...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.

[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later Boris
comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately hid his
leadership policies as he would have known they would be distasteful
to many and might even have prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to?
Boris was right out in front from the start of the electoral process
(with ten candidates) up to the near-end of it (with two candidates).
Maybe he could have promised anything within reason. But he obviously
didn't make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you.
In that, he is a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are
right out unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it contained
highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what those
agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can bring
yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is
rather a lot to ask.

It sounds more like an article of faith (on your part), doesn't it?
Post by Pamela
Until then perhaps you could avoid presenting me with some
counter-argument which is exactly what I observed in my post.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration supporters
who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed and
can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for which
there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris and would
prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as their leader.

It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more difficult
to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more classic line
that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about things for which
there is no evidence.

On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which there
is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda".

I hope I haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said,
isn't it?
Pamela
2019-08-01 17:33:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden agenda
in the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial evidence
surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves your
thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately
hid his leadership policies as he would have known they would be
distasteful to many and might even have prevented his current
appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front from
the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up to the
near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have promised
anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make enough promises
/ pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man after my own heart.
In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be more specific than a
general "maybe" and promises are right out unless I know (not just
hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for
it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can bring
yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is
rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
Post by JNugent
It sounds more like an article of faith (on your part), doesn't it?
Post by Pamela
Until then perhaps you could avoid presenting me with some
counter-argument which is exactly what I observed in my post.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration supporters
who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed and
can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for which
there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris and would
prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more difficult
to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more classic line
that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about things for which
there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda. You won't get far
with such notions when looking for hidden motives. To see this better,
try and think outside the box you have made yourself too comfortable in.
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which there
is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda".
I hope I haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said,
isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his policies
would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious. It is shameful
he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party leader, to discuss with
the public and with the Tory party membership what he intended to do.
JNugent
2019-08-02 10:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden agenda
in the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial evidence
surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves your
thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He deliberately
hid his leadership policies as he would have known they would be
distasteful to many and might even have prevented his current
appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front from
the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up to the
near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have promised
anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make enough promises
/ pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man after my own heart.
In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be more specific than a
general "maybe" and promises are right out unless I know (not just
hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for
it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can bring
yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is
rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden" documents,
policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such things (or some
of them, depending on which day it is) exist.

See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to reveal
his hidden agenda...".

[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration supporters
who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed and
can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for which
there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris and would
prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more difficult
to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more classic line
that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about things for which
there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far
with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better,
try and think outside the box you have made yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood to
accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which there
is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda".
I hope I haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said,
isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his policies
would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious. It is shameful
he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party leader, to discuss with
the public and with the Tory party membership what he intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda, despite
there being no evidence for such a thing.
Pamela
2019-08-02 12:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden
agenda in the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial
evidence surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and
clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves your
thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He
deliberately hid his leadership policies as he would have known
they would be distasteful to many and might even have prevented
his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front
from the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up
to the near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have
promised anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make
enough promises / pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man
after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be
more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are right out
unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for
it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can
bring yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is
rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden" documents,
policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such things (or some
of them, depending on which day it is) exist.
See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to reveal
his hidden agenda...".
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration
supporters who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed
and can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for
which there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris
and would prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as
their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more difficult
to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more classic line
that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about things for
which there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better, try and think outside the box you have made
yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood to
accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which there
is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda". I hope I haven't
traduced your position. But that is what you said, isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his policies
would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious. It is
shameful he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party leader, to
discuss with the public and with the Tory party membership what he
intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda, despite
there being no evidence for such a thing.
An "agenda" is a term used for what some is planning and does not always
necessarily imply a hard docuent such as may be prepared to a board
meeting. It is commonly used like this in English. If you are struggling
with the idea then why not ask a native speaker to confirm this. Asking
for only a physical document proves you're an idiot.

Ipso facto there was an agenda because Boris revealed his thought-through
policies in the days after Boris's appointment.

Equally ipso facto it was hidden because the public did not know if it.
And yet it existed at a time when was important for them to know.

