Gammons are touchy fuckers considering how vociferously they rail against political correctness and identity politics.
If you all became vegans you could share the wraith like pallor of me and Chris Williamson and thus never have to suffer the pain of the ethnophaulism again.
To be a Gammon don't you have to be opposed to political correctness gone mad? Gammons should embrace their inner Gammon. It is the Gammon thing to do.
This post is a real shame.
I thought you, of all people, were much better than that.
At least Big G's sanctimony is tinged with cordial sincerity.
Yep - premium boiled Gammon. For the loons of the ERG it all comes down to nationalism, xenophobia and nostalgia. That is where they are taking the Conservative party, of course. No wonder so many former UKIPers feel at home within it these days.
Mmm and why those of us who believe in One Nation Conservatism are feeling increasingly uncomfortable in the company of these quasi-fascists and numb-scull pillocks
You can argue that any increase or decrease in virtually any budget causes “avoidable deaths” if you’re savvy enough and I’ve seen political opponents of the Conservatives argue that’s the case over the NHS, welfare and policing budgets.
It’s normally just used as a stick to beat one’s political opponents with on policy, and give the user a warm glow of self-righteousness.
For the record, I supported (and still do support) the deal and don’t want No Deal. There is no way on God’s earth I’d do anything to help the Remain side if it did come down to a 2nd Ref, even if the alternative was no deal.
If - for example - disruption to medical supplies results in avoidable deaths, you can logic-chop as much as you like but blood will be on the hands of no-dealers. It might well be that you are completely ok with that, but if Leavers are prepared to pay any price it would be nice if they acknowledge that they may well be asking people who completely oppose what they are doing to pay that price rather than pick up the tab themselves.
It still amounts to emotional blackmail, however. Leavers consider the political independence of this country to be of supreme importance and that the EU threatens that, a perception the EU has done little to dispel.
And you're quite prepared to see others die to achieve that. Good to know.
And people get upset when I call Leave a death cult.
No, I’m not pleased to see any death at all.
If they happen, you will see that as a necessary cost of Brexit. This is a risk you would accept if necessary to secure your second best outcome, apparently.
And what about deaths caused by us remaining in the EU? Would you be happy with that?
Describe to me the clear and present dangers from remaining in the EU that will cause deaths, as opposed to the ones that the Health Secretary is unable to give assurance will not arise in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I appreciate that the cult is fully signed up for the necessary human sacrifices but those of us that are not completely deranged are entitled to a coherent statement from Leavers as to where they would draw the line in pursuit of their obsession.
The only answer I can give you is that I do not anticipate that leaving the EU will cause avoidable deaths.
And if you're wrong? The Health Secretary is reported to have warned the Cabinet that he could not exclude the possibility and has refused to offer public assurance on the point, so your blind faith is not warranted by the available evidence.
All one can do is weigh up the evidence, and take a decision, based upon the evidence. I think that a no deal Brexit would have bad consequences, but I don't consider that lack of medicines will be one of them.
That's stage two of the death cult three card trick:
1. No one is talking about No Deal 2. I don't believe that No Deal will lead to any deaths. 3. Those deaths are very sad but what's done is done and the casualties of war were worth it.
There is an obvious risk, one acknowledged at the highest levels of government. You hide behind an irrational belief in pursuit of your obsession.
I think |I've made it plain that I favour May's deal, not leaving with no deal.
Well, quite right. To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price.
The EU have brought this on themselves with their obsession with political union and the economics on all sides are serious collateral.
So you're fine if crashing out with no deal leads to avoidable deaths as a consequence?
You can argue that any increase or decrease in virtually any budget causes “avoidable deaths” if you’re savvy enough and I’ve seen political opponents of the Conservatives argue that’s the case over the NHS, welfare and policing budgets.
It’s normally just used as a stick to beat one’s political opponents with on policy, and give the user a warm glow of self-righteousness.
For the record, I supported (and still do support) the deal and don’t want No Deal. There is no way on God’s earth I’d do anything to help the Remain side if it did come down to a 2nd Ref, even if the alternative was no deal.
themselves.
It still amounts to emotional blackmail, however. Leavers consider the political independence of this country to be of supreme importance and that the EU threatens that, a perception the EU has done little to dispel.
We were always sovereign.
You’ve repeated this like it’s some killer point regularly over the last 2 1/2 years. I’m afraid it’s convinced no-one.
