Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Verbal]

What a scummy excuse of a human being you are, comparing Jihadists and suicide bombers to people who want their democratic decision respected.

 

Do you forget all the children killed and maimed around the world by people strapping suicide vests to themselves, or the families torn apart in Manchester last year by people strapping suicide vests to themselves.

 

Do you forget all our soldiers who've given their lives fighting these same Jihadists, or families split up by these Jihadists, or children kidnapped by these Jihadists.

 

No of course not because scum of your ilk like nothing better than using these words to try and bully people who don't agree with you in to submission.

 

I can honestly say, I don't now what worthless people like you bring to humanity.

 

I suggest you (a) calm down, and (b) spin back through this thread where I've made the case for the comparison of Brexit Jihadists and actual ones - namely, as Shylock has reminded you, in deontological fundamentalism.

 

To paraphrase, they have the same mindset. And I have to tell you, my southern-counties provincial chum, the comparison is made having dealt first-hand with actual Jihadists, and having seen some of the results of their handiwork. The same cult-like fixation on circular arguments infects them both. You also find it in conspiracy theorists - and actually all Jihadists I've encountered are also firm believers in the weirdest conspiracies (my least favourite being that polio vaccinators are injecting George Bush's pee into people's veins, or are injecting a concealed contraceptive aimed at reducing the Muslim population - all deadly arguments because people have died as a consequence).

 

Now for the really bad news. Your conspiracist belief that the ERG, along with other no-deal fundos, represent some sort of stand-alone defence of the 'will of the people', and that the rest of the body politic is a corrupted force hell-bent on denying your weird take on what the referendum was about, is entirely consistent with Jihadist ideation.

 

So have a little think.

[Wes Tender]

I suggest you (a) calm down, and (b) spin back through this thread where I've made the case for the comparison of Brexit Jihadists and actual ones - namely, as Shylock has reminded you, in deontological fundamentalism.

 

To paraphrase, they have the same mindset. And I have to tell you, my southern-counties provincial chum, the comparison is made having dealt first-hand with actual Jihadists, and having seen some of the results of their handiwork. The same cult-like fixation on circular arguments infects them both. You also find it in conspiracy theorists - and actually all Jihadists I've encountered are also firm believers in the weirdest conspiracies (my least favourite being that polio vaccinators are injecting George Bush's pee into people's veins, or are injecting a concealed contraceptive aimed at reducing the Muslim population - all deadly arguments because people have died as a consequence).

 

Now for the really bad news. Your conspiracist belief that the ERG, along with other no-deal fundos, represent some sort of stand-alone defence of the 'will of the people', and that the rest of the body politic is a corrupted force hell-bent on denying your weird take on what the referendum was about, is entirely consistent with Jihadist ideation.

 

So have a little think.

 

There's no need to have a think. You're talking complete and utter b*llocks. As usual

[Wes Tender]

As Fox is staying, it therefore follows that he believes the deal on the table is good, as do you.

Congratulations. Why do you want May to quit then?

 

I'm afraid that your powers of reasoning are faulty if you draw either conclusion. What is indicative of Fox's position, along with Gove's and indeed Mordaunt's, is that five of the remaining pro-Brexit cabinet ministers are meeting to try and get May to change some of the Chequers deal. Personally I think that is a fool's errand, as May has a stubborn single-mindedness about her and she cannot admit that the deal that she has spent several months pursuing on behalf of Oily Robbins was never going to be popular with anybody. It might also be the case that those ministers know damned well that Chequers will be ditched by the Commons and that May will be forced to resign unless the agrees to go for an alternative like Canada +++, which she won't. And that is even if she lasts that long without a leadership challenge.

 

Why do I want her to quit? Because she has been the weakest Conservative leader in my memory, being compared by some to the likes of Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. She made all the right noises about Brexit when appointed, despite being a Remoaner, but it has become clear that she is still a Remoaner. She has surrounded herself with fellow remoaners, allowed a Civil Servant to lead her by the nose with this ridiculous Chequers plan, forced two Brexit Ministers appointed by her to resign because she undermined their authority, and was utterly incompetent in the way that she went about the negotiations. She has wasted two years and we have not even started negotiating the trade deal yet. Frankly she is an embarrassment.