What's your point, if you have one?
JNugent
2019-08-02 16:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden
agenda in the first place. Did you get that bit? The circumstantial
evidence surrounding the existence of hidden intentions is loud and
clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves your
thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He
deliberately hid his leadership policies as he would have known
they would be distasteful to many and might even have prevented
his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front
from the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up
to the near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have
promised anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make
enough promises / pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man
after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be
more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are right out
unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence for
it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought of
getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can
bring yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is
rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden" documents,
policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such things (or some
of them, depending on which day it is) exist.
See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to reveal
his hidden agenda...".
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration
supporters who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed
and can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for
which there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris
and would prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as
their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more difficult
to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more classic line
that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about things for
which there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better, try and think outside the box you have made
yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood to
accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which there
is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda". I hope I haven't
traduced your position. But that is what you said, isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his policies
would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious. It is
shameful he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party leader, to
discuss with the public and with the Tory party membership what he
intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda, despite
there being no evidence for such a thing.
An "agenda" is a term used for what some is planning and does not always
necessarily imply a hard docuent such as may be prepared to a board
meeting. It is commonly used like this in English. If you are struggling
with the idea then why not ask a native speaker to confirm this. Asking
for only a physical document proves you're an idiot.
Ipso facto there was an agenda because Boris revealed his thought-through
policies in the days after Boris's appointment.
Do you know what "an agenda" actually is?

It seems not.
Post by Pamela
Equally ipso facto it was hidden because the public did not know if it.
And yet it existed at a time when was important for them to know.
What's your point, if you have one?
My point is that there is no evidence of any hidden plan, policy or agenda.

And you are quite unable to show that there is one, aren't you?

But, for reasons best known to yourself and yourself only, you take your
own inability to find any evidence as the the most solid evidence you
could possibly have found.
Pamela
2019-08-02 17:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden
agenda in the first place. Did you get that bit? The
circumstantial evidence surrounding the existence of hidden
intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves
your thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He
deliberately hid his leadership policies as he would have known
they would be distasteful to many and might even have prevented
his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front
from the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up
to the near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have
promised anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make
enough promises / pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man
after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be
more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are right out
unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence
for it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought
of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can
bring yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence
is rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden"
documents, policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such
things (or some of them, depending on which day it is) exist.
See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to
reveal his hidden agenda...".
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration
supporters who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed
and can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for
which there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris
and would prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as
their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more
difficult to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more
classic line that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about
things for which there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better, try and think outside the box you have made
yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood
to accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which
there is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda". I hope I
haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said, isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his
policies would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious.
It is shameful he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party
leader, to discuss with the public and with the Tory party membership
what he intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda, despite
there being no evidence for such a thing.
An "agenda" is a term used for what some is planning and does not
always necessarily imply a hard docuent such as may be prepared to a
board meeting. It is commonly used like this in English. If you are
struggling with the idea then why not ask a native speaker to confirm
this. Asking for only a physical document proves you're an idiot.
Ipso facto there was an agenda because Boris revealed his
thought-through policies in the days after Boris's appointment.
Do you know what "an agenda" actually is?
It seems not.
"Agenda" is used in many ways. Physically and metaphorically. You did
cover metaphors at school didn't you?

The way I am using it is perfectly clear. It's the use typical of much
political commentary. If you so happen to think this is a discussion
about a company board meeting then I suggest you check the context
carefully.

It's your responsibility to deal with any intrusive alternative
definitions which pop into your mind when they don't fit the situation.
Please deal with it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Equally ipso facto it was hidden because the public did not know if it.
And yet it existed at a time when was important for them to know.
What's your point, if you have one?
My point is that there is no evidence of any hidden plan, policy or
agenda. And you are quite unable to show that there is one, aren't you?
But, for reasons best known to yourself and yourself only, you take your
own inability to find any evidence as the most solid evidence you
could possibly have found.
Your self-appointed arbitership of a situation in which you demand proofs
shows how self-important you see yourself. You entered this discussion by
a goofy explanation of what I had already just stated. Then you tried to
reply on an inappropriate definition of "agenda" to try and draw attention
from your mistake.

Sorry to have to expose you. You're not acting smart, you're acting like
an idiot trying to cover up his mistake.