If you can theoretically leave, but cannot do so practically, or even loosen the ties, then it’s a moot point.
I repeat it because that's the reason why you chose to fucking leave (assuming you are ok with foreigners, unlike many of your co-leavers).
And it is and was bollocks. You voted to reclaim sovereignty and we were always sovereign.
It would be laughable were it not so tragic.
You and I disagree on the original vote, but both agree on the need for the Deal to pass.
I think that’s something and would hope you’d agree too.
It does seem a bit unfair how it suddenly jumped from homosexuals, women and minorities to white men. Mocking those groups for their inferiority is part of our heritage. This mocking of some white men on the other hand is just cruel and insulting and actually hurts real people with feelings.
It does seem a bit unfair how it suddenly jumped from homosexuals, women and minorities to white men. Mocking those groups for their inferiority is part of our heritage. This mocking of some white men on the other hand is just cruel and insulting and actually hurts real people with feelings.
Be honest now. Who doesn't think Brexit has turned out to be utterly ghastly?
Me. Still very happy with the decision.
Is this the essence of gammonism?
Let’s be very clear: that word is a racial slur, plain and simple, and every time it’s used it diminishes its user and robs them of any moral authority.
It's punching up. Deal with it.
Signed. A Gammon.
It’s a racial slur like n*gger or p*ki and the same principles that underlay the unacceptability of those terms underlay the unacceptability of that.
Selective racism is still racism.
Petal.
As I’m sure many said to Asians and black British people who objected to this “banter” in the 1970s.
Are you seriously suggesting that applying an uncomplimentary epithet to someone who is an angry white man that has gone red in the face with indignation over something as moronic as Brexit is akin to racist abuse? You really don't have the first clue.
I’d actually turn that point around on you: in the long term you’re pouring fuel on the flames of racial divisions. Trump’s election is but an early indication of how that bounces back, and won’t be the last.
Right now, you don’t care, because you hate Leavers and the demographic you most associate as having voted with them, but it will end up engulfing you too.
I don't hate anyone you plonker, though I do hate some peoples' simplistic ideas. I leave the hatefulness to people that support Brexit as that is the central plank on which it is based: hatred of all things "foreign"
Well staying in the EU does have a potential risk for unnecessary deaths. The fundamental basis of the Single Market is regulatory trust, all 28 countries national regulation bodies in their respective area trust each other to apply and check that the common rules are applied. Does it go wrong? of course. Does it cause deaths? Of course. PIP breast implant schedule - French regulator not on top form. The real worry here is that a couple of Eastern European states are not far off being Mafia states and that here bribes could be made to get fake drugs into the single market regulatory system. Also other stuff. Then there are the overarching rules the EU makes that cause unnecessary deaths. Such as food labelling rules that meant that poor girl on the plane ate a sandwich made in store that had no allergy advice on it. Then there is of course dieselgate. People will die and the US was always saying that the NOXes were more dangerous to people than CO2's. But they were just climate change deniers.
Well, quite right. To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price.
The EU have brought this on themselves with their obsession with political union and the economics on all sides are serious collateral.
So you're fine if crashing out with no deal leads to avoidable deaths as a consequence?
You can argue that any increase or decrease in virtually any budget causes “avoidable deaths” if you’re savvy enough and I’ve seen political opponents of the Conservatives argue that’s the case over the NHS, welfare and policing budgets.
It’s normally just used as a stick to beat one’s political opponents with on policy, and give the user a warm glow of self-righteousness.
For the record, I supported (and still do support) the deal and don’t want No Deal. There is no way on God’s earth I’d do anything to help the Remain side if it did come down to a 2nd Ref, even if the alternative was no deal.
themselves.
It still amounts to emotional blackmail, however. Leavers consider the political independence of this country to be of supreme importance and that the EU threatens that, a perception the EU has done little to dispel.
We were always sovereign.
You’ve repeated this like it’s some killer point regularly over the last 2 1/2 years. I’m afraid it’s convinced no-one.
If you can theoretically leave, but cannot do so practically, or even loosen the ties, then it’s a moot point.
I repeat it because that's the reason why you chose to fucking leave (assuming you are ok with foreigners, unlike many of your co-leavers).
And it is and was bollocks. You voted to reclaim sovereignty and we were always sovereign.
It would be laughable were it not so tragic.