[Guided Missile]

There's no need to have a think. You're talking complete and utter b*llocks. As usual

Don't quote the patronising nutter, my southern-counties provincial chum...

[Guided Missile]

I'm afraid that your powers of reasoning are faulty if you draw either conclusion. What is indicative of Fox's position, along with Gove's and indeed Mordaunt's, is that five of the remaining pro-Brexit cabinet ministers are meeting to try and get May to change some of the Chequers deal. Personally I think that is a fool's errand, as May has a stubborn single-mindedness about her and she cannot admit that the deal that she has spent several months pursuing on behalf of Oily Robbins was never going to be popular with anybody. It might also be the case that those ministers know damned well that Chequers will be ditched by the Commons and that May will be forced to resign unless the agrees to go for an alternative like Canada +++, which she won't. And that is even if she lasts that long without a leadership challenge.

 

Why do I want her to quit? Because she has been the weakest Conservative leader in my memory, being compared by some to the likes of Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. She made all the right noises about Brexit when appointed, despite being a Remoaner, but it has become clear that she is still a Remoaner. She has surrounded herself with fellow remoaners, allowed a Civil Servant to lead her by the nose with this ridiculous Chequers plan, forced two Brexit Ministers appointed by her to resign because she undermined their authority, and was utterly incompetent in the way that she went about the negotiations. She has wasted two years and we have not even started negotiating the trade deal yet. Frankly she is an embarrassment.

Brilliant synopsis....

[Lord Duckhunter]

First opinion poll out since May’s turd.

 

Opinium/Observer:

 

LAB 39 (+2)

CON 36 (-5)

UKIP 8 (+2)

LD 7 (-1)

SNP 5 (+1)

GRN 3 (=)

 

This, and her MP’s going back to their constituencies this weekend will probably trigger a confidence vote.

[Batman]

https://twitter.com/socialm85897394/status/1063771577366573056?s=21

[shurlock]

https://twitter.com/socialm85897394/status/1063771577366573056?s=21

 

Is he talking about Brexit Jamie?

[badgerx16]

With regard to a second vote, why not hold it ? We at least now know far more about the pros and cons, and where both sides in the referendum produced distortions and outright fabrications. People are entitled to have changed their opinions subsequent to the original vote, and if those that voted leave last time are confident of their position, then they will win again. Simply quoting the 'democratic will of the people' plays down the most significant point: when ,( if ), we "leave" the EU this is an irreversible step, unlike those other clear democratic statements of the electorate's will, General Elections, when we get a chance to review, revise, and potentially reverse a result every 5 years, or less.

[LGTL]

With regard to a second vote, why not hold it ? We at least now know far more about the pros and cons, and where both sides in the referendum produced distortions and outright fabrications. People are entitled to have changed their opinions subsequent to the original vote, and if those that voted leave last time are confident of their position, then they will win again. Simply quoting the 'democratic will of the people' plays down the most significant point: when ,( if ), we "leave" the EU this is an irreversible step, unlike those other clear democratic statements of the electorate's will, General Elections, when we get a chance to review, revise, and potentially reverse a result every 5 years, or less.

 

Exactly. Now we know precisely what it will entail, people can actually have an informed vote. Surely if Brexit is such a good thing for the country, it'll actually gain 60% or 70% of the vote now we all know about it? In actual fact, the only reason they're so against it is nothing to do with democracy, but all to do with the fact that even they realise it's doomed to fail.

[Batman]

Exactly. Now we know precisely what it will entail, people can actually have an informed vote. Surely if Brexit is such a good thing for the country, it'll actually gain 60% or 70% of the vote now we all know about it? In actual fact, the only reason they're so against it is nothing to do with democracy, but all to do with the fact that even they realise it's doomed to fail.

 

One thing is for sure, we know exactly what the status quo is. It’s definitely not change in the last two years

[buctootim]

First opinion poll out since May’s turd.

 

Opinium/Observer:

 

LAB 39 (+2)

CON 36 (-5)

UKIP 8 (+2)

LD 7 (-1)

SNP 5 (+1)

GRN 3 (=)

 

This, and her MP’s going back to their constituencies this weekend will probably trigger a confidence vote.