Sadly that has become a hallmark of how you backpedal from embarrassing
situations you have put yourself in. You do it so often that it's become
all too obvious.
JNugent
2019-08-03 11:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden
agenda in the first place. Did you get that bit? The
circumstantial evidence surrounding the existence of hidden
intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves
your thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years later
Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He
deliberately hid his leadership policies as he would have known
they would be distasteful to many and might even have prevented
his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front
from the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates) up
to the near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could have
promised anything within reason. But he obviously didn't make
enough promises / pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is a man
after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very reluctant to be
more specific than a general "maybe" and promises are right out
unless I know (not just hope) that I can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state what
those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided evidence
for it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you thought
of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can
bring yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence
is rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden"
documents, policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such
things (or some of them, depending on which day it is) exist.
See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to
reveal his hidden agenda...".
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration
supporters who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to speed
and can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for
which there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate Boris
and would prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler, as
their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more
difficult to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more
classic line that it's better not to trouble yourself too much about
things for which there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better, try and think outside the box you have made
yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood
to accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which
there is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda". I hope I
haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said, isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his
policies would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious.
It is shameful he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party
leader, to discuss with the public and with the Tory party membership
what he intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda, despite
there being no evidence for such a thing.
An "agenda" is a term used for what some is planning and does not
always necessarily imply a hard docuent such as may be prepared to a
board meeting. It is commonly used like this in English. If you are
struggling with the idea then why not ask a native speaker to confirm
this. Asking for only a physical document proves you're an idiot.
Ipso facto there was an agenda because Boris revealed his
thought-through policies in the days after Boris's appointment.
Do you know what "an agenda" actually is?
It seems not.
"Agenda" is used in many ways. Physically and metaphorically. You did
cover metaphors at school didn't you?
So you were never actually claiming that there was an agenda, hidden ot
otherwise?

That's a shift. See below.
Post by Pamela
The way I am using it is perfectly clear. It's the use typical of much
political commentary. If you so happen to think this is a discussion
about a company board meeting then I suggest you check the context
carefully.
It's your responsibility to deal with any intrusive alternative
definitions which pop into your mind when they don't fit the situation.
Please deal with it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Equally ipso facto it was hidden because the public did not know if it.
And yet it existed at a time when was important for them to know.
What's your point, if you have one?
****************
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
My point is that there is no evidence of any hidden plan, policy or
agenda. And you are quite unable to show that there is one, aren't you?
But, for reasons best known to yourself and yourself only, you take your
own inability to find any evidence as the most solid evidence you
could possibly have found.
***************
Post by Pamela
Your self-appointed arbitership of a situation in which you demand proofs
shows how self-important you see yourself. You entered this discussion by
a goofy explanation of what I had already just stated. Then you tried to
reply on an inappropriate definition of "agenda" to try and draw attention
from your mistake.
There is nothing arbitrary about pointing out that you are unable to
show / prove your thesis.

You claim that there is a hidden agenda / plan / policy. Because you
cannot prove that, your further claim is that the very non-existence of
it is proof that it exists.

I have no title to any land or structure other than my house, but I
could sell you a landmark structure in Central London, cheap.

My lack of documented title to it only proves that I own it right?
Post by Pamela
Sorry to have to expose you. You're not acting smart, you're acting like
an idiot trying to cover up his mistake.
I have made no mistake on this issue. You claim that something exists. I
point out that it doesn't and that you have no evidence for your claim.
You then claim that the lack of evidence only proves your claim further.
Post by Pamela
Sadly that has become a hallmark of how you backpedal from embarrassing
situations you have put yourself in. You do it so often that it's become
all too obvious.
Embarrassing to point out that your claim is unfounded?

