As a pejorative, Brexiteers is about as rubbish as Supermac.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
There is an objective difference of style in the two terms: *Brexiteers* is a newly-coined word which is open to interpretation. *Remoaners* is not a simple play on words but incorporates an existing negative word.
And, IMHO, the negative feeling of *moaner* would be hard for a group to embrace in the way *deplorable* was. (E.g. How many patients like it when they read a report stating "This person arrived complaining of ..."?)
IMHO, it's reasonable to bar the one word from general use and not the other.
And good afternoon, everyone.
On the other hand, not all Remainers are Remoaners - only the minority who can't accept the democratic decision of the British people and who are trying to overturn it.
@MarkHopkins - Remoaner is harmless, but clearly pejorative. I just can't see even the tamest of insults in Brexiteer. I am clearly missing something, but can't for the life of me see what it is.
You are obviously insufficiently acquainted with your inner snowflake. There are doubtless workshops to help you out with this kind of thing.
I have genuinely never thought of Brexiteer as anything other than shorthand for someone who supports Brexit. To save writing out someone who supports Brexit each time is there a politically correct term we can use?
Leaver/Remainer
Although personally I'm happy with Brexiteer / Remoaner.
Winners / Losers is most accurate in the context of the referendum.
The strangest comment from the losers is that as they represent 48% of the population, therefore their views should be taken into account. Picture the result the other way round. Had we voted to Remain by the same margin, would the winners fret about representing the Leave views?.
"Hmm, perhaps we should remain, but only with changes. What should we ditch? Perhaps demand to have an absolute right to control our borders? Sorry, the EU say that's non-negotiable. Perhaps be able to over-rule some European judgements? Sorry, no dice there. Tough. Sorry lads, you'll just have to live with what the winners decide. Whatever that is."
@isam - not trying anything. Genuinely never saw the insult. Mutineer is not a word you see or hear very often. And mutinies do not have to be negative, of course.
I meant nice try in making me out to want political correctness!
Yes I agree it doesn't have to be negative, and so what if it is really? I was just surprised "Remoaner" was so hurtful as to be banned, not that I use the term myself.
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
The strangest comment from the losers is that as they represent 48% of the population, therefore their views should be taken into account. Picture the result the other way round. Had we voted to Remain by the same margin, would the winners fret about representing the Leave views?.
"Hmm, perhaps we should remain, but only with changes. What should we ditch? Perhaps demand to have an absolute right to control our borders? Sorry, the EU say that's non-negotiable. Perhaps be able to over-rule some European judgements? Sorry, no dice there. Tough. Sorry lads, you'll just have to live with what the winners decide. Whatever that is."
Actually I think those negotiating our departure should take into account the 48%.. The margin of victory should impact on the "hardness/softness" of Brexit. If we had won 80/20 of course we should be UKIP like in our departure, as it is May should get us out without changing all that much. That can come later (or not) as we elect future governments
What we have to acknowledge though, is that had Remain won 52/48, there would be no such taking into account. But two wrongs don't make a right, we are not the loony left
"When asked for a list of objects damaged in the last decade, the British Museum admitted to 263 incidents, the V&A 335 and the Science Museum 217. The Imperial War Museum listed 53 items damaged, with 40 at the National Portrait Gallery, and six at the National Gallery.
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Ridiculous comparison, as we don't have fixed term referendums.
If we were to have a referendum on it every five years, then this behaviour would be fine, but as the people demanding a rerun, or a vote in the terms are the very people opposed to the 2016 referendum it just looks like what it is.. sour grapes
"Their contempt for ‘low information’ Americans, for American white women who don’t have college degrees, for supposedly xenophobic Brits, for the North of England, Welsh workers, tabloid readers and the uneducated, has been truly alarming.
Leave is talked about in the same breath as fascism, its backers viewed as so colossally dumb that they can’t even see what merry hell they have unleashed and what a dire impact it will have on their own pathetic lives. And how have Leave voters responded to these slurs and barbs? They’ve taken them on the chin, and stuck to their principles. In a beautiful little irony, their patient response to being branded dumb and fearful has shown they’re neither of those things...
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Ridiculous comparison, as we don't have fixed term referendums.