 

Even if the confidence vote happens I think she'll win it. Yes its a turd and no-one likes it and yes May played a bad hand badly. But most mainstream Tory MPs - both leave and remain - are terrified of the ERG headbangers getting control of the party. They'll hold on to May until its sorted out and only then will she get the quiet word in the ear that its time to go - sometime in the new year.

Edited 17 November, 2018 by buctootim

[Highfield Saint]

I'm not entrenched in this like a lot of repeat posters on here but...

 

Leadership challenge? If there is a change of leadership that will be the second unelected PM since cameron? That's just got to be wrong. Isnt the argument that we (as in the people, the governed) set our own laws and decisions not unelected representatives?

Majority for the proposed deal? Probably not but there isnt a majority in parliament or in the country at large for any of the "options"? How do you resolve that?

Second vote? The main objectors to this seem to be people who voted leave - wonder why that is? I personally cant see why anyone would object on democratic grounds? For extending the period of uncertainty and lack of positive action yes but democracy?

The Tory party - apart from the fact that the general public will not forget the events of the last few years there is a distinct possibility that this will split the Tory party and create a chasm which would be filled by Labour. Could this be the last Conservative government for the foreseeable future?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Even if the confidence vote happens I think she'll win it. Yes its a turd and no-one likes it and yes May played a bad hand badly. But most mainstream Tory MPs - both leave and remain - are terrified of the ERG headbangers getting control of the party. They'll hold on to May until its sorted out and only then will she get the quiet word in the ear that its time to go - sometime in the new year.

 

Once there’s a leadership challenge, it’s ditch her or keep her for a year. There’s no option of having a quiet word because she’s so tin eared she won’t quit voluntarily.

 

She will win a confidence vote, but if it’s only the pay roll vote that delivers it, she’ll be gone. If the vote against her gets into 3 figures, she’s toast.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

 

Second vote? The main objectors to this seem to be people who voted leave - wonder why that is? I personally cant see why anyone would object on democratic grounds? For extending the period of uncertainty and lack of positive action yes but democracy?

 

The main proposers for a second vote comes from those who lost the first one. I wonder why that is? You can't see why anybody would object to one on democratic grounds, yet you somehow fail to realise that ignoring the majority vote in a referendum is hugely undemocratic.

[whelk]

The main proposers for a second vote comes from those who lost the first one. I wonder why that is? You can't see why anybody would object to one on democratic grounds, yet you somehow fail to realise that ignoring the majority vote in a referendum is hugely undemocratic.

 

Scared you would lose?

[hypochondriac]

Scared you would lose?

I think remain would win convincingly. I also find it profoundly depressing that the result of the first referendum and subsequent general election would be overturned before the result has been implemented. Effectively says that no matter what happens, it is impossible to leave the EU properly and admits that the EU already has so much power and control that there is nothing we can do about it. Hardly anyone pushing for another vote or saying we should remain in has had anything positive to say about that prospect, rather they have just said how any other alternative is a bad one. How depressing.

[doddisalegend]

Scared you would lose?

 

Well its a distinct possibility when the vast "Majority" was a whole 3.9%. Given that 48.1% where all voting for the same thing with no ambiguity and other 52.9% where voting for some sort of Brexit, but couldn't agree, or didn't know what that actually looked like the whole referendum was flawed in the first place. The referendum should have been held once the government had a secured a draft leave proposal so that everyone voting knew exactly what staying and leaving looked like and we could vote on the reality of the situation rather than the fantasies, mis-information and lies both sides put out in the original referendum.

Edited 18 November, 2018 by doddisalegend

[shurlock]

Well its a distinct possibility when the vast "Majority" was a whole 3.9%. Given that 48.1% where all voting for the same thing with no ambiguity and other 52.9% where voting for some sort of Brexit, but couldn't agree, or didn't know what that actually looked like the whole referendum was flawed in the first place. The referendum should have been held once the government had a secured a draft leave proposal so that everyone voting knew exactly what staying and leaving looked like and we could vote on the reality of the situation rather than the fantasies, mis-information and lies both sides put out in the original referendum.

 

51.9%

[doddisalegend]

51.9%

 

doh yep shouldn't post before coffee....

[Wes Tender]

Scared you would lose?