Are you not even slightly embarrassed to have been reduced to asserting
that the lack of evidence for your claim(s) is proof that you are right?
Pamela
2019-08-03 13:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
What is this alleged "hidden agenda"?
What is your "evidence" for it?
Don't be silly, it's hidden of course. Thats why it's a hidden
agenda in the first place. Did you get that bit? The
circumstantial evidence surrounding the existence of hidden
intentions is loud and clear.
So the fact that you cannot find evidence for your thesis proves
your thesis?
Interesting...
...and so useful in lots of fields, of course.
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Brexit, in general, fooled half the public. Then 3 years
later Boris comes and swap-sells even that. For shame. He
deliberately hid his leadership policies as he would have
known they would be distasteful to many and might even have
prevented his current appointment.
Who are this "many" you refer to? Boris was right out in front
from the start of the electoral process (with ten candidates)
up to the near-end of it (with two candidates). Maybe he could
have promised anything within reason. But he obviously didn't
make enough promises / pledges to satisfy you. In that, he is
a man after my own heart. In everyday life, I am very
reluctant to be more specific than a general "maybe" and
promises are right out unless I know (not just hope) that I
can keep them.
That's right, Boris failed to reveal his hidden agenda as it
contained highly contentious policies.
If that were true, you'd have been able and willing to state
what those agenda items allegedly are. And to have provided
evidence for it.
Oh yes... of course... there's no evidence of it and that only
reinforces your belief in it.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
although it takes several attempts on my part. Have you
thought of getting an assistant to help when you get stuck like
this.
Have yopu thought of expressing yourself clearly first time?
I assume a basic level of intelligence in my readers. If you can
bring yourself up to that you'll have no trouble.
Belief in the existence of something for which there is no
evidence is rather a lot to ask.
The world is not an open book for cynics to go round demanding the
production of hidden documents until they are finally satisfied.
I am demanding nothing. I allege the existene of NO "hidden"
documents, policies or agenda. It is YOU who is arguing that such
things (or some of them, depending on which day it is) exist.
See, for instance, your having written above: "...Boris failed to
reveal his hidden agenda...".
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
No wonder there is no(w) a petition from anti-immigration
supporters who are against Boris's talk of an amnesty.
Ah... is that a policy? An "agenda"? If so, where can it be found?
This will help find the petition until you get yourself up to
speed and can use Google without guidance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=petition+boris+migration
I take no particular position on the existence of uninformed
"opposition" to a policy attributed to the Prime Minister but for
which there is no evidence. There are lots of people who hate
Boris and would prefer Jezza, or even Genghis Khan or Vlad the
Impaler, as their leader.
It's the existence of the policy itself which is rather more
difficult to "believe in", perhaps because I take the rather more
classic line that it's better not to trouble yourself too much
about things for which there is no evidence.
It's you who claim it's a policy or a literal agenda.
Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite: there is and was no
hidden agenda.
Post by Pamela
You won't get far with such notions when looking for hidden motives.
No-one ever gets far when looking for things that dont exist.
Post by Pamela
To see this better, try and think outside the box you have made
yourself too comfortable in.
That's a hard thing to ask. I have been familiarised since childhood
to accept that you cannot and will not find that which does not exist.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
On the other hand, you prefer to believe that anything for which
there is no evidence has to be seen as a "hidden agenda". I hope I
haven't traduced your position. But that is what you said, isn't it?
Boris knew more than 48 hours before his announcement what his
policies would be but kept them hidden as they were so contentious.
It is shameful he wasn't honest enough before he was voted party
leader, to discuss with the public and with the Tory party
membership what he intended to do.
So you agree that you did say that there was a hidden agenda,
despite there being no evidence for such a thing.
An "agenda" is a term used for what some is planning and does not
always necessarily imply a hard docuent such as may be prepared to a
board meeting. It is commonly used like this in English. If you are
struggling with the idea then why not ask a native speaker to confirm
this. Asking for only a physical document proves you're an idiot.
Ipso facto there was an agenda because Boris revealed his
thought-through policies in the days after Boris's appointment.
Do you know what "an agenda" actually is? It seems not.
"Agenda" is used in many ways. Physically and metaphorically. You did
cover metaphors at school didn't you?
So you were never actually claiming that there was an agenda, hidden ot
otherwise?
That's a shift. See below.
Post by Pamela
The way I am using it is perfectly clear. It's the use typical of much
political commentary. If you so happen to think this is a discussion
about a company board meeting then I suggest you check the context
carefully.
It's your responsibility to deal with any intrusive alternative
definitions which pop into your mind when they don't fit the situation.
Please deal with it.
Post by Pamela
Equally ipso facto it was hidden because the public did not know if
it. And yet it existed at a time when was important for them to know.
What's your point, if you have one?
****************
Post by Pamela
My point is that there is no evidence of any hidden plan, policy or
agenda. And you are quite unable to show that there is one, aren't
you? But, for reasons best known to yourself and yourself only, you
take your own inability to find any evidence as the most solid
evidence you could possibly have found.
***************
Post by Pamela
Your self-appointed arbitership of a situation in which you demand
proofs shows how self-important you see yourself. You entered this
discussion by a goofy explanation of what I had already just stated.
Then you tried to reply on an inappropriate definition of "agenda" to
try and draw attention from your mistake.
There is nothing arbitrary about pointing out that you are unable to
show / prove your thesis.
You claim that there is a hidden agenda / plan / policy. Because you
cannot prove that, your further claim is that the very non-existence of
it is proof that it exists.
I have no title to any land or structure other than my house, but I
could sell you a landmark structure in Central London, cheap.
My lack of documented title to it only proves that I own it right?
Post by Pamela
Sorry to have to expose you. You're not acting smart, you're acting
like an idiot trying to cover up his mistake.
I have made no mistake on this issue. You claim that something exists. I
point out that it doesn't and that you have no evidence for your claim.
You then claim that the lack of evidence only proves your claim further.
Post by Pamela
Sadly that has become a hallmark of how you backpedal from embarrassing
situations you have put yourself in. You do it so often that it's
become all too obvious.
Embarrassing to point out that your claim is unfounded?
Are you not even slightly embarrassed to have been reduced to asserting
that the lack of evidence for your claim(s) is proof that you are right?
Boris's agenda was worked out and very much existed in his intentions
before he was elected. No amount of foot-stamping demands to see a
document, where his intentions are spelled out for a third party which he
wished to keep it secret from, can change that.