If we were to have a referendum on it every five years, then this behaviour would be fine, but as the people demanding a rerun, or a vote in the terms are the very people opposed to the 2016 referendum it just looks like what it is.. sour grapes
Ridiculous response. There was no reason to have a referendum in the first place save for the fact that Nige agitated for one over many years.
Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?
Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?
Yes, I do. I seriously believe that, if the vote had been the other way, no-one would presently be asking for an immediate re-run.
Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.
Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.
Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?
Yes, I do. I seriously believe that, if the vote had been the other way, no-one would presently be asking for an immediate re-run.
Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.
Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.
Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?
Yes, I do. I seriously believe that, if the vote had been the other way, no-one would presently be asking for an immediate re-run.
Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.
Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.
No one is asking for a rerun.
@OldKingCole gives me the impression he believes they are. My apologies if I have misunderstood.
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Always the same "clever" points.
Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.
Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.
Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.
I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.
The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
A superficial analogy.
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
A superficial analogy.
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
You could probably use that last paragraph to describe Trump's campaign!
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Always the same "clever" points.
Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.
Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
A superficial analogy.
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
If we don't like the direction Leave has gone, then we vote in a different party to take us in a different direction.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
A superficial analogy.
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
Too many of your ilk - yourself included - give the impression they wish to set the result aside. That is the outrage.
It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.
Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.
I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.
The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".
Yes, it would be a terrible thing if you caused offence inadvertently Alastair. I hope you and your partner had a good Christmas yesterday after such a difficult year.
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Always the same "clever" points.
Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.
Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
A superficial analogy.
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
You could probably use that last paragraph to describe Trump's campaign!
Furthermore, we seem to be having a contest about who should engineer Brexit between an un-elected leader of a party that got something like 30-odd percent of the votes cast in the last election and a Parliament of fully elected MPs with final authority and anyway who devised the "advisory" status of the referendum to begin with.
It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.
Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.
I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.
The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".
Yes, it would be a terrible thing if you caused offence inadvertently Alastair. I hope you and your partner had a good Christmas yesterday after such a difficult year.
To cause offense inadvertently would take all the fun out of it, I gather? (If I may say so without giving offence!)
It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.
Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now
You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.
Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?
I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?
So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?
Always the same "clever" points.
Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.
Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
Too many of your ilk - yourself included - give the impression they wish to set the result aside. That is the outrage.
But you chose not to address it.
On the contrary, I want the full weight of the great expectations, the impossible dreams and the false hopes of the 17 million to fall squarely on the shoulders of the elite - yourself included - who encouraged them to put their faith in this chimera.
I have genuinely never thought of Brexiteer as anything other than shorthand for someone who supports Brexit. To save writing out someone who supports Brexit each time is there a politically correct term we can use?
Nice try! Use what you like, I like the connotations of "Brexiteer", but it is obvious that some who use it mean "Mutineer". I don't use "Remoaner" but it is quite funny, and am surprised it is on the naughty step
I'd read it as Brexiteer = Cavalier (with the facts) in contrast to Remain Roundheads and our previous civil war....
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
[I did enjoy reading the Pope wibble about consumerism not being the true meaning of Christmas. A pagan, or historian, might say Christmas isn't the true meaning of Samhain...].
I think I might take a break from PB for a bit. I might come back when there are some new discussions to have. It's all very tedious at the moment
Somewhat understandable given the lack of progress on A50 in the last few months. Everything gets discussed to death since there is nothing new to talk about on the subject.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
[I did enjoy reading the Pope wibble about consumerism not being the true meaning of Christmas. A pagan, or historian, might say Christmas isn't the true meaning of Samhain...].
Mr Dancer, you misread. My ancestors, so far as I can tell, albeit with the possible exception of, in order, a Viking and a Gypsy many generations ago, have lived in these islands since humans moved back in from Iberia and the Low Countries after the last Ice Age. And they all celebrated the return of the sun after the Winter Solstice. I agree with you about Nadolig Lawen.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
History is showing, and will continue to show, that Nick Clegg and the rest of us, should have known better to believe a word Dave said.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.
"Brexiteers" is used disparagingly by those who lost the referendum, and appears in thread headers all the time.. isn't that the same?
No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?
I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers
Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?
Quick, call the semiotics police.
Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?
Perfectly ok.
So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words
Interesting.
You think "Mutineers" (rebels against legitimate authority) Plato for "privateers"(licensed pirates)
Both pretty negative!