You and I disagree on the original vote, but both agree on the need for the Deal to pass.
I think that’s something and would hope you’d agree too.
Well, quite right. To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price.
The EU have brought this on themselves with their obsession with political union and the economics on all sides are serious collateral.
We lose our ability to prevent an EU army on 30th March.
Good. Why should we prevent it?
I was responding to this from Mr Royale:
"To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price"
If Leavers really were prepared to pay any price to avoid a single European army they would want to stay in the EU. That is how to prevent one. There is no need to inflict long-term economic damage on ourselves. We can just use our veto.
No. They want to avoid being a part of it.
The rest of Europe can form a single army for all I care but that won't be a single European Army since last I checked we are European but won't be in it.
They could have avoided being part of it by staying in the EU, so clearly we are not leaving the EU to avoid being part of a European army. Likewise, we could have vetoed EU-wide taxes, so they are not a reason for leaving either.
Perhaps "we" could have, but would our spineless, ever-closer-union-loving remainer ruling classes have vetoed it?
The reason Brexit happened was our political masters kept on enthusiastically embracing the EU project - the referendum was our best and perhaps only way of withdrawing consent.
Gammons are touchy fuckers considering how vociferously they rail against political correctness and identity politics.
If you all became vegans you could share the wraith like pallor of me and Chris Williamson and thus never have to suffer the pain of the ethnophaulism again.
To be a Gammon don't you have to be opposed to political correctness gone mad? Gammons should embrace their inner Gammon. It is the Gammon thing to do.
I'm very happy to be a gammon. It's just left wing shorthand for middle aged people with right wing views.
We need to unite. Apart from @Casino who is as we speak complaining to Trevor Phillips.
You’re trolling of course but I am merely pointing out the implications of such reckless language in the long term, which I think will be profound.
Gammons are touchy fuckers considering how vociferously they rail against political correctness and identity politics.
If you all became vegans you could share the wraith like pallor of me and Chris Williamson and thus never have to suffer the pain of the ethnophaulism again.
To be a Gammon don't you have to be opposed to political correctness gone mad? Gammons should embrace their inner Gammon. It is the Gammon thing to do.
I'm very happy to be a gammon. It's just left wing shorthand for middle aged people with right wing views.
Well, quite right. To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price.
The EU have brought this on themselves with their obsession with political union and the economics on all sides are serious collateral.
So you're fine if crashing out with no deal leads to avoidable deaths as a consequence?
You can argue that any increase or decrease in virtually any budget causes “avoidable deaths” if you’re savvy enough and I’ve seen political opponents of the Conservatives argue that’s the case over the NHS, welfare and policing budgets.
It’s normally just used as a stick to beat one’s political opponents with on policy, and give the user a warm glow of self-righteousness.
For the record, I supported (and still do support) the deal and don’t want No Deal. There is no way on God’s earth I’d do anything to help the Remain side if it did come down to a 2nd Ref, even if the alternative was no deal.
If - for who completely oppose what they are doing to pay that price rather than pick up the tab themselves.
It still amounts to emotional blackmail, however. Leavers consider the political independence of this country to be of supreme importance and that the EU threatens that, a perception the EU has done little to dispel.
We were always sovereign.
You’ve repeated this like it’s some killer point regularly over the last 2 1/2 years. I’m afraid it’s convinced no-one.
If you can theoretically leave, but cannot do so practically, or even loosen the ties, then it’s a moot point.
We are leaving. And the likelihood is that we will be leaving completely. That is sovereignty and was a right we have always had. What we cannot do is demand that other sovereign countries tear-up the arrangements they have decided work best for them because we do not think they work best for us. We can ask, but that is different.
Gammons are touchy fuckers considering how vociferously they rail against political correctness and identity politics.
If you all became vegans you could share the wraith like pallor of me and Chris Williamson and thus never have to suffer the pain of the ethnophaulism again.
To be a Gammon don't you have to be opposed to political correctness gone mad? Gammons should embrace their inner Gammon. It is the Gammon thing to do.
I'm very happy to be a gammon. It's just left wing shorthand for middle aged people with right wing views.
Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.
Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.
That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.
We can't be sure, but the Supreme Court's ruling was based on the principle that rights conferred by parliament can't be removed without parliament's agreement. For the same argument to apply to revocation, it would need to be argued that parliament's authorisation of the Article 50 notification - or some of the associated legislation - conferred a right which would be removed by revocation. I've never seen it suggested what that right would be.
