Brexit and money talk

[azda 973]

41 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Notwithstanding that exactly the same news regarding Nissan was on all the channels and all over the news media.

Also, you've still not provided any evidence to support your assertion that a) Agius has significant editorial influence over the BBC news output, or b ) What precisely his background has got to do with anything.

With regard to you not suggesting Brexit, your initial reply to me was on the back of a Bremoaner post by me, so if you're not suggesting Brexit, just what precisely was the point of your reply to me? Other than I might have head the news about Nissan on the BBC?    

 

    

My apologies Michael, they don't exactly broadcast what they do, but let's end that debate and you can keep your head in the sand while others open their eyes.

Not to put to much conspiracy your way though l, around 3 years ago the Rothschild sold every single share they owned in oil, that was when the market was at its absolute peak, strange how it plummeted and they made another small fortune. So Michael, give me proof he hasn't influenced anything, can you do that? No? It's about keeping an open mind and seeing what's exactly going on around you. Why is there war in Syria? Did you read about Hilary Clintons emails about this subject? They are in the public domain.....You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.....

ps, I'm not moaning about Brexit, I was more commenting on your link about the economy being fine and dandy, it certainly far from that, bet you heard that in the news? ? My point exactly. Rothschild banker, Rothschild attached to the BBC....2+2

Edited October 28, 2016 by azda

[Nick 325]

1 hour ago, azda said:

ps, I'm not moaning about Brexit, I was more commenting on your link about the economy being fine and dandy, it certainly far from that, bet you heard that in the news?

I take it you haven't been in the UK recently.  Every broadcast media outlet in the UK is wall-to-wall doom and gloom.  Any positive news is supplied with the caveat "despite Brexit" and anything negative is lauded with a "I told you so" smug look on the presenter's face.  Anybody suggesting that the BBC is pro-Brexit is as far from the truth as it is possible to be.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Nick

[azda 973]

15 minutes ago, Nick said:

I take it you haven't been in the UK recently.  Every broadcast media outlet in the UK is wall-to-wall doom and gloom.  Any positive news is supplied with the caveat "despite Brexit" and anything negative is lauded with a "I told you so" smug look on the presenter's face.  Anybody suggesting that the BBC is pro-Brexit is as far from the truth as it is possible to be.

Funnily enough i'm over for some Christmas shopping beginning of December, get a bit more for my euro, with Munich being the most expensive city in Germany it makes sense to strike while the pound is so low right now.....

[Nick 325]

10 minutes ago, azda said:

Funnily enough i'm over for some Christmas shopping beginning of December, get a bit more for my euro, with Munich being the most expensive city in Germany it makes sense to strike while the pound is so low right now.....

You're in a perfect position to take advantage.  You get more for your money and the UK benefits from the increase in trade.  Fill your boots while you can...

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, azda said:

Quote

My apologies Michael, they don't exactly broadcast what they do, but let's end that debate and you can keep your head in the sand while others open their eyes.

Ended because you don't have a single piece of evidence to support what you assert about them, or about the guy who's married to a Rothschild.. As I said earlier, from observation they are not pro Brexit.      

Quote

Not to put to much conspiracy your way though l, around 3 years ago the Rothschild sold every single share they owned in oil, that was when the market was at its absolute peak, strange how it plummeted and they made another small fortune. So Michael, give me proof he hasn't influenced anything, can you do that? No? It's about keeping an open mind and seeing what's exactly going on around you. Why is there war in Syria? Did you read about Hilary Clintons emails about this subject? They are in the public domain.....You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.....

What has any of that got to do with the initial post of mine that you commented on, Dave? As far as whether he has influenced anything at the BBC, I don't know - in any case you can't prove a negative. As far as worldwide, very probably. But the crucial point is that he is anti brexit, which contradicts your assertion. 

Quote

ps, I'm not moaning about Brexit, I was more commenting on your link about the economy being fine and dandy, it certainly far from that, bet you heard that in the news? ? My point exactly. Rothschild banker, Rothschild attached to the BBC....2+2

= 7½

I haven't posted any link about the economy. I simply referred to a good news story, which went against the usual gloom and doom narrative. Your Rothschild assertions against Agius are pure supposition, and not supported by what facts we do know about him.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by 1949threepence

[Chingford 166]

3 hours ago, azda said:

Let's also remember it was the Rothschild family who gave the Jewish community a place to live, I.E. Israel, they also funded a Bankrupt America during the war. Let's try and put perspective on just how much this family has in their piggy bank and who exactly is running this planet and it's Governments

$500 Trillion last estimate

[1949threepence 3,366]

22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

The gloom and doom merchants among the bremoaners, are being proved wrong, as today's news clearly shows. 

