Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      127
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • 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

 

The reason May didn’t win a majority is because the electorate rejected her hardline Lancaster House vision for Brexit.

 

You really have little clue about what the electorate voted for in the General Election. You are also clueless, little fella, calling the Lancaster House speech hardline. The majority vote in the referendum was for what was encapsulated in the Lancaster House speech,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Yes, exactly that one. Where does it say that I personally threatened to rearrange his face. That's right, it didn't. I have responded previously to this lie that Shurlock perpetuates by stating that I am not a violent person.

 

But I don't retract the opinion that if Shurlock were to use the sort of patronising and infantile name-calling in his local pub that he employs on here, then I have no doubt that somebody would punch his lights out.

 

Is it now clear that it is not me threatening it, or is your mind too feeble to comprehend simple English, or too Mutt and Jeff to hear?

 

I would happily volunteer to punch Herbert's lights out and the troll knows why...

 

You're both doing the same thing, which is fantasising about violence against a poster on here. Cut it the fu ck out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
You're both doing the same thing, which is fantasising about violence against a poster on here. Cut it the fu ck out.

 

You're also clueless, little fella if you believe that.

 

I am not fantasing about violence by suggesting that Shurlock (the poster you are reticent to name) would risk facing an assault if he were to hurl the sort of patronising and infantile insults in a conversation with somebody in a pub that he does on here.

 

And since when were you appointed a moderator? Mind your own business, VD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
You really have little clue about what the electorate voted for in the General Election. You are also clueless, little fella, calling the Lancaster House speech hardline. The majority vote in the referendum was for what was encapsulated in the Lancaster House speech,

 

It was a pretty common interpretation of the election result Les.

 

However I'm more struck by how you can accuse me of not having a clue of what the electorate voted for in the GE then claiming to know what 17.4m people voted for in the referendum :lol:

 

I think its your nap time old boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
So you're that shallow that if you don't agree with one thing that somebody says, then you'll disagree with everything else he says?

 

It's an opinion piece. I find, when reading such things, that it's useful to know what other opinions the writer has expressed previously to help me decide whether it's an opinion worth listening to or not. Don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highfield Saint

Highfield Saint

Posted
Posted

This is all a bit bizarre and purile tbh. Talk of Germany ruling Europe and coupled with insults and name calling from both sides (yes - sides and how stupid is that!)? Really? I heard a snippet on the Jeremy Vine R2 call in show at lunchtime today with the question from one caller being "why do you think the EU want us to stay?". The inference being that they want something and therefore we shouldn't give it. It's the same on here - I'm right and therefore you are wrong and we can't give in and accept what they want when maybe, just maybe, it might be a win-win where we can all benefit.

 

It doesn't have to be about us versus them does it? The reference to our fathers and grandfathers not having given their lives in vain - really? The world moves on doesn't it? We don't make reference to the Napoleonic wars or countless other conflicts in the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
This is all a bit bizarre and purile tbh. Talk of Germany ruling Europe and coupled with insults and name calling from both sides (yes - sides and how stupid is that!)? Really? I heard a snippet on the Jeremy Vine R2 call in show at lunchtime today with the question from one caller being "why do you think the EU want us to stay?". The inference being that they want something and therefore we shouldn't give it. It's the same on here - I'm right and therefore you are wrong and we can't give in and accept what they want when maybe, just maybe, it might be a win-win where we can all benefit.

 

It doesn't have to be about us versus them does it? The reference to our fathers and grandfathers not having given their lives in vain - really? The world moves on doesn't it? We don't make reference to the Napoleonic wars or countless other conflicts in the same way?

good post unfortunelly some people are stuck in a world thats gone,i,m not suprised how its all ended up on the deal.projectfantasy is hitting reality,.but unfortunelly that will not sink in to the die hards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
It was a pretty common interpretation of the election result Les.

 

However I'm more struck by how you can accuse me of not having a clue of what the electorate voted for in the GE then claiming to know what 17.4m people voted for in the referendum :lol:

 

I think its your nap time old boy.

 

Agreed that your drivel is becoming tiresome. *yawn* What arrogance professing to know what everybody voted for in the General Election. Pray tell us oh wise one, what percentage voted on the basis of whether they wanted us to leave the EU, or to stay in it? What percentage voted along historical party lines, the colour of the rosette the donkey was wearing metaphor? What percentage voted on the economy, the NHS, Defence, Nationalisation, Education, etc.

 

At least the referendum offered a binary choice, so it was clear that a majority who voted wished to leave the EU. Granted there were many numerous reasons for wanting to do so, just as there were many reasons some wished to stay. But it is widely accepted that the remoaners failed to understand the reasons why they lost the vote, and you stand as a prime example of somebody who hasn't a clue still now as to why the leave vote still stands firm, despite the worst efforts of our useless PM to mess up any advantages that would accrue from leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
It's an opinion piece. I find, when reading such things, that it's useful to know what other opinions the writer has expressed previously to help me decide whether it's an opinion worth listening to or not. Don't you?