I thought there was legislation that needed amending/repealing/reinstating?
Also did Parliament authorise or instruct the PM to submit article 50?
Is astonishing that, in this day and age, by virtue of nothing else other than speaking posh and having good breeding, Rees-Mogg can manoeuvre himself into being British prime minister in all but name.
The entire Brexit exercise shows how good the English public school system is - and how dangerous. It takes the mediocre sons and daughters of the wealthy - people like Rees Mogg, for example - turns them into well-spoken, self-confident adults and deposits them into a career trajectory largely available only to members of that self-same privileged elite. It's brilliant. You can't blame any parent with the wedge for taking advantage of this, but it doesn't half bugger up the country.
There’s some serious confirmation bias of pet prejudices going on this morning.
Blair, Clegg and Osborne all went to public school, as did Ken Clarke.
I'm not sure mentioning Blair, clegg and Osborne supports your point. All three made massive miscalculations (Iraq, tuition fees, help-to-buy) that made many people's life worse and yet have gone on to very highly paid sinecures. They support @SouthamObserver 's point, not negate it.
Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.
Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.
That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.
We can't be sure, but the Supreme Court's ruling was based on the principle that rights conferred by parliament can't be removed without parliament's agreement. For the same argument to apply to revocation, it would need to be argued that parliament's authorisation of the Article 50 notification - or some of the associated legislation - conferred a right which would be removed by revocation. I've never seen it suggested what that right would be.
I thought there was legislation that needed amending/repealing/reinstating?
Also did Parliament authorise or instruct the PM to submit article 50?
Well, quite right. To avoid a single European army (as Verhofstadht pitched this week) or federal EU taxes, Leavers will pay any price.
The EU have brought this on themselves with their obsession with political union and the economics on all sides are serious collateral.
So you're fine if crashing out with no deal leads to avoidable deaths as a consequence?
You can argue that any increase or decrease in virtually any budget causes “avoidable deaths” if you’re savvy enough and I’ve seen political opponents of the Conservatives argue that’s the case over the NHS, welfare and policing budgets.
It’s normally just used as a stick to beat one’s political opponents with on policy, and give the user a warm glow of self-righteousness.
For the record, I supported (and still do support) the deal and don’t want No Deal. There is no way on God’s earth I’d do anything to help the Remain side if it did come down to a 2nd Ref, even if the alternative was no deal.
themselves.
It still amounts to emotional blackmail, however. Leavers consider the political independence of this country to be of supreme importance and that the EU threatens that, a perception the EU has done little to dispel.
We were always sovereign.
You’ve repeated this like it’s some killer point regularly over the last 2 1/2 years. I’m afraid it’s convinced no-one.
If you can theoretically leave, but cannot do so practically, or even loosen the ties, then it’s a moot point.
I repeat it because that's the reason why you chose to fucking leave (assuming you are ok with foreigners, unlike many of your co-leavers).
And it is and was bollocks. You voted to reclaim sovereignty and we were always sovereign.
It would be laughable were it not so tragic.
You and I disagree on the original vote, but both agree on the need for the Deal to pass.
I think that’s something and would hope you’d agree too.
Be honest now. Who doesn't think Brexit has turned out to be utterly ghastly?
Me. Still very happy with the decision.
Is this the essence of gammonism?
Let’s be very clear: that word is a racial slur, plain and simple, and every time it’s used it diminishes its user and robs them of any moral authority.
It's punching up. Deal with it.
Signed. A Gammon.
It’s a racial slur like n*gger or p*ki and the same principles that underlay the unacceptability of those terms underlay the unacceptability of that.
Selective racism is still racism.
Petal.
As I’m sure many said to Asians and black British people who objected to this “banter” in the 1970s.
Are you seriously suggesting that applying an uncomplimentary epithet to someone who is an angry white man that has gone red in the face with indignation over something as moronic as Brexit is akin to racist abuse? You really don't have the first clue.
I’d actually turn that point around on you: in the long term you’re pouring fuel on the flames of racial divisions. Trump’s election is but an early indication of how that bounces back, and won’t be the last.
Right now, you don’t care, because you hate Leavers and the demographic you most associate as having voted with them, but it will end up engulfing you too.