 

12 hours ago, azda said:

Is this news from the Propaganda machine that is the BBC? Its basically an extension of the Government Michael. Did you know that the husband of one of the Rothschilds has recently taken over the post of director general of the BBC? The same Rothschilds who control the worlds banks 

Anyway, back to your original comment Dave. Do you have the remotest scrap of evidence that Agius, a non executive director at the BBC, seemingly without portfolio, who is married to a Rothschild, but is not the Director General of the BBC, as you first thought, has ever influenced news editorials at the BBC, and if so how? Also, what possible relevance does that have to the post Brexit good news story about Nissan?

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by 1949threepence

[josie 8]

Very good info.http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/complete-list-of-banks-ownedcontrolled.html?m=0   they really love spelling?Philip pines?Fine, Central Bank of Philippines it means maybe they owned most bulk of gold reserve in the world,Philippines due to high temperature create other minerals into gold,Tectonic plate etc,...

Maybe that's why 2008 others banks don't want to trade to each other that is the main reason for the collapse? and later on the hardest hit was Ireland RECORD bail out?squeeze bet all strata of politics,economics,etc between USA,EU and UKGB? Monument or Megalith of today banking and stock market?No war,peace time even in the time of easy money 2004-2008  I thought EU will boom several state merging with combination of UKGB AND COMMONWEALTH  and the POUND?all of a sudden crisis,I did not read that but other predicted it..

On that time  thought the world will be  in chaos or will end feels like that way.  even they don't yet merge EU and other continent to have their own super state maybe others have there own plan?They created  is a load of hardship,body ache tears and sorrow it just like they are playing like gods?

Follow the Money.

Keeping up with the Joneses.

You should maybe look up which banks the Rothschilds own?,   just a sequences of thought? just posting?.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by josie

[azda 973]

Some more interesting news

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/investment-bank-pulled-money-out-britain-because-of-brexit-carnegie-a7390356.html?cmpid=facebook-post

[Nick 325]

3 hours ago, azda said:

Some more interesting news

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/investment-bank-pulled-money-out-britain-because-of-brexit-carnegie-a7390356.html?cmpid=facebook-post

I wouldn't go as far as calling it news.  I suspect the only nugget of truth in that article is "He wouldn’t give the value of the assets sold.".

Remind me again what has happened to UK investments since the vote to leave...

Edited November 1, 2016 by Nick

[azda 973]

2 minutes ago, Nick said:

I wouldn't go as far as calling it news.  I suspect the only nugget of truth in that article is "He wouldn’t give the value of the assets sold.".

This you know, or is hear say? Also the fact the pulled out their investments would surely also be true?

[Nick 325]

3 hours ago, azda said:

This you know, or is hear say? Also the fact the pulled out their investments would surely also be true?

Purely speculation on my part.  Do you know it to be fact?

[mhcoins 95]

Guessing many aren't happy with the high court ruling today. Seems like the vote was a waste of all of our time 

[Rob 2,996]

5 minutes ago, mhcoins said:

Guessing many aren't happy with the high court ruling today. Seems like the vote was a waste of all of our time 

Too damned right. What is the point of having a referendum if our elected MPs don't abide by the vote of the electorate.

Parliament could have had a sensible debate on whether we should stay or leave before the vote and actively campaigned by putting forward the arguments in a meaningful way, but instead chose to play their silly games while the rest of the country had many rational discussions and formulated an opinion based on what emanates from the Commission and the indifference paid to ALL the European electorate. If they didn't consider themselves above accountability and stuck to the original terms of entry they could have had at least two-thirds of the country behind them.

However disorganised it is, UKIP is going to do very well at the next election if the arrogant t**ts at Westminster block article 50.

[mhcoins 95]

Would be an incredibly strange situation should the MPs block it. However it was a close vote, with many people since saying they'd have changed how they originally voted. Surely the best situation from here would be for the MPs to come up with a compromise to suit everyone. A partial brexit of sorts 

[josie 8]

Just posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities_Act_1972_(UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure

De Facto Constitution? 

Central Bank?Government?Constitution?

Brexit,Referendum,Law,Act,Bill,Demarcation line?

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by josie

[Nick 325]

Seems to me that obstructing the declared will of the people is a dangerous course of action for any MP.

[Nick 325]

54 minutes ago, mhcoins said:

Would be an incredibly strange situation should the MPs block it. However it was a close vote, with many people since saying they'd have changed how they originally voted. Surely the best situation from here would be for the MPs to come up with a compromise to suit everyone. A partial brexit of sorts 

If the result had been to remain (in the same proportions), would you still be suggesting a compromise?  The vote was only close in percentage terms - the difference was 1.4 million people, which is a huge number of people.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Nick

[josie 8]

Supreme Court?European Court of Justice?International Court of Justice?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946

MPs,People,Referendum.?

https://www.ft.com/content/86c8faa8-1696-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

? ∞ ?

