Unbelievable Jeff

She's a Rees Mogg, standing as a Brexit party MEP. She's fair game.

Just in case she's reading, yeah?

So, if No Deal loving Boris gets in, we'll see a vote of no-confidence and a Labour led coalition. Means the Tories need to go down a route of selecting a leader who will rule out No Deal. Welcome to no.10 Jeremy Hunt.

She doesn't sound and look anything like the Family Guy character that Jacob is. It's very odd.

Farage in number 10? Not a ****ing chance mate. Voting to leave the EU cos you're a bit racist is very different to voting for someone like that in a GE.

Not a surprise when it consists of Walton on Thames, Cobham, Esher, Oxshott and Stoke D'Abernon. Affluent area, so tends to be populated by educated people.

Yeah, a slight majority for remain, although in reality neither Brexit or Remain wins. I probably agree. As with the referendum, there is not enough disparity between the two sides to draw a conclusion.

Why do you disagree?

I think you would have to make the assumption that the Labour vote was remain, and Tory vote leave, and I think that's fair enough as the majority in both those parties would have been remain/leave - and don't forget Labour did far better than the Tories. Otherwise exclude both parties, and you've still got the same result, majority for remain.

But when the vote (GE) takes place there is a leader in place in the party, so the implication is that is the leader that you are voting for. Hence why Labour will do so badly at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge. But in that case, what's wrong with unelected leaders of the EU then?

A rundown of my meeting with Dominic Raab. 1. It was heated. 2. He is as arrogant in person as he appears in the media 3. He did not like being challenged. 4. He accused @tbramadan of saying something that was ‘nonsense’ so @tbramadan called out his own nonsense 5. Asked about illegalities of https://t.co/g4LIcSqZDJ and Vote Leave, he said “just because there were some illegalities it doesn’t mean the whole thing should be vitiated” and elucidated that “there is always some law-breaking in every general election but result remains” 6. Asked about the effectiveness and transparency of a referendum vote which did not present the options of a) remain on current terms b) remain on the renegotiated terms agreed with EU in Feb 2016, c) leave on WTO d) leave but e.g. stay in customs union, he glossed over. 7. He denied ‘voting for’ TM’s deal in MV3. He lambasted me for not reading his speech setting out his rationale, accusing me of having the nerve to come and call him out without reading it, and was unhappy when I pointed out the net effect was the same, regardless of motive. 8. Asked about the comparability of the GFA with a no-deal exit, he countered that it wasn’t incompatible. He said “the bigger question is whether the government’s deal is a threat to GFA”. The same deal that he effectively backed in MV3- he denied backing it but temper rose. 9. One to remember for the future, when asked about anticipated period of uncertainty and lead-in period to perceived benefits, he opined that there would be a “3-6 month buffeting period as we saw through the transition”. Sunlit uplands after 6 months, people! 10. His rationale for economic optimism is based on his own ‘research’- he was unable to confirm any particular source. However, he explained that “the Bank of England forecasted that we would enter recession if we even voted to leave” I.e. the experts were wrong 11. The alleges that the polls remain aligned with the 2016 result, citing Yougov as one source. Have not fact checked this but will do so. Suspect this is not entirely true. 12. I called him out for saying, on the one hand, that we had to “respect the will of the people” by implementing the referendum vote yet, on the other hand, that the public opinion has shifted further in favour of Brexit. 13. Everything he did for the Vote Leave campaign was designed to keep Farage out of power apparently. 14. If we don’t deliver Brexit the people will, effectively, revolt. I told him that, to use the terminology of the leave campaign, we would not be cowed “project fear”. 15. I expect he didn’t much like speaking to me. I guess this may align with his political view of (some) feminists being “obnoxious bigots” and that “men get a raw deal” (Politics Home article, 2011). 16. I am left shaking with anger & needing to vent by way of catharsis.

You haven't met him have you? A friend in Cobham went to a session with him 2 months ago, and absolutely destroyed him. She is a lawyer tbf (although property), but he was woefully underprepared, and tied himself in knots - below is a precis, but was excellent to watch in person. He's really not very bright.

:lol: I know it was part of the analogy, but I was responding to it. HTH. Thicko. What part of the analogy is doing something illegal in relation to EU membership? I can't work that bit out, and considering it's the main part of your analogy I would love to see how it fits in.

Edit.

Cheers mate. Glad you're back to prove the rest of us right. X

So the EU would not do this without assurances to their citizens, the divorce settlement etc, as it all changed the EU's negotiating starting point. As we have previously garnered from conversations on here, you are not well versed in negotiations and negotiating techniques, and luckily when we have a Brexit PM in the next couple of months, he'll be able to prove you wrong as well...again.

No, I'm responding to your comments - the clue is in the fact that I quoted you, and was responding to your points. HTH.

There is that I suppose...

Sky Atlantic, Sky Sports, Sky Movies and the like aren't on terrestrial though?! Aren't those streaming boxes illegal as well? I think the point is, if you can afford it, and it is of benefit to you, why do something illegal to get an inferior product?

I don't agree, but happy to listen to your arguments.

Brexit analogy - think this works pretty well You pay for Sky Q every month - it's £90 with unlimited fibre, HD pack, Multi room, Sky Sports and Movies. You decide that you have had enough of the menu system, it's not great, but it allows you access to the excellent programming, which is what you SHOULD care about. So you email Sky saying you want to cancel. Sky say you need to phone them to cancel. You don't want to, you want to email. If you called they would cancel, and give you the rest of the month that you've paid for, to find a new provider, probably Virgin. Sure, it'll be more expensive, you won't get UHD or multiroom, you'll get a cut down version of Boxsets and Movies, and Sky Sports HD is more expensive, but you don't have to use their menu system. Oh, and you've never used Virgin's menu system, but you reckon it can't be worse. However, you don't want to follow Sky's rules on cancellation, so you turn the box off at the mains, and cancel your direct debit. Sky writes to you, telling you that you owe them money, and you keep ignoring until you get taken to court. You have to repay the money. In the meantime, it takes you three weeks to get Virgin out, so you have to watch terrestrial until then. Once they've set you up, you're paying more money for Virgin, the product is inferior and the menu system is worse. But hey, you maintain the correct decision was made. Oh, and the rest of your family looks at you like you're a ****ing idiot.

The deal is for an interim period. You don't seem to recognise this, and it's something we've tried to get you to realise over and over. There is nothing to negotiate - it is current terms (as per the WA), or WTO terms on a no withdrawal agreement UNTIL a deal is negotiated. We are not negotiating a deal, we are negotiating our withdrawal. Until we have signed and started that withdrawal, there is no pressure to bring by those industries, unless for the backstop (which no-one has a solution for). I am aghast that we are having to explain this again.

I know someone who's a vegan, he's now home-ridden as due to a lack of protein he has suffered bowel issues, and now his bowels have prolapsed. He's in a right mess and his doctor said it was due to being a vegan. No joke, his life is a misery - it's very sad. He's now forced to eat meat (well chicken and some fish).

Not sure on that TBH, there is nothing in law, and ultimately it is up to the EU, not the British Government, as to if we leave on a hard Brexit - unless that Bercow legislation is to revoke Article 50.

New PM/Tory party - just lead us off the cliffedge.