Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

221 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      11
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      129
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      8
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13

Recommended Posts

Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Dyeing is an arse, he has very limited EU market for his products. He is. Quitter because that suits him, his posture is me me me, sound familiar?

 

Is English your second language, or have you been on the juice?

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Is English your second language, or have you been on the juice?

 

I guess you had nothing to do with that pipe bomb sent to George Soros, Les? Then again it could have been Benjamin Netanyahu’s son :lol:

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Labour would sort it right out, would offer Free school meals for entire EU.

I don't think the situation can be 'sorted out'. We'll stagger past D-Day whilst retaining most of the EU functions we are supposed to be ditching, then spend the next 3 years grasping at straws and cobbling together a 'bespoke' arrangement that satisfies nobody and leaves the UK suffering under the weight of the self-interests of those we are 'negotiating' with.

Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted

Is now a good time for all those German car makers to demand a Brexit deal on Britain's terms?

 

Better be soon, otherwise we'll have to call on thousands of little ships to make grocery runs to supermarkets in Dunkirk.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Is now a good time for all those German car makers to demand a Brexit deal on Britain's terms?

 

Better be soon, otherwise we'll have to call on thousands of little ships to make grocery runs to supermarkets in Dunkirk.

 

The prosecco lobby is limbering up in the wings too.

Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
The prosecco lobby is limbering up in the wings too.

 

Perhaps Brexit Jihadists can find a way of combining cars and alcohol. I do hope so.

Plastic

Plastic

Posted
Posted

Hands up guys. Who’s still banking on the £350mil?

 

British public still believe Vote Leave ‘£350million a week to EU’ myth from Brexit referendum - The Independenthttps://apple.news/ABht-5SCDTJGcApo3ezx4iw

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's a doddle, this Brexit lark;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/26/russia-brexit-liam-fox-wto-plan-uk

 

"

Russia is among 20 countries that are looking to squeeze a commercial advantage from Brexit after blocking an attempt by the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, to fast-track a World Trade Organization deal on the UK’s terms of trade with the world.

Whitehall is now facing “up to two dozen” different negotiations with countries over how much meat and dairy produce will be permitted into the British market and what tariffs the UK will set on imports."

 

".....in terms of the bilateral free trade deals that we hope to get with Australia, New Zealand and the US, these could be delayed while we haggle over the numbers. It’s a complicated discussion and it could easily take a couple of years to sort out and that means it would be three or four years before we could implement bilaterals, so it is likely to introduce delays.”

Edited by badgerx16
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Special 50p to mark the occasion. It will be worth 5p.

 

Hurrah.

 

Its like those magic unicorns the jihadists have been promised.

 

Dj6KzyBX4AE2F3z.jpg

 

That said I don't think some of the boys on here would be too upset with the alternative :lol:

ericb

ericb

Posted
Posted

Genuine question if Banks is found guilty, and if the money is proven to come from a state sponsored foreign source, would his crime be upgraded to treason (the genuine version not the pantomime one that the Brexiteers throw around)?

 

Because aiding a foreign state in undermining the democracy of this country surely has to be the dictionary definition of that?

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
I see that Arron Banks has been quick to defend himself by indulging in a bit of Jew-hating whataboutery.

 

For context, this is a good snapshot of where we are a conspiracy theory that's retailed by the far-right (Breitbart) to the the far left (the Canary):

 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006187984/george-soros-conspiracies-gop.html

 

Don’t forget Yair Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1058336682716643329

 

WTF!?

 

Banks is being given an open platform on the BBC to refute the allegations against him.

 

All political views aside, this is completely wrong. He is being investigated by the NCA, and by giving him this platform to air his story unchallenged (Marr FFS - the wettest, most insipid political interviewer the Beeb has ever employed) they are potentially influencing the outcome of that investigation.

 

Are they now going to start platforming other suspected criminals as well? Phillip Green next perhaps?

 

This is f*cked up.

Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1058336682716643329

 

WTF!?

 

Banks is being given an open platform on the BBC to refute the allegations against him.