 

No. Whereas I accept that some articles might influence my overall opinion of their authors, I am old enough and well rounded enough to accept that it is shallow to dismiss every opinion from somebody based on an appraisal of their opinions on a narrow range of subjects. Just because I wouldn't feel it worthwhile listening to Ken Livingstone's political views, doesn't mean that I would dismiss his views on how to keep newts. Politics as a subject covers a very diverse range of policy areas, so it is perfectly feasible to agree with a politician's views on one subject and to vehemently disagree on another, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
No. Whereas I accept that some articles might influence my overall opinion of their authors, I am old enough and well rounded enough to accept that it is shallow to dismiss every opinion from somebody based on an appraisal of their opinions on a narrow range of subjects. Just because I wouldn't feel it worthwhile listening to Ken Livingstone's political views, doesn't mean that I would dismiss his views on how to keep newts. Politics as a subject covers a very diverse range of policy areas, so it is perfectly feasible to agree with a politician's views on one subject and to vehemently disagree on another, isn't it?

 

Les, Simon Heffer's prejudices are well-known and indeed he's very well remunerated for them. I doubt anyone would cite him as a impartial thinker anymore than they would rely on Owen Jones to objectively assess the Tories record in government.

 

GM might but he's a bit challenged.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Brexiteers are those that wish to leave the EU. Jihadists are people that are involved in a jihad i.e. an Islamic militant.Those that want to stay in an EU that wants a European army, are traitors, and shurlock aka Herbert Von W@nkstain is humourless troll.

 

I am a moron, but that is due to 7 years attending King Edward VI school.

 

Not just a moron, a stuck-up arrogant moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Les, Simon Heffer's prejudices are well-known and indeed he's very well remunerated for them. I doubt anyone would cite him as a impartial thinker anymore than they would rely on Owen Jones to objectively assess the Tories record in government.

 

GM might but he's a bit challenged.

 

Your prejudices are well known too. So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
No. Whereas I accept that some articles might influence my overall opinion of their authors, I am old enough and well rounded enough to accept that it is shallow to dismiss every opinion from somebody based on an appraisal of their opinions on a narrow range of subjects. Just because I wouldn't feel it worthwhile listening to Ken Livingstone's political views, doesn't mean that I would dismiss his views on how to keep newts. Politics as a subject covers a very diverse range of policy areas, so it is perfectly feasible to agree with a politician's views on one subject and to vehemently disagree on another, isn't it?

 

OK, you make a very good point and you argue it well.

 

However, in this instance, if someone is capable of spouting such a load of ignorant, prejudicial bull**** about an entire city's population, it immediately tells me that he bases his opinions on absurd stereotypes rather than fact.

 

So when he tries to compare the EU - the organisation responsible for maintaining the longest sustained period of peace in Europe in recorded history - to the Nazis, it's safe to say that his opinion can be ignored and/or ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

Anyway, back on topic... What was that statement from May all about? She said that she believes the decision is in the best interests of the country, but there has been no 'decision' yet. It was just another typical load of waffle from her that didn't actually say anything.

 

She did, however, appear to indicate that the option of staying in isn't completely out of the question. A change of tack from her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Anyway, back on topic... What was that statement from May all about? She said that she believes the decision is in the best interests of the country, but there has been no 'decision' yet. It was just another typical load of waffle from her that didn't actually say anything.

 

She did, however, appear to indicate that the option of staying in isn't completely out of the question. A change of tack from her?

The preferred option for the EU was always for us to stay in. Staying in has always been on the table and once parliament reject this it will be the only option on the table. Whoever is subsequently in power will then have to deal with millions of people who will feel betrayed by the establishment figures that have pulled out all the stops in order to manufacture this situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

In my opinion many people who voted including most of the people who voted leave will have been thinking from the start of this process that if we are going to leave then we should actually properly leave, take the consequences of what was voted for and embrace future opportunities or stay in. This approach pleases nobody and is clearly inferior to staying in so really we may as well stay where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
The preferred option for the EU was always for us to stay in. Staying in has always been on the table and once parliament reject this it will be the only option on the table. Whoever is subsequently in power will then have to deal with millions of people who will feel betrayed by the establishment figures that have pulled out all the stops in order to manufacture this situation.

 

Yeah I agree with all of that. But May's line has always been "the people have already spoken and we're leaving". Tonight was the first time we've heard her even pay lip service to the idea that we could still remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Anyway, back on topic... What was that statement from May all about? She said that she believes the decision is in the best interests of the country, but there has been no 'decision' yet. It was just another typical load of waffle from her that didn't actually say anything.

 

She did, however, appear to indicate that the option of staying in isn't completely out of the question. A change of tack from her?

 

She’s telling the Leavers it’s her deal or no Brexit and telling remainers it’s her deal or leave with no deal. Whether she’ll get away with it, I don’t know, but she’s playing on everyone’s fears of their worst case scenario.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yeah I agree with all of that. But May's line has always been "the people have already spoken and we're leaving". Tonight was the first time we've heard her even pay lip service to the idea that we could still remain.
Does anyone really listen to anything she says? She's talked a load of uninspiring bollards for two years. She completely contradicted her previous statements with the chequers deal. No one should trust a single word she says. Had she been honest of her intentions at the stay of the process then she would have been out much earlier. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Tbf people were saying she would be gone before the start of this year and she's still around. I'd back her to stay until they lose the vote in parliament. Least successful pm in history?

 

TBF Cabbage just wants to post all over the place. True mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

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...