 

You have to laugh at hypocrites who say that referenda have no place in our democratic system and then when they lose one, they want to have another one. Exactly how many referenda do you think that we should have on this issue? If Remain won your laughingly named "peoples vote," 2 years or so would be fair game for the Leavers to call for another one, wouldn't it? We could also call that the "peoples vote" too and castigate the remoaners for being afraid of holding one in case they lost.

 

Or maybe we could hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum on the EU.

 

The trouble is, this is likely to take us past the 29th March 2019, when we will have already left.

[whelk]

You have to laugh at hypocrites who say that referenda have no place in our democratic system and then when they lose one, they want to have another one. Exactly how many referenda do you think that we should have on this issue? If Remain won your laughingly named "peoples vote," 2 years or so would be fair game for the Leavers to call for another one, wouldn't it? We could also call that the "peoples vote" too and castigate the remoaners for being afraid of holding one in case they lost.

 

Or maybe we could hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum on the EU.

 

The trouble is, this is likely to take us past the 29th March 2019, when we will have already left.

 

So May has secured a deal to leave. People wanted us to leave. Done and dusted let’s move on.

[shurlock]

You have to laugh at hypocrites who say that referenda have no place in our democratic system and then when they lose one, they want to have another one. Exactly how many referenda do you think that we should have on this issue? If Remain won your laughingly named "peoples vote," 2 years or so would be fair game for the Leavers to call for another one, wouldn't it? We could also call that the "peoples vote" too and castigate the remoaners for being afraid of holding one in case they lost.

 

Or maybe we could hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum on the EU.

 

The trouble is, this is likely to take us past the 29th March 2019, when we will have already left.

 

No Les it would depend on how much new information had come to light or circumstances had changed in that intervening period.

 

The fact is that we now have clarity where before we had vague, undeliverable promises if not outright lies pal. That’s hardly surprising given article 50 had not been even triggered in June 2016 and it was only three days ago we found out what leave actually meant

 

Just to remind you -outside your putrid echo chamber of swivels- there is no parliamentary support for no deal. Per Alistair Burt, the extremists better play their hand carefullly or all bets are off and you may end up with a lot of egg on your faces.

[Wes Tender]

So May has secured a deal to leave. People wanted us to leave. Done and dusted let’s move on.

 

You clearly don't understand the implications of this "deal" if you think it is done and dusted. It will not be done and dusted until the Commons votes it through. And even then, this is just the Transitional period deal, not our trade deal with the EU, which hasn't even begun being discussed properly yet.

[shurlock]

Operation ‘No Deal’ — army plans for troops on street

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/operation-no-deal-army-plans-for-troops-on-street-cc5c55kq8

 

Maybe the army has seen some of the threats of violence on this thread.

[Wes Tender]

No Les it would depend on how much new information had come to light or circumstances had changed in that intervening period.

 

The fact is that we now have clarity where before we had vague, undeliverable promises if not outright lies pal. That’s hardly surprising given article 50 had not been even triggered in June 2016 and it was only three days ago we found out what leave actually meant

 

Just to remind you -outside your putrid echo chamber of swivels- there is no parliamentary support for no deal. Per Alistair Burt, the extremists better play their hand carefullly or all bets are off and you may end up with a lot of egg on your faces.

 

We have clarity? LOL We only found out three days ago what May and Oily Robbins' proposed deal was, which isn't actually what Leave means, even if you believe it to be, sonny.

 

I need to remind you on Remoaner fantasy island, there is little support for Chequers, either inside the House or outside of it. And support for May and Chequers among Conservative Party members is hardly registering into double figures.

 

If May doesn't follow through on Brexit and calls the whole thing off, then the Conservative Party is out of power for the next decade at least.

[Wes Tender]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/operation-no-deal-army-plans-for-troops-on-street-cc5c55kq8

 

Maybe the army has seen some of the threats of violence on this thread.

 

Where? Show us. An opinion that there could be civil unrest does not constitute a threat of violence by those expressing it, does it?

[shurlock]

We have clarity? LOL We only found out three days ago what May and Oily Robbins' proposed deal was, which isn't actually what Leave means, even if you believe it to be, sonny.

 

I need to remind you on Remoaner fantasy island, there is little support for Chequers, either inside the House or outside of it. And support for May and Chequers among Conservative Party members is hardly registering into double figures.

