Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

The endless discussion about the ‘Brexit dividend’ or the NHS bonus are truly useful constructs by Remainers. Despite and including Cameron’s £9 million taxpayer funded package of lies, no sensible BRexiterr was influenced in the slightest by anything on the side of a bus, nor were we moved to vote Brexit in order to waste even more money on the NHS, an unaffordable obsession for politicians and the unworking left. 

That’s a lie... politicians at least are still relying on the Brexit Dividend as a statement to influence voters.  May and Johnson both used it today.  Hunt used it (in denying that there needed to be a Brexit Dividend to get the £20bn).

Ouch! Eloise knows how to pack a punch, eh! This so called Brexit Dividend is and always has been a fabricated plaything of politicians who find it so very hard to understand why the swivel eyed Leave voting electorate could be so deluded.  Obviously, border closing or migration cutting are nowhere in the lexicon of politicians so they could not be, or remotely allowed to be the reason, could they? No, the poor, deluded fools were duped by a red bus that had a number on it. As far as I know, Hunt, May et al are all Remainers to a gender neutral personage, so how they rationalise the Brexit imposed on them by the electorate is also one of life’s mysteries. Their tortured logic on implementing and understanding it seems to validate this. 

That isn’t to say that I believe that there is no Brexit dividend, there are loads of them though not necessarily all financial, all of these are based around self determination, and no, I have no intention of providing you with the shopping list Eloise. ????

Sorry but that arch liar Johnson is still talking about the money which will no longer be being sent to the EU.

And yes, many people DO still believe them!

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Strange isn't it, how the Brexit Bunch moaned again and again about the lack of sovereignty of the British Parliament (does that constitute remoaning?); yet now, because Parliament may not wish to sacrifice the good of the country on the altar of their entrenched dogma, they just as vociferously clamour to cede that very sovereignty away from Parliament and to the current government!

When all the remaining monkeys in Westminster get out of the way, allow Brexit to be implemented properly instead of the stalling tactics they are playing at the moment then you will have sovereignty back with the U.K. Parliament and should they see fit they might even let you have a crack at rejoining your beloved EU, but that will not happen again in your lifetime if the people are asked through a Referendum.

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Resurrection posted:

As for those that ridicule the self made multimillionaire, Jacob Rees Mogg, you have to be having a gigantic laugh at expecting us to give credulity to that weirdo Peston.

I'm not rising to the bait of most of your recent posts, RR, not least because others have very ably responded. I do though feel the need to draw attention to your ludicrous defence of Jacob Rees-Mogg, who you laud as being a "self-made multimillionaire", as if he had gone through all kinds of adversity to reach this status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Check out Wikipedia to see how he had an extremely privileged upbringing, with his share acquisition starting after being gifted a sum of money at age 10. Robert Peston had a similarly privileged upbringing, but at least he doesn't have the mendacity like JMR to be an arch-proponent of Brexit whilst running a company that is actively warning off investors from sinking their money into UK enterprises. JMR is indeed one of the elite that stand to gain from Brexit, whilst the average Joe stands to lose a great deal - indeed Mark Carney (Bank of England) informs us that every household in the UK has already lost £900 as a result of the Brexit fiasco - and stand to lose a great deal more unless the adults in the room get a grip and restore some form of sanity...

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Strange isn't it, how the Brexit Bunch moaned again and again about the lack of sovereignty of the British Parliament (does that constitute remoaning?); yet now, because Parliament may not wish to sacrifice the good of the country on the altar of their entrenched dogma, they just as vociferously clamour to cede that very sovereignty away from Parliament and to the current government!

When all the remaining monkeys in Westminster get out of the way, allow Brexit to be implemented properly instead of the stalling tactics they are playing at the moment then you will have sovereignty back with the U.K. Parliament and should they see fit they might even let you have a crack at rejoining your beloved EU, but that will not happen again in your lifetime if the people are asked through a Referendum.

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Duncan Mann posted:

Resurrection posted:

As for those that ridicule the self made multimillionaire, Jacob Rees Mogg, you have to be having a gigantic laugh at expecting us to give credulity to that weirdo Peston.