It would help your flagging argument if you could prove Boris didn't have
anything planned but, as we know from events, that's not true is it?
Alternatively you could attempt to only prove he magicked up his policies
after being elected. Do you claim either of these? Or do you accept he
already had in mind what he later announced?

If I identify a person's hidden intentions as a secret agenda then no
amount of false arguments can disprove this truth.

You seem to have left behind the switcheroo Boris made to now encourage
immigration. Wasn't that also part of your misplaced claim earlier in
this thread? Memory failing again perhaps? It does happen to old people
as we saw when earlier you tried to tell me what I had just stated.
Roger
2019-08-03 15:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
You seem to have left behind the switcheroo Boris made to now encourage
immigration.
What is this switcheroo? Are you implying Boris changed policy pre and post selection procedure? Are you suggesting that BJ's actual policy is significantly different from that of the Conservative party elected in 2016?

Or are we just making things up as usual?
Norman Wells
2019-07-28 18:29:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished undiscussed
and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in North Korea. Roll
on the election.
You want to wish three years of your life away?
Fredxx
2019-07-28 18:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished undiscussed
and unelected policies.  It's the way they do things in North Korea.
Roll
on the election.
You want to wish three years of your life away?
What else does Pamela do with her life?
tim...
2019-08-10 14:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Joe
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:49:44 +0100
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no
change to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway,
the third runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc.
Boris has sprung all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Why do you restrict your complaints to the choice of a Cabinet?
Nothing at all that any MP does is in any way under the control or
supervision of those who elected him/her. *Nothing*.
And in the last twenty years, the *only* guide for the electorate, the
manifesto promises, have ceased to have any meaning. They were once
sacred, as they constituted a contract between electors and elected.
Not any more.
Choosing a Cabinet and PM are actually among the more innocuous
activities of the UK Parliament, they will do much worse to us after
that.
Oh, and you forgot to mention in your email that the EU has also just
acquired new management, by even less democratic methods, not even
selected from among MEPs. They are still our real government.
Boris should have set out his stall far more clearly during his campaign
to be party leader. He hid many of these even though he would have known
them at the time.
Now the country is being forced to accept Boris's unpublished undiscussed
and unelected policies. It's the way they do things in North Korea. Roll
on the election.
well I happen to think that Boris' "other" policies are good ones

so much better the May's attempt to take us back to the Conservatism of the
60s

tim
Keema's Nan
2019-07-28 14:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change to
immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third runway at
Heathrow,
Your interpretation of Boris’s first 5 days is obviously somewhat different
from the hacks at The Sun -

HEATHROW HINT
Boris Johnson hints he may scrap Heathrow third runway in expansion U-turn

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587615/boris-johnson-hints-he-may-scrap-
heathrow-third-runway-in-expansion-u-turn/
Post by Pamela
high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung all these on
us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on what
runaway Boris is doing.
JNugent
2019-07-28 14:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change to
immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third runway at
Heathrow,
Your interpretation of Boris’s first 5 days is obviously somewhat different
from the hacks at The Sun -
HEATHROW HINT
Boris Johnson hints he may scrap Heathrow third runway in expansion U-turn
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587615/boris-johnson-hints-he-may-scrap-
heathrow-third-runway-in-expansion-u-turn/
Let us hope so.

Not everyone flying into LHR is travelling to London anyway. People
whose destination is in (say) the north or west of England might be glad
of a direct flight to that region at an improved airport (at a fraction
of the cost of changing Heathrow and the M25).
Tim Jackson
2019-07-28 16:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:45:12 +0100, Keema's Nan wrote...
Post by Keema's Nan
Your interpretation of Boris’s first 5 days is obviously somewhat different
from the hacks at The Sun -
HEATHROW HINT
Boris Johnson hints he may scrap Heathrow third runway in expansion U-turn
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587615/boris-johnson-hints-he-may-scrap-
heathrow-third-runway-in-expansion-u-turn/
When you get past the headline to the main story, what Boris actually
said (in response to a question in parliament) was "I will study the
outcome of the court cases with a lively interest".