I assumed it was a play on "Musketeers": plucky heroes standing up against the corrupt state in the interests of the people...
I agree, but quite plainly it was done in a mocking, contemptuous way. It has a rakish, almost cartoonish sound to it, and was used imo to make Leave look unreliable.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
Correct, and therefore utterly meaningless - the Danish experience shows how such agreements are simply disregarded by the ECJ.
And understandably so, in this case: ever closer union is the founding principle of the EU.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
The 'deal' simply said that in light of the fact that we'd always opted out of things like the Euro and Schengen, it was quite clear that Treaty of Rome had not obliged us to take part in any such endeavours and wouldn't do so in the future.
It really wasn't worth the amount of discussion it got and Cameron would have been better off not wasting his time thinking that a statement of the obvious would appease the oblivious.
Some individual tagged 2016 as the year shouting "you're a racist" at political opponents stopped being an automatic election winner in the West.
Probably a pretty good summary of many a political development.
RE: The truck driving killer in Berlin. Clearly he wasn't without support and it turns out there is a connection in France. Pan European co-operation in common cause....
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
No.
The Conservatives were elected with a majority, they proposed a referendum and it is down to them, and no one else, to implement the result as they see fit as long as they are in government.
Cameron staying would have made it easier, that's probably why he quit. Does anyone for a minute believe that if he had stayed, and was implementing Brexit as he saw fit to, the Cameroons on here would be grizzling about the result and constructing the logical contortions they are now?
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
...because you might have to admit that the centrepiece of the Remain campaign was meaningless?
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
The 'deal' simply said that in light of the fact that we'd always opted out of things like the Euro and Schengen, it was quite clear that Treaty of Rome had not obliged us to take part in any such endeavours and wouldn't do so in the future.
It really wasn't worth the amount of discussion it got and Cameron would have been better off not wasting his time thinking that a statement of the obvious would appease the oblivious.
It was utterly meaningless, of course it wasn't going to satisfy anyone.
And yet Cameron thought he'd achieved something. Risible.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
The 'deal' simply said that in light of the fact that we'd always opted out of things like the Euro and Schengen, it was quite clear that Treaty of Rome had not obliged us to take part in any such endeavours and wouldn't do so in the future.
It really wasn't worth the amount of discussion it got and Cameron would have been better off not wasting his time thinking that a statement of the obvious would appease the oblivious.
It was utterly meaningless, of course it wasn't going to satisfy anyone.
And yet Cameron thought he'd achieved something. Risible.
As an ardent leaver who would probably prefer hard Brexit, I would have no problem at all with Mays negotiations resulting in us having no more than the deal Cameron proposed. I wouldn't want a referendum on whether she had gone far enough, because she is the leader of our elected govt.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
...because you might have to admit that the centrepiece of the Remain campaign was meaningless?
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.
This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.
I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.
This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.
I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.
What would our legal recourse have been had it been violated? Was it's modification subject to unanimity, for example? It's hardly moronic to ask these sorts of questions.
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.
There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.
Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.
It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.
Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.
We're surely not going to go over this again.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.
This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.
I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.
What would our legal recourse have been had it been violated? Was it's modification subject to unanimity, for example? It's hardly moronic to ask these sorts of questions.
We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.
Mr. Topping, a serious lack of faith in the EU's integrity (or the deal Cameron got, such as it was) is an indictment of the political establishment, not the electorate.
Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.
At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.
Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.
Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.
At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.
Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.
Well at least they do mention that those are voodoo polls and that no actual poll says what the voodoo polls say.
But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?
Some individual tagged 2016 as the year shouting "you're a racist" at political opponents stopped being an automatic election winner in the West.
Probably a pretty good summary of many a political development.
RE: The truck driving killer in Berlin. Clearly he wasn't without support and it turns out there is a connection in France. Pan European co-operation in common cause....
Regarding "you're a racist" perhaps it was due because of all the associated crap like this:
Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.
At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.
Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.
Well at least they do mention that those are voodoo polls and that no actual poll says what the voodoo polls say.
But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?
Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.
At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.
Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.
Well at least they do mention that those are voodoo polls and that no actual poll says what the voodoo polls say.
But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?
Please correct me if I am wrong as I don't bet myself, but it does seem to me that there is little risk of this particular poll luring people into placing bets on false information. Isn't that why voodoo polls are normally banned on here?