I'm not rising to the bait of most of your recent posts, RR, not least because others have very ably responded. I do though feel the need to draw attention to your ludicrous defence of Jacob Rees-Mogg, who you laud as being a "self-made multimillionaire", as if he had gone through all kinds of adversity to reach this status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Check out Wikipedia to see how he had an extremely privileged upbringing, with his share acquisition starting after being gifted a sum of money at age 10. Robert Peston had a similarly privileged upbringing, but at least he doesn't have the mendacity like JMR to be an arch-proponent of Brexit whilst running a company that is actively warning off investors from sinking their money into UK enterprises. JMR is indeed one of the elite that stand to gain from Brexit, whilst the average Joe stands to lose a great deal - indeed Mark Carney (Bank of England) informs us that every household in the UK has already lost £900 as a result of the Brexit fiasco - and stand to lose a great deal more unless the adults in the room get a grip and restore some form of sanity...

Not rise to the bait? Looks like hook line and sinker to me! And as for Carney, I’d almost rather listen to that other Canadian buffoon, Trudeau! Get your money laundered, quantitively eased   and brain washed at Carney’s spin and dry shop! 

Things in Parliament shaping up for an interesting day on Weds.  The Lords defeated the government again this evening on the clause in the bill about giving Parliament a meaningful say if it rejects the eventual deal (once negotiations are done).  An enlarged majority in the HoL, too, which indicates growing frustration with the way HMG has behaved.  Given the bad-feeling created by May and Davis after apparently reneging on the deal offered last week to buy-off the Tory rebels when the bill was debated in the HoC, I suspect HMG are now in an even greater danger of losing a vote on this clause on Weds. After all, why would the Tory rebels accept reassurances this time round when they say they were let-down last week?        

The above text comprised the gist of an e-mail from TM to Mrs D.......ok, it was clearly a mass-circulation e-mail topped and tailed to look personal.

Now, I fully support the idea of an increase in taxation (*) to properly fund the NHS, but I find it insidious to roll into this statement the bit about some  of the money being that which would otherwise have gone to the EU had we not decided to leave ! Especially since elsewhere the TOTAL additional funding (Tax increase + diverted EU contribution) is quoted as £394m per week - which looks conveniently similar to the Boris Bus figure. Political spin at its worst !

(*) there were no details of which taxes might be modified to provide the funds.

Don Atkinson posted:

...elsewhere the TOTAL additional funding (Tax increase + diverted EU contribution) is quoted as £394m per week...

I can’t post a link as it’d lead to a commercial site, but there’s a quite straight forward demolition of this by Sky News, using IFS figures.  You can find it by googling: sky news Do 'Brexit dividend' numbers add up?

Given that the IFS are hardly seen as the economics wing of Momentum, I see no real way for Brexiteers to refute this beyond the ‘experts know nothing’ strategy which surely convinces no one, and is self undermining to anyone who’s not already an at-any-cost Brexiteer.

I don’t mean that it’d be impossible to refute any part of it whatsoever, but overall it does demonstrate IMO that the idea of any spare money because of Brexit/Brexit dividend/bonus/bonanza is a busted flush.

Presumably JC will come clean and confirm that in the (increasingly possible) event of a Gov collapse, Labour will continue with the Leave negotiations and fully fund the NHS (ie more than the Con Party) from specific tax increases ?

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Don Atkinson posted:

Presumably JC will come clean and confirm that in the (increasingly possible) event of a Gov collapse, Labour will continue with the Leave negotiations and fully fund the NHS (ie more than the Con Party) from specific tax increases ?

IIRC and AFAIK, pretty much exactly that was in their manifesto for the GE, and remains party policy.

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Ah! then I fully apologise for the mud comment (it was mostly in jest anyway).

However you seem to be labouring () under a misapprehension, either thinking we live in a democracy or perhaps thinking that MPs are delegates when they are, in fact, representatives.

Should a MP vote to support Brexit when they believe that it's not in the best interests of their constituents, then they are in dereliction if their parliamentary duty and they are betraying their constituents, even if their constituents voted for Brexit on the basis of the limited amount of truthful information available at the time of the referendum.