 

All political views aside, this is completely wrong. He is being investigated by the NCA, and by giving him this platform to air his story unchallenged (Marr FFS - the wettest, most insipid political interviewer the Beeb has ever employed) they are potentially influencing the outcome of that investigation.

 

Are they now going to start platforming other suspected criminals as well? Phillip Green next perhaps?

 

This is f*cked up.

 

They will probably do the same with Labour given the party being investigated by the MET for hate crimes.....

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
They will probably do the same with Labour given the party being investigated by the MET for hate crimes.....

 

Get it right Batman, that's an entirely different situation. Some Labour members are being investigated; the party itself is not.

 

So yes, I fully expect them to invite a senior member of the party on to discuss the situation so they can give them yet another public beating about antisemitism, but we both know they will not invite any of the individual members being investigated on to plea their defence prior to any potential trial, as they are doing with Banks.

Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Get it right Batman, that's an entirely different situation. Some Labour members are being investigated; the party itself is not.

 

So yes, I fully expect them to invite a senior member of the party on to discuss the situation so they can give them yet another public beating about antisemitism, but we both know they will not invite any of the individual members being investigated on to plea their defence prior to any potential trial, as they are doing with Banks.

 

It still amazes me that Corbyn has allowed antisemitism to grow in the way it has in the party.

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1058336682716643329

 

WTF!?

 

Banks is being given an open platform on the BBC to refute the allegations against him.

 

All political views aside, this is completely wrong. He is being investigated by the NCA, and by giving him this platform to air his story unchallenged (Marr FFS - the wettest, most insipid political interviewer the Beeb has ever employed) they are potentially influencing the outcome of that investigation.

 

Are they now going to start platforming other suspected criminals as well? Phillip Green next perhaps?

 

This is f*cked up.

 

Don’t talk ****ing rubbish. People have always, and will always be perfectly entitled to defend themselves when accused of something. Clearly some things will become off limits when and if he’s charged, but until then he’s perfectly entitled to proclaim his innocence on whatever platform he wants.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Don’t talk ****ing rubbish. People have always, and will always be perfectly entitled to defend themselves when accused of something. Clearly some things will become off limits when and if he’s charged, but until then he’s perfectly entitled to proclaim his innocence on whatever platform he wants.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

And you're the one posting in the Philip Green thread about fair trials and judicial process (on which I am actually, for once, in agreement with you).

 

Do you really think it is the role of the BBC to invite people under criminal investigation onto a flagship political show to get their denials out into the public domain, and potentially influence a jury before any charges are actually brought?

 

If the NCA's investigation reveals that Banks knowingly used foreign state funding to influence the outcome of a democratic vote, then he is potentially guilty of treason. Do you really think it is appropriate for our 'impartial' state broadcaster to be giving him the platform to present his side of the story unchallenged?

Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
And you're the one posting in the Philip Green thread about fair trials and judicial process (on which I am actually, for once, in agreement with you).

 

Do you really think it is the role of the BBC to invite people under criminal investigation onto a flagship political show to get their denials out into the public domain, and potentially influence a jury before any charges are actually brought?

 

If the NCA's investigation reveals that Banks knowingly used foreign state funding to influence the outcome of a democratic vote, then he is potentially guilty of treason. Do you really think it is appropriate for our 'impartial' state broadcaster to be giving him the platform to present his side of the story unchallenged?

 

Marr was appalling in taking him to task. Wasted effort by the Beeb

Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Secret deal done, leaving EU. Done and dusted. Nice work T.May. Onwards and upwards

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Bo****kstalk

 

Corrected that for you Mr Sprout.

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
And you're the one posting in the Philip Green thread about fair trials and judicial process (on which I am actually, for once, in agreement with you).

 

Do you really think it is the role of the BBC to invite people under criminal investigation onto a flagship political show to get their denials out into the public domain, and potentially influence a jury before any charges are actually brought?

 

If the NCA's investigation reveals that Banks knowingly used foreign state funding to influence the outcome of a democratic vote, then he is potentially guilty of treason. Do you really think it is appropriate for our 'impartial' state broadcaster to be giving him the platform to present his side of the story unchallenged?