Also, this is a well-known and respected website. Discussing this poll here may well assist people who don't understand to appreciate why it is not a reliable poll.
We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.
What about things decided by QMV?
Anything decided by QMV under the current arrangements would just be an expression of the current level of integration we already have, not 'closer' union.
Is there in market betting opportunities that , 1 .That the UK does not leave the EU before 2020.2That the UK does remain in the customs union.,3 .That the UK has access to the single market ? Plus any other variables .
Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.
"Brexiteers" is used disparagingly by those who lost the referendum, and appears in thread headers all the time.. isn't that the same?
No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?
I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers
Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?
Quick, call the semiotics police.
Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?
Perfectly ok.
So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words
Interesting.
You think "Mutineers" (rebels against legitimate authority) Plato for "privateers"(licensed pirates)
Both pretty negative!
I assumed it was a play on "Musketeers": plucky heroes standing up against the corrupt state in the interests of the people...
I agree, but quite plainly it was done in a mocking, contemptuous way. It has a rakish, almost cartoonish sound to it, and was used imo to make Leave look unreliable.
This is actually and provably rubbish. An article the other day (in the Gaurdian?) described a terse email from the FT to all its staff, during the campaign, instructing them always to say Brexiters and NEVER Brexiteers.
Why? Because Remain campaign focus groups and polls had showed that the term "Brexiteer" was a POSITIVE for the Leave campaign, thanks to its echoic assocations with buccaneer and musketeer, and even cavalier - Brexiteer sounded dashing and romantic. Meanwhile "Remainer" got a negative response simply as a word - with its dullness and sourness, and its connotations of "remains". Remains of the Day. Human Remains. Etc.
The referendum was won and lost on emotions. *Brexiteer* invoked good emotions.
I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick
I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick
If it's used mockingly it's only in an ironic sense - contrasting the buccaneering image with the reality of clueless stooges passing around a hot potato.
Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.
"Brexiteers" is used disparagingly by those who lost the referendum, and appears in thread headers all the time.. isn't that the same?
No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?
I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers
Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?
Quick, call the semiotics police.
Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?
Perfectly ok.
So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words
Iople...
I agree, but quite plainly it wasake Leave look unreliable.
This is actually and provably rubbish. An article the other day (in the Gaurdian?) described a terse email from the FT to all its staff, during the campaign, instructing them always to say Brexiters and NEVER Brexiteers.
Why? Because Remain campaign focus groups and polls had showed that the term "Brexiteer" was a POSITIVE for the Leave campaign, thanks to its echoic assocations with buccaneer and musketeer, and even cavalier - Brexiteer sounded dashing and romantic. Meanwhile "Remainer" got a negative response simply as a word - with its dullness and sourness, and its connotations of "remains". Remains of the Day. Human Remains. Etc.
The referendum was won and lost on emotions. *Brexiteer* invoked good emotions.
I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick
EDIT: also they thought Farage was toxic
You thought Farage was a hero because he stood in front of a poster of a swarm of Middle Eastern refugees warning by implication that they were all coming over here, and because he agrees with you that the sheer number of Romanian Uber drivers is changing the face of our communities.
Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.
?
No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?
I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers
Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?
Quick, call the semiotics police.
Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?
Perfectly ok.
So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words
Iople...
I agree, but quite plainly it wasake Leave look unreliable.
This is actually and provably rubbish. An article the other day (in the Gaurdian?) described a terse email from the FT to all its staff, during the campaign, instructing them always to say Brexiters and NEVER Brexiteers.
Why? Because Remain campaign focus groups and polls had showed that the term "Brexiteer" was a POSITIVE for the Leave campaign, thanks to its echoic assocations with buccaneer and musketeer, and even cavalier - Brexiteer sounded dashing and romantic. Meanwhile "Remainer" got a negative response simply as a word - with its dullness and sourness, and its connotations of "remains". Remains of the Day. Human Remains. Etc.
The referendum was won and lost on emotions. *Brexiteer* invoked good emotions.
I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick
EDIT: also they thought Farage was toxic
You thought Farage was a hero because he stood in front of a poster of a swarm of Middle Eastern refugees warning by implication that they were all coming over here, and because he agrees with you that the sheer number of Romanian Uber drivers is changing the face of our communities.
So he wanted to leave the EU, like you did.