So you seem to be accepting that if a substantial proportion of Leave voters were hoodwinked by Aaron Banks' leave.eu organisation, which we pretty much know now was largely funded by Putin, you're entirely comfortable with that, and indeed MPs should ignore that? An interesting perspective, but good to hear you articulate it, as it confirms that you at least as a Brexiter have no scruples whatsoever about how the goal of getting out of the EU is achieved...  

Duncan Mann posted:

So you seem to be accepting that if a substantial proportion of Leave voters were hoodwinked by Aaron Banks' leave.eu organisation, which we pretty much know now was largely funded by Putin, you're entirely comfortable with that, and indeed MPs should ignore that? An interesting perspective, but good to hear you articulate it, as it confirms that you at least as a Brexiter have no scruples whatsoever about how the goal of getting out of the EU is achieved...  

Duncan, I am baffled. We were all supposed to swallow the publicly funded lies printed by Cameron and his cohorts which of course we, the majority, chose to ignore, but you continue to harp on about a number on a bus as if this was the one defining moment and cardinal sin of the Referendum.

The noises from the empty vessel that is the Remain propaganda machine are simply irritating the general public who just want Brexit implemented fully as soon as possible 

i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin.

As to my reference to scorched earth, the Remainers who are happily playing with fire seem to think that they would be immune to being burnt by their own activities, which is a little naive. 

Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour.  

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Ah! then I fully apologise for the mud comment (it was mostly in jest anyway).

However you seem to be labouring () under a misapprehension, either thinking we live in a democracy or perhaps thinking that MPs are delegates when they are, in fact, representatives.

Should a MP vote to support Brexit when they believe that it's not in the best interests of their constituents, then they are in dereliction if their parliamentary duty and they are betraying their constituents, even if their constituents voted for Brexit on the basis of the limited amount of truthful information available at the time of the referendum.

So, 17.4 million people can go whistle or more appropriately go eat cake? It didn’t end well for that lady and your presumption that the British public will simply doff their caps and accept your own assumptive statement is also potentially naive. 

I fear that 'the general public' you talk about want Brexit done and over because they are so fed up with the current Tory inability to do anything except faff around and the ineffectual opposition to make a coherent counter position. The difference between exit and remain was only a couple of percentage points and therefore both sides where passionate can claim their truth. Those 'general public' bods have now no understanding and more importantly any belief in what the truth might be. Both sides claim their truth as gospel. 

For most it just needs to be over.

The 'truth' that we will be worse/significantly worse off seems accepted by all. Evidently the fact that we can control our own decisions about our sovereignty means that this is a compromise that the leavers are prepared accept. The other 'truth' is that the demographic that predominantly voted for Brexit along with the apathy/alienation of the younger members of our society means that the people who will feel the effect for years to come didn't win. That doesn't seem very democratic to me!

Europe is clearly setting out that it doesn't need the UK for any of its functions. It would like our money and it would like the integrity that a full European membership brings to the idea of a Europe. We on the other hand continue to have a completely false and arrogant opinion of our worth in these negotiations. It would be better that we just accept the situation, and get on with it. In 20 years we may have settled into a more comfortable place in the world. 

lutyens posted:

I fear that 'the general public' you talk about want Brexit done and over because they are so fed up with the current Tory inability to do anything except faff around and the ineffectual opposition to make a coherent counter position. The difference between exit and remain was only a couple of percentage points and therefore both sides where passionate can claim their truth. Those 'general public' bods have now no understanding and more importantly any belief in what the truth might be. Both sides claim their truth as gospel. 

For most it just needs to be over.

The 'truth' that we will be worse/significantly worse off seems accepted by all. Evidently the fact that we can control our own decisions about our sovereignty means that this is a compromise that the leavers are prepared accept. The other 'truth' is that the demographic that predominantly voted for Brexit along with the apathy/alienation of the younger members of our society means that the people who will feel the effect for years to come didn't win. That doesn't seem very democratic to me!