 

People are perfectly entitled to protest their innocence in what ever form they deem necessary, it’s not interfering with justice until they’ve been charged, and sub judice laws kick in. Perhaps the authorities shouldn’t go sounding off about whose being investigated, perhaps the law should be changed, but again people are basing their opinions on their like or dislike of individuals and their political stance .

 

As for the BBC, I’d abolish it anyway. It’s not impartial (nor could it ever be) and it’s not subject to commercial considerations. If you objected to Sky giving him a platform , you could cancel your subscription. Enough people do that and they’ll re think next time. If you stop watching the BBC because of it, you’ve still got to pay them, and if you refuse to do so, will be locked up. That’s more ****ing disgusting than Banksie trolling remainers on Marr.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

And now Banks has been found guilty of using his insurance firm to send anti-EU propaganda to its customers in a blatant breach of privacy laws, and fined a measly £135,000. No wonder he's so f*cking smug.

 

And with all the other investigations ongoing, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his involvement in the leave campaign goes.

 

The mandate for Brexit is now about as strong as Saints' chances of being in the PL next season.

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
And now Banks has been found guilty of using his insurance firm to send anti-EU propaganda to its customers in a blatant breach of privacy laws, and fined a measly £135,000. No wonder he's so f*cking smug.

 

And with all the other investigations ongoing, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his involvement in the leave campaign goes.

 

The mandate for Brexit is now about as strong as Saints' chances of being in the PL next season.

I saw TimMartin (?) Weatherspoons leaflet that someone showed me about how food and drink will be cheaper once we leave! Well stuff that's going out of date perhaps but as the £ bombs I suspect it is nonsense.
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/1046828583484821504

 

This guy is usually bang on the money with anything to do with Brexit. The picture painted here is horrifying, but entirely believable.

 

So I ask everyone: Given a straight choice between leaving under the scenario laid out in this thread or remaining, what would you choose?

That twitter feed is some of the biggest load of absolute b*llocks I've ever read. Not a chance would the risk averse and dull May attempt anything like that.
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
That twitter feed is some of the biggest load of absolute b*llocks I've ever read. Not a chance would the risk averse and dull May attempt anything like that.

 

And yet he is repeatedly proved correct with his assertions.

 

May has got nothing to do with it. She's just an expendable fall-girl for the Tories right now. The only reason they are letting her stay in her post is so that she can shoulder the public blame for the inevitable economic fallout after we leave. Once Brexit has been delivered, she will be betrayed and removed so quickly her feet won't touch the ground.

LGTL

LGTL

Posted
Posted

May is a sitting duck, that much is quite clear. Nothing would surprise me with that current lot to be honest. Although a hard border in Ireland would be more slap bang stupid then this whole sorry saga put together.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
And yet he is repeatedly proved correct with his assertions.

 

May has got nothing to do with it. She's just an expendable fall-girl for the Tories right now. The only reason they are letting her stay in her post is so that she can shoulder the public blame for the inevitable economic fallout after we leave. Once Brexit has been delivered, she will be betrayed and removed so quickly her feet won't touch the ground.

I don't care what anyone thinks of brexit, that story is baseless and a complete pile of sh*t. Anyone who believes that's happening has simply let their bias run away with them. Use some critical thinking skills for goodness sake and don't just swallow any old load of tripe splattered over twitter because it fits your ideology. That goes for the pro brexit position as well.
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Sounds like total boll*cks to me.

 

It reminds me quite a lot of Nancy MacLean's thesis in Democracy in Chains, which is about a plot, originated supposedly with James McGill Buchanan, to repeal the 17th amendment. I've no doubt there are people out there who think in this malevolent way (Barclays come to mind, the bros not the bank - poor men's Kochs). It's much less clear that they have the actual power to deliver on their libertarian smash-and-grab fantasy.

Saint86

Saint86

Posted
Posted (edited)
https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/1046828583484821504

 

This guy is usually bang on the money with anything to do with Brexit. The picture painted here is horrifying, but entirely believable.