This doesn't quite say "I will lie down in front of the bulldozers".
--
Tim Jackson
***@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Pamela
2019-07-28 18:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow,
Your interpretation of Boris's first 5 days is obviously somewhat
different from the hacks at The Sun -
HEATHROW HINT
Boris Johnson hints he may scrap Heathrow third runway in expansion U-turn
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587615/boris-johnson-hints-he-may-scrap-
heathrow-third-runway-in-expansion-u-turn/
Post by Pamela
high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung all these on
us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Anything Boris promises or attempts could easily fall flat on its face, so
none of it is actually a done deal.

Boris is a bit like Trump, always rowing back what he said earlier.
abelard
2019-07-29 10:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Boris is a bit like Trump, always rowing back what he said earlier.
you 'live' in a dream world...

i see trump now has funding for the wall...yet another
socialist fail
--
www.abelard.org
Roger
2019-07-28 14:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change to
immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third runway at
Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung all these on
us.
Well all they had to do was read his leadership campaign manifesto....
Post by Pamela
It's switch selling. What a con.
No, this post, like so many of yours, is fake news. It's a con.
Ian Jackson
2019-07-28 18:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change to
immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third runway at
Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung all these on
us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on what
runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past nine
years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
--
Ian
Pamela
2019-07-29 09:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung
all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past nine
years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
Boris says he'll spend but who will pay? Boris can't deliver all the
pledges he made in the last few days because it's essentially unaffordable.

I wonder how he's going to dig himself out of this hole.
Ian Jackson
2019-07-29 10:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung
all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past nine
years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
Boris says he'll spend but who will pay? Boris can't deliver all the
pledges he made in the last few days because it's essentially unaffordable.
I wonder how he's going to dig himself out of this hole.
Put up taxes, and cancel the cuts. It's the only way. I'm sure Labour
will agree.
--
Ian
Pamela
2019-07-29 10:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung
all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past nine
years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
Boris says he'll spend but who will pay? Boris can't deliver all the
pledges he made in the last few days because it's essentially unaffordable.
I wonder how he's going to dig himself out of this hole.
Put up taxes, and cancel the cuts. It's the only way. I'm sure Labour
will agree.
However Boris wants to cut income tax for high earners and also cut
corporation tax. No wonder Philip Hammond resigned.
Norman Wells
2019-07-29 11:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
However Boris wants to cut income tax for high earners and also cut
corporation tax. No wonder Philip Hammond resigned.
He knew, as an arch-Remainer, that he wasn't going to be given any post
in a Boris-led government. He jumped just a fraction of a second before
he was pushed. Maybe he thinks that's better, but the end result is
just the same.
abelard
2019-07-29 10:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:03:13 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung
all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past nine
years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
Boris says he'll spend but who will pay? Boris can't deliver all the
pledges he made in the last few days because it's essentially unaffordable.
I wonder how he's going to dig himself out of this hole.
Put up taxes, and cancel the cuts. It's the only way. I'm sure Labour
will agree.
you get more income by working harder and/or smarter...

there is not just one route...tax tax tax...

of course the puritans of fascist 'new' labour would never
contemplate that
--
www.abelard.org
tory_poison
2019-07-30 03:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Now we have a new PM with a set of policies no one voted for.
Not even the Tory party membership knew they were voting for no change
to immigration, amnesty for illegals, the northern railway, the third
runway at Heathrow, high spending fiscal policy, etc. Boris has sprung
all these on us.
It's switch selling. What a con.
Thank goodness an election is becoming more likely and we can vote on
what runaway Boris is doing.
Apart being fixated on Brexit (and a no-deal Brexit at that), I can't
find much to object about in his aspirations. Some are absolutely great!
But unlike a lot of the in-phoners I've heard, I'm not at all taken in.
All he's doing is trying to be a hero by promising to undo the past
nine years of Tory neglect and vandalism.
Boris says he'll spend but who will pay? Boris can't deliver all the
pledges he made in the last few days because it's essentially
unaffordable.
I wonder how he's going to dig himself out of this hole.
QE (printing it)
Loading...