I feel bad for you, you used to be quite reasonable. Has this defeat made you so bitter?
Comments
"Hmm, perhaps we should remain, but only with changes. What should we ditch? Perhaps demand to have an absolute right to control our borders? Sorry, the EU say that's non-negotiable. Perhaps be able to over-rule some European judgements? Sorry, no dice there. Tough. Sorry lads, you'll just have to live with what the winners decide. Whatever that is."
How can they tell?
Jake Tapper
Facebook 'fact checker' https://t.co/RpFn0yEK5z accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail https://t.co/84kuzXZpW1
Yes I agree it doesn't have to be negative, and so what if it is really? I was just surprised "Remoaner" was so hurtful as to be banned, not that I use the term myself.
What we have to acknowledge though, is that had Remain won 52/48, there would be no such taking into account. But two wrongs don't make a right, we are not the loony left
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/25/fray-bentos-soup-leaks-war-exhibit-965-times-precious-items/
If we were to have a referendum on it every five years, then this behaviour would be fine, but as the people demanding a rerun, or a vote in the terms are the very people opposed to the 2016 referendum it just looks like what it is.. sour grapes
"Their contempt for ‘low information’ Americans, for American white women who don’t have college degrees, for supposedly xenophobic Brits, for the North of England, Welsh workers, tabloid readers and the uneducated, has been truly alarming.
Leave is talked about in the same breath as fascism, its backers viewed as so colossally dumb that they can’t even see what merry hell they have unleashed and what a dire impact it will have on their own pathetic lives. And how have Leave voters responded to these slurs and barbs? They’ve taken them on the chin, and stuck to their principles. In a beautiful little irony, their patient response to being branded dumb and fearful has shown they’re neither of those things...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/leave-voters-heroes-2016/
And you're the democrat?
Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.
Fantastic.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/5359
Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.
Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.
Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.
Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.
What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.
The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".
Or is that Dogtanian?
The Dogtanian theme tune is the only thing I can play on the piano...
Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.
Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.
That seems like a similar philosophy...
Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.
If we don't like the direction Leave has gone, then we vote in a different party to take us in a different direction.
That's democracy.
I do 'do' Christmas. Presents, tree, larger than usual meal, etc. Just not a Christian.
But you chose not to address it.
[I did enjoy reading the Pope wibble about consumerism not being the true meaning of Christmas. A pagan, or historian, might say Christmas isn't the true meaning of Samhain...].
Mr. D, indeed. And the lack of F1 doesn't help (although hopefully there'll be some profit had if Mercedes has the best car next year).
And they all celebrated the return of the sun after the Winter Solstice.
I agree with you about Nadolig Lawen.
Personally, I'm very sceptical of such a claim.
And understandably so, in this case: ever closer union is the founding principle of the EU.
The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.
It really wasn't worth the amount of discussion it got and Cameron would have been better off not wasting his time thinking that a statement of the obvious would appease the oblivious.
Probably a pretty good summary of many a political development.
RE: The truck driving killer in Berlin. Clearly he wasn't without support and it turns out there is a connection in France. Pan European co-operation in common cause....
The Conservatives were elected with a majority, they proposed a referendum and it is down to them, and no one else, to implement the result as they see fit as long as they are in government.
Cameron staying would have made it easier, that's probably why he quit. Does anyone for a minute believe that if he had stayed, and was implementing Brexit as he saw fit to, the Cameroons on here would be grizzling about the result and constructing the logical contortions they are now?
And yet Cameron thought he'd achieved something. Risible.
I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.
I'll get my coat....
NY Times: Hidden Costs of ‘Brexit’ Continue to Mount
At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.
Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.
And really, risks to public health? Didn't the remain side learn anything about scaremongering during the campaign!
But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?
https://spectator.org/upenn-students-remove-shakespeare-portrait-for-lacking-diversity/
Now who was the racist, Romeo or Juliet ?
Also, this is a well-known and respected website. Discussing this poll here may well assist people who don't understand to appreciate why it is not a reliable poll.
What if we just went as far as Dave's deal to start off with?
https://twitter.com/jsanchez_fn/status/813395903096782848
If someone wants it, campaigns for it, and achieves a pledge to hold one, good on them.
EDIT: also they thought Farage was toxic
So he wanted to leave the EU, like you did.