 

So I ask everyone: Given a straight choice between leaving under the scenario laid out in this thread or remaining, what would you choose?

 

I'd leave.

 

Like it or not, there was a democratic vote and result. I honestly think it was never meant (or going) to be an unbiased argument, and in truth, the government used a tax payer funded leaflet to spread their own message. Either way, the remain side really messed about and lost at their own game.

 

The decision is done now. It would do incredible damage to this country to try and undo it - I think it would be a generational death knell for our democracy at least. I personally also think we will get a very poor deal if we go back on it (goodbye rebate etc), let alone the damage it would do to Britain's reputation and standing in world politics/trade.

 

As for the EU itself. If you take the emotions and political ideologies out of this, there really should be no reason not to strike an open and beneficial trade deal between the UK and the EU. The fact that this simply hasn't happened says an unfortunately large amount about either the EU's ability to function, or on their future EU ambitions on British industries. Either way it should make for uncomfortable thought experiments when considering the future. We could have been seen as long term allies and trading partners who have chosen to go another way, instead I feel very much that we have been treated as prize cattle from which they wish to chose their cuts. If that is the case, and given DC's previous inability to extract any concessions, maybe we really are better off under our own sovereign democracy... Even if it does give us a the choice of Jezzabelle or Maybot :mcinnes:

 

I think whichever way you voted, its hard to ignore the harm undoing it will do, and its hard to look at the prospective deal on offer and be happy. Not a great place to be - and a very sad indictment of our current political leaders.

 

Also Bexy, I am sorry to say this, but if you believe that twitter blog from James Patrick then you are giving into some serious Hysteria and need to take a break or step back. That simply won't be happening and you can come quote me in march next year ;)

Edited by Saint86
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
I'd leave.

 

Like it or not, there was a democratic vote and result. I honestly think it was never meant (or going) to be an unbiased argument, and in truth, the government used a tax payer funded leaflet to spread their own message. Either way, the remain side really messed about and lost at their own game.

 

The decision is done now. It would do incredible damage to this country to try and undo it - I think it would be a generational death knell for our democracy at least. I personally also think we will get a very poor deal if we go back on it (goodbye rebate etc), let alone the damage it would do to Britain's reputation and standing in world politics/trade.

 

As for the EU itself. If you take the emotions and political ideologies out of this, there really should be no reason not to strike an open and beneficial trade deal between the UK and the EU. The fact that this simply hasn't happened says an unfortunately large amount about either the EU's ability to function, or on their future EU ambitions on British industries. Either way it should make for uncomfortable thought experiments when considering the future. We could have been seen as long term allies and trading partners who have chosen to go another way, instead I feel very much that we have been treated as prize cattle from which they wish to chose their cuts. If that is the case, and given DC's previous inability to extract any concessions, maybe we really are better off under our own sovereign democracy... Even if it does give us a the choice of Jezzabelle or Maybot :mcinnes:

 

I think whichever way you voted, its hard to ignore the harm undoing it will do, and its hard to look at the prospective deal on offer and be happy. Not a great place to be - and a very sad indictment of our current political leaders.

 

Also Bexy, I am sorry to say this, but if you believe that twitter blog from James Patrick then you are giving into some serious Hysteria and need to take a break or step back. That simply won't be happening and you can come quote me in march next year ;)

 

The thing is that a lot of it is perfectly believable, because there is already a lot stuff we already know which backs up aspects of it. For instance:

 

The govt have already voted to grant themselves Henry VIII powers

Liam Fox has already been in talks with the US over trade deals

Theresa May has already publicly threatened to turn the UK into a tax haven if we don't get a deal

All of the rhetoric so far has been that the blame for failure to yet agree a deal is solely the fault of the EU

 

I've followed this guy for a while now and he has been spot on with his snippets and revelations numerous times. I have no reason to simply dismiss him out of hand, and as extreme as some of it may sound, none of it would surprise me when you look at who is driving it all.

 

But yes, I am also mindful of the old saying "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". And let's face it, "competent" is never a word you would use to describe this sh*tshow of a government.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...