 

If May doesn't follow through on Brexit and calls the whole thing off, then the Conservative Party is out of power for the next decade at least.

 

We have far greater clarity than before pal, even if it’s only been by a process of elimination. Whether it’s May’s deal or another deal, it’s absolutely clear it cannot and will not deliver on the fantasies of Leave. FACT.

 

Not sure which planet you’re on. But do you think the majority of remainers support Chequers. Where did I say there was a parliamentary majority for it? Read instead of frothing.

[shurlock]

Where? Show us. An opinion that there could be civil unrest does not constitute a threat of violence by those expressing it, does it?

 

When you’ve not got your head up GM’s arse, do you read his posts?

[doddisalegend]

We have clarity? LOL We only found out three days ago what May and Oily Robbins' proposed deal was, which isn't actually what Leave means, even if you believe it to be, sonny.

 

I need to remind you on Remoaner fantasy island, there is little support for Chequers, either inside the House or outside of it. And support for May and Chequers among Conservative Party members is hardly registering into double figures.

 

If May doesn't follow through on Brexit and calls the whole thing off, then the Conservative Party is out of power for the next decade at least.

 

I seem to remember the referendum paper said "leave the EU" it never at any time specified what leave means. People where happy enough to vote for something without knowing what they were actually getting. I can't see how they can now complain they are not getting what they imagined they where getting when there was no actual plan of what leave looked like at the time. All this could have been avoid if the deal was put in place first and then we where asked to vote on it that's how it should of happened and why I am now quite happy to have a second referendum so we can now vote with actual facts in front of us rather than both sides fantasies and lies we had in the first vote.

[shurlock]

I seem to remember the referendum paper said "leave the EU" it never at any time specified what leave means. People where happy enough to vote for something without knowing what they were actually getting. I can't see how they can now complain they are not getting what they imagined they where getting when there was no actual plan of what leave looked like at the time. All this could have been avoid if the deal was put in place first and then we where asked to vote on it that's how it should of happened and why I am now quite happy to have a second referendum so we can now vote with actual facts in front of us rather than both sides fantasies and lies we had in the first vote.

 

Didnt you know Les is a mindreader -he accuses others of mindreading but he definitely knows what kind of Brexit 17.4million people voted for. Every single one.

[whelk]

You clearly don't understand the implications of this "deal" if you think it is done and dusted. It will not be done and dusted until the Commons votes it through. And even then, this is just the Transitional period deal, not our trade deal with the EU, which hasn't even begun being discussed properly yet.

 

I admit I am not all over it as some however patently obvious there is not consensus on what ‘leave’ means and now just a huge mess. Comical levels of fck up since Cameron initiated the whole thing.

[whelk]

I seem to remember the referendum paper said "leave the EU" it never at any time specified what leave means. People where happy enough to vote for something without knowing what they were actually getting. I can't see how they can now complain they are not getting what they imagined they where getting when there was no actual plan of what leave looked like at the time. All this could have been avoid if the deal was put in place first and then we where asked to vote on it that's how it should of happened and why I am now quite happy to have a second referendum so we can now vote with actual facts in front of us rather than both sides fantasies and lies we had in the first vote.

 

Exactly although no one would ever put the effort in for a ‘what if’ scenario

[Lord Duckhunter]

So May has secured a deal to leave. People wanted us to leave. Done and dusted let’s move on.

 

This is what the Government wanted originally, but The Remainers forced a “meaningful vote” to stop May unilaterally ramming through a so called hard Brexit. The unintended consequence of this is that the meaningful vote looks like it will stop the softest of softest Brexit (May’s turd).

 

This is absolutely the best deal for remainers, I really don’t understand why they’re trying to block it. They’d have bitten your hand off for this the day after the vote, it’s as near as you’ll get to Labours position and it really gives a pathway for a campaign to go back in. Yet they’re so obsessed with not leaving in the first place they’re unable to see it. The popular perception is that the ERG have lost their heads, but the Remainers have as well. They seem unable to contemplate anything other than staying in ,and that creates a narrative for the other side. Had they backed the deal the argument would be around whether this is really leaving. This would be incredibly easy to portray as “moderates” against swivel eyed loons, whereas now it’s people who believe in honouring the result, against those who want to over turn it. I guess labour are more interested in bring down the Tories than anything else.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 18 November, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

I seem to remember the referendum paper said "leave the EU" it never at any time specified what leave means. People where happy enough to vote for something without knowing what they were actually getting. I can't see how they can now complain they are not getting what they imagined they where getting when there was no actual plan of what leave looked like at the time. All this could have been avoid if the deal was put in place first and then we where asked to vote on it that's how it should of happened and why I am now quite happy to have a second referendum so we can now vote with actual facts in front of us rather than both sides fantasies and lies we had in the first vote.