 

[mhcoins 95]

30 minutes ago, Nick said:

If the result had been to remain (in the same proportions), would you still be suggesting a compromise?  The vote was only close in percentage terms - the difference was 1.4 million people, which is a huge number of people.

I'm still of the opinion that many (not anyone on here) didnt really know what they were actually voting for and the consiquences. Robs suggestion earlier would have been a much better idea, MPs discuss the issue first, spread the word to their constituencies of the pros and cons of the Referendum, then a vote. 

I'm sure many would have watched the hock of Sh!t each TV debate showed, and based their votes on this and whatever biased newspaper they read. Not everyone is well informed and i'm sure Tens of thousands would have based their votes on very fickle things which could have been very easily influenced with them being told what they want to hear. In hindsight the whole build up to the vote was awfully conducted from both sides, and has been dealt with dreafully ever since. 

A compromise has to be reached whether its with the EU on exiting or partially remaining. Why not use this as a good opportunity to potentially gain positives from both sides of the table ?

 

[Colin G. 147]

59 minutes ago, mhcoins said:

I'm still of the opinion that many (not anyone on here) didnt really know what they were actually voting for and the consiquences. Robs suggestion earlier would have been a much better idea, MPs discuss the issue first, spread the word to their constituencies of the pros and cons of the Referendum, then a vote. 

I'm sure many would have watched the hock of Sh!t each TV debate showed, and based their votes on this and whatever biased newspaper they read. Not everyone is well informed and i'm sure Tens of thousands would have based their votes on very fickle things which could have been very easily influenced with them being told what they want to hear. In hindsight the whole build up to the vote was awfully conducted from both sides, and has been dealt with dreafully ever since. 

A compromise has to be reached whether its with the EU on exiting or partially remaining. Why not use this as a good opportunity to potentially gain positives from both sides of the table ?

 

This statement staggers me...did you not read how simple the question was on the ballot paper and everyone had two options...not exactly complicated!! As for knowing the consequences....the same could be said of every single decision ever made in parliament unless you employ the services of mystic Meg. People made a decision and will have to live with the consequences regardless of what they are...as in life you make a decision and you have to stand by it. If the political establishment or business believe that overturning this decision will do anything but make them more unpopular and separated from the general public they are sorely mistaken.

In addition I don't see why people need to be informed, does that make your vote more important than anyone else's vote because you consider yourself to be informed. I find this attitude very condescending and understand why so many people get annoyed with the debate...as far as I am concerned people could have voted to leave or remain for whatever reason they wanted, that is their choice and they live by their decision.

[mhcoins 95]

did you not read how simple the question was on the ballot paper - thats condescending !

I believe when a vote of such importance is happening, its better to be understanding to both sides and make a descision rather than "lets get rid of those immigrants im voting Out"

 

[mhcoins 95]

also my reference in regards being well informed wasn't me saying i was. Up until a few weeks before the vote i was someone very undecided. However i took it upon myself to read up regarding the referendum as much as i could and decide on what i felt would be beneficial. 

I also imagine TM is secretly very happy inside with this High court decision, especially as she was very pro remain.

 

[Chingford 166]

'The Question' was discussed several times, I remember watching news programmes were the question was asked as to what the ballot paper would ask, Cameron said it would be a simple in/out and that was then voted for in Parliament

As for the outcome, both sides, Remain/Leave had their say and based on those views the electorate chose

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, Nick said:

If the result had been to remain (in the same proportions), would you still be suggesting a compromise?  The vote was only close in percentage terms - the difference was 1.4 million people, which is a huge number of people.

No. If bremain had won by the same margin as they lost, there would have been no more discussion and things would have carried on in exactly the same way as before. So in my view, nothing is up for debate now. We leave.

41 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

This statement staggers me...did you not read how simple the question was on the ballot paper and everyone had two options...not exactly complicated!! As for knowing the consequences....the same could be said of every single decision ever made in parliament unless you employ the services of mystic Meg. People made a decision and will have to live with the consequences regardless of what they are...as in life you make a decision and you have to stand by it. If the political establishment or business believe that overturning this decision will do anything but make them more unpopular and separated from the general public they are sorely mistaken.

In addition I don't see why people need to be informed, does that make your vote more important than anyone else's vote because you consider yourself to be informed. I find this attitude very condescending and understand why so many people get annoyed with the debate...as far as I am concerned people could have voted to leave or remain for whatever reason they wanted, that is their choice and they live by their decision.

Plus, we bow to the majority will, regardless of our own opinion. That is what democracy is all about.