I don't hate anyone you plonker, though I do hate some peoples' simplistic ideas. I leave the hatefulness to people that support Brexit as that is the central plank on which it is based: hatred of all things "foreign"
Unfortunately, you are one of the most abusive posters on here exhibiting a bare minimum of self control.
This undermines the potency of any other points you might otherwise be able to make.
How can someone who voted Leave blame David Cameron? All he did was your bidding. If you couldn't see the chaos your choices were making why should he?
I was blaming him for the uncertainty not for the Referendum itself. As for "not being able to see the chaos" I have me and the Internet - Cameron had the entire Civil Service machinery to advise and guide him. Perhaps if you'd had a word it would have helped.
The point is for whatever reason inadequate planning for the possibility of a LEAVE win was carried out and little thought, it seems, since then, on the possibilities of leaving without a Deal?
Thinking counter-intuitively can be very helpful - imagine the most unlikely thing that could happen, plan for it and work your way toward the more likely and probable options.
If No Deal really is the shit show we are told, then early and detailed planning would have enabled that case to be made, with great authority. OK, some would still have pooh-poohed it as Establishment scaremongering. But a hell of a lot fewer than are doing so today, on the back of a fag packet, "It will be bad. Very bad" assessment.
Almost every aspect of our interaction with the EEC-->EU has shown up our politicians and civil service to be a clown troupe.
So as the government was assuring business that no deal was out of the question, spending billions upon billions on no deal preparations.
Whatever on earth they would have been.
Oh, but your approach has panned out so well, huh? You can't run around saying "We are so fucked!" and then say "But my approach, that has led to us being so fucked, must have been the right one!"
From the moment you and your fellow travelers voted Leave we were fucked.
Although I know you will feel much better once the oppressive foot of EU domination is lifted from your neck.
Correct.
Sensible Remainers might want to consider why practical Leavers like me have found their commitment to Leaving over the last week turboboosting by the EU’s announcements on tax raising powers, a European army and a reboot of the Franco-German alliance to lead it through.
That's not strictly fair. You're observing their behaviour as we depart. What you should be doing is comparing their behaviour as we depart, with their behaviour had we stayed.
Be honest now. Who doesn't think Brexit has turned out to be utterly ghastly?
Me. Still very happy with the decision.
Is this the essence of gammonism?
Let’s be very clear: that word is a racial slur, plain and simple, and every time it’s used it diminishes its user and robs them of any moral authority.
It's punching up. Deal with it.
Signed. A Gammon.
It’s a racial slur like n*gger or p*ki and the same principles that underlay the unacceptability of those terms underlay the unacceptability of that.
Selective racism is still racism.
Petal.
As I’m sure many said to Asians and black British people who objected to this “banter” in the 1970s.
Are you seriously suggesting that applying an uncomplimentary epithet to someone who is an angry white man that has gone red in the face with indignation over something as moronic as Brexit is akin to racist abuse? You really don't have the first clue.
I’d actually turn that point around on you: in the long term you’re pouring fuel on the flames of racial divisions. Trump’s election is but an early indication of how that bounces back, and won’t be the last.
Right now, you don’t care, because you hate Leavers and the demographic you most associate as having voted with them, but it will end up engulfing you too.
Gammon is not a race.
Have you ever heard the term being applied to anyone who isn’t White?
Be honest now. Who doesn't think Brexit has turned out to be utterly ghastly?
Me. Still very happy with the decision.
Is this the essence of gammonism?
Let’s be very clear: that word is a racial slur, plain and simple, and every time it’s used it diminishes its user and robs them of any moral authority.
Let's be very clear (I can also play at being a po-faced twat): gammonism is a thing. I don't give a stuff if you're offended by the use of this term.
Clearly you don’t, and it’s very disappointing it’s entered the vernacular of many of the ultra-Remainers, but it is still a bigoted term and robs you of any moral authority.
The fact your prejudices might be widely shared within your peer group is beside the point.
I assume you whip yourself into a similar lather of self-righteousness every time somebody uses the phrase "until you're blue in the face" or "red-faced with shame"?
That describes a metaphor of physiognomy that expresses an emotion, and is entirely racially neutral.
How can someone who voted Leave blame David Cameron? All he did was your bidding. If you couldn't see the chaos your choices were making why should he?
I was blaming him for the uncertainty not for the Referendum itself. As for "not being able to see the chaos" I have me and the Internet - Cameron had the entire Civil Service machinery to advise and guide him. Perhaps if you'd had a word it would have helped.