 

I agree in a way. We know way more about what sort of deal we might get than before the original refurendum, but I don’t think we will know what the best deal would be unless we actually leave. At this stage of the negotiation the EU are always going to offer us a **** deal, they will do all they can to make Brexit fail.

 

In a way a second vote makes sense, it just doesn’t sit with me very well because it means any country wanting to leave just gets bullied back in. We didn’t know what sort of leave we voted for but we definitely knew what we were voting to get out of.

Edited 18 November, 2018 by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

I agree in a way. We know way more about what sort of deal we might get than before the original refurendum, but I don’t think we will know what the best deal would be unless we actually leave. At this stage of the negotiation the EU are always going to offer us a **** deal, they will do all they can to make Brexit fail.

 

In a way a second vote makes sense, it just doesn’t sit with me very well with me because it means any country wanting to leave just gets bullied back in. We didn’t know what sort of leave we voted for but we definitely knew what we were voting to get out of.

Agree with that. It's all about keeping the UK in by any meabs they can. There's a reason the top brass have had meetings with Blair, Sturgeon etc.

[CB Fry]

We didn’t know what sort of leave we voted for but we definitely knew what we were voting to get out of.

 

You don't get to be "we" when you bottled out of voting the first time around.

[buctootim]

Reality is that more Tory voters favour remain than either May's fudge or no deal.

[buctootim]

This is absolutely the best deal for remainers, I really don’t understand why they’re trying to block it.

 

Being in the EU has always been a mixed bag. Now its obvious to all we aren't going to get the unicorn deal of all the good and none of the bad people are re-assessing and remain is getting a fresh wave of support.

Edited 18 November, 2018 by buctootim

[Highfield Saint]

The main proposers for a second vote comes from those who lost the first one. I wonder why that is? You can't see why anybody would object to one on democratic grounds, yet you somehow fail to realise that ignoring the majority vote in a referendum is hugely undemocratic.

 

I do disagree with your assertion that another vote would be undemocratic or that it would be ignoring the majority vote in the 2016 vote. Is it not fundamentally democratic to seek confirmation of the original result now that the terms are better known? This might confirm the original result or give a significant change of mind (a principle of democracy is the right and the ability to change its mind). This vote could be made binding as opposed to the advisory nature of the 2016 vote which would eliminate any repeat ad nauseam potential.

 

An additional benefit would be to remove the "Westminster factor" and thereby eliminate any political and self interested manoeuvring by the various political groups who it seems are more motivated by self interest than by the best interests of the country.

 

It might also stop the Tories self destructing and removing themselves from the potential for government.

[aintforever]

You don't get to be "we" when you bottled out of voting the first time around.

 

I didn’t vote leave precisely because it wasn’t clear what I would be voting for - turned out it was the correct move.

[Wes Tender]

I do disagree with your assertion that another vote would be undemocratic or that it would be ignoring the majority vote in the 2016 vote. Is it not fundamentally democratic to seek confirmation of the original result now that the terms are better known? This might confirm the original result or give a significant change of mind (a principle of democracy is the right and the ability to change its mind). This vote could be made binding as opposed to the advisory nature of the 2016 vote which would eliminate any repeat ad nauseam potential.

 

An additional benefit would be to remove the "Westminster factor" and thereby eliminate any political and self interested manoeuvring by the various political groups who it seems are more motivated by self interest than by the best interests of the country.

 

It might also stop the Tories self destructing and removing themselves from the potential for government.

 

OK, so you prove conclusively that you are not a democrat. And then to add insult to injury, you propose that despite promises made by the Government that they would abide by the result of this recent referendum and the Commons voting by a large majority to trigger Article 50 so endorsing the decision, you still persist in the puerile argument that it was just advisory. This time you would make it binding, so that if your lot won, even by the slenderest margin, it would stick. What hypocrisy that would be, when after subsequent mass Leave vote marches calling for yet another "peoples vote", you wouldn't accept holding one because although opinion might have shifted the few percent to favour a leave vote once more, you will then claim that the democratic decision had already been made once the facts had become known.