Europe is clearly setting out that it doesn't need the UK for any of its functions. It would like our money and it would like the integrity that a full European membership brings to the idea of a Europe. We on the other hand continue to have a completely false and arrogant opinion of our worth in these negotiations. It would be better that we just accept the situation, and get on with it. In 20 years we may have settled into a more comfortable place in the world. 

Don't disagree with you lutyens. However, if the decision had gone the other way I assure you that we would not be having this discussion two years on. Leavers would have shrugged and moved on knowing that any sour grapes shown by them would be punished heavily by the Remain side. Somehow it doesn't work quite like that when the Establishment is dissed. 

Think I'll go and watch some paint dry, or as it is more commonly known, the World Cup. Nah, this is far worse than the World Cup.

The validity of a referendum taken against the backdrop of misinformation, lack of information, false information and media stirring (e.g latent racism)  is patently absurd. As I have said many times over in different words: as the reality of Brexit and its effects becomes clear - effects which different individuals may deem positive or negative - the ONLY sensible, wise, logical and democratic thing to do is to hold a confirmatory referendum before actually implementing the exit.

People who want the best for the country would welcome that, regardless which way they want it, while hoping that if anything more are now convinced that Brexit is a good idea. People who for whatever reason voted for what they now believe is the wrong way, whichever way that was, would welcome it (and I for one know people to whom this applies). People who believe in democracy would recognise the validity, Committed Brexiteers who genuinely believe the majority want what Brexit means in practice need have nothing to fear. The only people who have any reason to reject a  confirmatory referendum are Brexiteers who know or strongly suspect that the majority are likely not to confirm the wish to leave , being also people who have no qualms about suppressing the will of the majority for their own, I suggest probably selfish, ends - instead they bandy about the statistic of the long distant and indisputably ill-informed original referendum

Innocent Bystander posted:

The validity of a referendum taken against the backdrop of misinformation, lack of information, false information and media stirring (e.g latent racism)  is patently absurd. As I have said many times over in different words: as the reality of Brexit and its effects becomes clear - effects which different individuals may deem positive or negative - the ONLY sensible, wise, logical and democratic thing to do is to hold a confirmatory referendum before actually implementing the exit.

People who want the best for the country would welcome that, regardless which way they want it, while hoping that if anything more are now convinced that Brexit is a good idea. People who for whatever reason voted for what they now believe is the wrong way, whichever way that was, would welcome it (and I for one know people to whom this applies). People who believe in democracy would recognise the validity, Committed Brexiteers who genuinely believe the majority want what Brexit means in practice need have nothing to fear. The only people who have any reason to reject a  confirmatory referendum are Brexiteers who know or strongly suspect that the majority are likely not to confirm the wish to leave , being also people who have no qualms about suppressing the will of the majority for their own, I suggest probably selfish, ends - instead they bandy about the statistic of the long distant and indisputably ill-informed original referendum

I would not give you false hope etc, IB. However, looks like Dominic Grieve and Nicky Morgan have caved. Probably goes along the lines of self preservation, fear of deselection, maybe even a sudden epiphany, who knows?

You are getting no confirmatory Referendum now or ever. How many games of football did you play as a kid where it was best of three goals, then upped to best of five and so on? You might say it was child’s play as is the prevaricating of the Westminster bubble. 

Resurrection posted:

You are getting no confirmatory Referendum now or ever. How many games of football did you play as a kid where it was best of three goals, then upped to best of five and so on? You might say it was child’s play as is the prevaricating of the Westminster bubble. 

And of course no children ever need to be told off for lying!

Resurrection posted:

So, 17.4 million people can go whistle or more appropriately go eat cake? It didn’t end well for that lady and your presumption that the British public will simply doff their caps and accept your own assumptive statement is also potentially naive. 

And now that many of the distortions and falsehoods have been revealed, now that much more is known of the cost to the country; you, of course, know for an absolute fact that none of those 17.4M have changed their mind, as you speak for all 17.4M of them.

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Because Putin is a Socialist (but more actually only in the same sense as of the former German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei [National Socialist German Workers' Party]).