The point is for whatever reason inadequate planning for the possibility of a LEAVE win was carried out and little thought, it seems, since then, on the possibilities of leaving without a Deal?
Thinking counter-intuitively can be very helpful - imagine the most unlikely thing that could happen, plan for it and work your way toward the more likely and probable options.
If No Deal really is the shit show we are told, then early and detailed planning would have enabled that case to be made, with great authority. OK, some would still have pooh-poohed it as Establishment scaremongering. But a hell of a lot fewer than are doing so today, on the back of a fag packet, "It will be bad. Very bad" assessment.
Almost every aspect of our interaction with the EEC-->EU has shown up our politicians and civil service to be a clown troupe.
So as the government was assuring business that no deal was out of the question, spending billions upon billions on no deal preparations.
Whatever on earth they would have been.
Oh, but your approach has panned out so well, huh? You can't run around saying "We are so fucked!" and then say "But my approach, that has led to us being so fucked, must have been the right one!"
From the moment you and your fellow travelers voted Leave we were fucked.
Although I know you will feel much better once the oppressive foot of EU domination is lifted from your neck.
Correct.
Sensible Remainers might want to consider why practical Leavers like me have found their commitment to Leaving over the last week turboboosting by the EU’s announcements on tax raising powers, a European army and a reboot of the Franco-German alliance to lead it through.
That's not strictly fair. You're observing their behaviour as we depart. What you should be doing is comparing their behaviour as we depart, with their behaviour had we stayed.
The latter is conjecture but there was plenty of straws in the wind that this was on the cards before we left and, indeed, I argued as such at the time.
Is astonishing that, in this day and age, by virtue of nothing else other than speaking posh and having good breeding, Rees-Mogg can manoeuvre himself into being British prime minister in all but name.
The entire Brexit exercise shows how good the English public school system is - and how dangerous. It takes the mediocre sons and daughters of the wealthy - people like Rees Mogg, for example - turns them into well-spoken, self-confident adults and deposits them into a career trajectory largely available only to members of that self-same privileged elite. It's brilliant. You can't blame any parent with the wedge for taking advantage of this, but it doesn't half bugger up the country.
There’s some serious confirmation bias of pet prejudices going on this morning.
Blair, Clegg and Osborne all went to public school, as did Ken Clarke.
I'm not sure mentioning Blair, clegg and Osborne supports your point. All three made massive miscalculations (Iraq, tuition fees, help-to-buy) that made many people's life worse and yet have gone on to very highly paid sinecures. They support @SouthamObserver 's point, not negate it.
It shows they disproportionately occupy high office, but can hold and advocate a variety of political beliefs.
Gammon perfectly encapsulates the type of person who complains about not being able to use casual racism in their every language without censure but also complains that people calling them gammon is a racial slur.
Comments
"I thought you, of all people, were much better than that."
Mr Observer generally is, but he's a victim of Brexit neurosis. It strikes without warning.
NEW THREAD
I think that’s something and would hope you’d agree too.
Baby I love your way.
Most people who used the N-word are either racist or black. Or both.
PIP breast implant schedule - French regulator not on top form.
The real worry here is that a couple of Eastern European states are not far off being Mafia states and that here bribes could be made to get fake drugs into the single market regulatory system. Also other stuff.
Then there are the overarching rules the EU makes that cause unnecessary deaths. Such as food labelling rules that meant that poor girl on the plane ate a sandwich made in store that had no allergy advice on it.
Then there is of course dieselgate. People will die and the US was always saying that the NOXes were more dangerous to people than CO2's. But they were just climate change deniers.
So there you have it. The EU it is a death cult.
The reason Brexit happened was our political masters kept on enthusiastically embracing the EU project - the referendum was our best and perhaps only way of withdrawing consent.
Also did Parliament authorise or instruct the PM to submit article 50?
Unfortunately, you are one of the most abusive posters on here exhibiting a bare minimum of self control.
This undermines the potency of any other points you might otherwise be able to make.
(...although if you were using that as an argument against rejoining or revocation, then yes the point is fair)
Have you ever heard the term being applied to anyone who isn’t White?
That describes a metaphor of physiognomy that expresses an emotion, and is entirely racially neutral.
Gammon is not, and you know it.
Nick Clegg said it was an absurd fantasy.