 

 

And where was this pandering to the electorate's change of mind when the entire basis of what they originally voted for in the first referendum, joining a "common market", then morphed into a federal project? Were you clamouring for a referendum after each treaty, Amsterdam, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon? No, I very much doubt it. Probably you were entirely happy that circumstances could change all they liked provided that it brought us ever closer to a United States of Europe.

 

We had to wait over forty years to finally get that second referendum and yet here you are proposing a third one barely more than a couple of years after a vote to leave, when we haven't even left yet, let alone sorted out any trade deal. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you remoaner losers look?

 

And talking about the Westminster bubble and self-interest, it is big business and the establishment who led project fear during and after the referendum. Are you really that naive as to believe that those vested interests will somehow disappear in a third referendum?

 

What would stop the Tories self-destructing would be to ditch May, ditch Chequers and negotiate a proper Brexit that satisfies the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU. If they don't then a decade in the political wilderness awaits.

[buctootim]

OK, so you prove conclusively that you are not a democrat. And then to add insult to injury, you propose that despite promises made by the Government that they would abide by the result of this recent referendum and the Commons voting by a large majority to trigger Article 50 so endorsing the decision, you still persist in the puerile argument that it was just advisory. This time you would make it binding, so that if your lot won, even by the slenderest margin, it would stick. What hypocrisy that would be, when after subsequent mass Leave vote marches calling for yet another "peoples vote", you wouldn't accept holding one because although opinion might have shifted the few percent to favour a leave vote once more, you will then claim that the democratic decision had already been made once the facts had become known.

 

 

And where was this pandering to the electorate's change of mind when the entire basis of what they originally voted for in the first referendum, joining a "common market", then morphed into a federal project? Were you clamouring for a referendum after each treaty, Amsterdam, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon? No, I very much doubt it. Probably you were entirely happy that circumstances could change all they liked provided that it brought us ever closer to a United States of Europe.

 

We had to wait over forty years to finally get that second referendum and yet here you are proposing a third one barely more than a couple of years after a vote to leave, when we haven't even left yet, let alone sorted out any trade deal. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you remoaner losers look?

 

And talking about the Westminster bubble and self-interest, it is big business and the establishment who led project fear during and after the referendum. Are you really that naive as to believe that those vested interests will somehow disappear in a third referendum?

 

What would stop the Tories self-destructing would be to ditch May, ditch Chequers and negotiate a proper Brexit that satisfies the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU. If they don't then a decade in the political wilderness awaits.

 

Outraged!! Turning from gammon to winegum

[Wes Tender]

Reality is that more Tory voters favour remain than either May's fudge or no deal.

 

It depends what the question was that was asked by pollers. Was Canada +++ an option? I suspect not, as probably that would have received the majority vote, so it probably wasn't even an option.

[Wes Tender]

Outraged!! Turning from gammon to winegum

 

Been on the vino, Timmy?

[shurlock]

Outraged!! Turning from gammon to winegum

 

He's having a meltdown.

 

[hypochondriac]

Is calling people gammon every five minutes supposed to be insulting? As insults go it's a pretty immature one. Not as pathetic as Jihadists granted but still sounds like you're on the playground.

[buctootim]

It depends what the question was that was asked by pollers. Was Canada +++ an option? I suspect not, as probably that would have received the majority vote, so it probably wasn't even an option.

 

As an economist from Kings wrote a while ago, putting +++ on the end of a mark is just a way of making the credulous feel better about a crappy score. Economically the C+++ of Canada - even if had been offered under the 'cake and eat it' option - would never be as good as the B score of the EEA or the A of being an EU member.

[buctootim]

Is calling people gammon every five minutes supposed to be insulting? As insults go it's a pretty immature one. Not as pathetic as Jihadists granted but still sounds like you're on the playground.

 

How about 'winegum'? Better than a C+++ anyhow

[whelk]

How about 'winegum'? Better than a C+++ anyhow

 

I’d rather be called a cnt than gammon