"Very wise. Never advertise your competitors. Rule1" An exception to prove the rule could be Corbyn/McDonnell for the Tories (and also for the BP btw).
> "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
I do, however, think he appeals to certain types of fascists, and does little, if anything, to actively repel them. There is (as is sadly too frequent in our politics) a certain amount of dog-whistling going on in many of his speeches.
I see the Brexit Party as little different to UKIP, and where UKIP went, the Brexit Party will follow. Those choosing to vote for it might want to consider that ...
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @RightChuck said: > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > Brexiters don't know; that is why they are frit of a further referendum. If they were confident they would be calling for it.
That's a good point. Brexit is there for the taking, Mrs May has a deal that is indeed Brexit, Labour want to soften it a bit, but still it's Brexit. Surely the hard Brexit crash out WTO people should be calling for another referendum as the only way they could get No Deal.
One out of two Big G. Well done for voting Cons but May should go nowhere. No one else could improve, change, reject, or replace her deal so we may as well stick with her.
The only argument for removing May is that another leader (presumably someone with intact Brexit credentials) would face exactly the same constraints and that this realisation might help people face up to reality instead of blaming the leader. I'm not sure it would work.
> @RightChuck said: > > @RightChuck said: > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome. > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
It somewhat sad that so many people of a Leaver persuasion think that it is "undemocratic" for anyone to have a view that the whole debacle is, well, a debacle. It is absolutely right that the LibDems should continue to campaign for what they collectively believe to be right, even if they were in a tiny minority, which clearly they are not. They have a duty to represent differing views from the tyranny of the 2016 52%, and seek to persuade that the country is going to hell as they see it. This is democracy in action.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them. > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct. > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @RightChuck said: > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > Brexiters don't know; that is why they are frit of a further referendum. If they were confident they would be calling for it.
Imagine walking into a restaurant and ordering something, only for the waiter to keep coming back every fifteen minutes and asking you if you're sure that's what you ordered? Or if maybe you've changed your mind?
Imagine being forced to wait for food so long that the waiter actually thinks he's doing you a *favour* by asking you if you still want what you ordered.
Then imagine local spiv Nigel opens up a takeaway down the road that delivers what you ordered fast, no waiting, no mucking about, no waiters asking if sir is *sure* that is what he ordered.
Which restauraunt do you think the punters would flock to?
> @solarflare said: > How about some alternatives, if bollocks is too much (it isn't)? > > Bums to Brexit > Butt out, Brexit! > Brexit's a bitch > Brexit: gone for a burton? > Bullocks to Brexit > Brexit: bizarre buzzword? > Barbarous balderdash bombshell Brexi....I think you get the idea with that.
From other thread, I see Danny Baker has issued an updated apology and this time I believe it, and am now confident he did not intend it to be racist.
BBC still right to fire him given that others who do not listen to his shows will find it difficult to accept his explanation, combined with his very poor initial apology. Sure he will be back somewhere soon and I will continue to enjoy listening to him.
If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
Bit of a shocker on the posting name, given your evident views and recent events political party-wise.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them. > > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct. > > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values. > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit.
> "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
Agree - I'm also not convinced parading Guy Verhofstadt is the wisest move. I'm a remain supporter but he is a total tit. I'm using the new freedom of language edict from on high today as you can see.
Actually, when he’s not talking about politics, I rather like him. He’s got a sense of humour, loves classic cars, is personable and has a bit of banter. I also think he has a soft spot for the U.K.
When he does talk politics, though, he turns into a europhile Farage spitting left, right and centre and pushes every button I have.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @isam said: > > Credit where it is due, the Lib Dems are crushing CHUKa's TIGgers on the remain side of the great Brexit debate. > > > > What on earth are Chukas mob playing at? It was always a strange idea to think that standing on a platform of keeping all the things the public dislike from the first 16 years of the century and calling it ‘Change’ was going to work, but not putting up candidates in two by elections since they formed is totally bizarre. > > > > Soubry booed from start to finish on QT last night, preaching being civil while branding Farage racist, some change. > > > > If I didn’t dislike them so much I’d feel sorry for them > > The pro austerity, pro remain vote (Which when you stick Soubry up as a talking head is essentially what you're selling) isn't huge.
I think they made a mistake admitting Tory MPs - it seems to have quickly gone from being SDP Mark 2 to being Cameroons Mark 2.
> > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
>
It somewhat sad that so many people of a Leaver persuasion think that it is "undemocratic" for anyone to have a view that the whole debacle is, well, a debacle. It is absolutely right that the LibDems should continue to campaign for what they collectively believe to be right, even if they were in a tiny minority, which clearly they are not. They have a duty to represent differing views from the tyranny of the 2016 52%, and seek to persuade that the country is going to hell as they see it. This is democracy in action.
I absolutely LOVE "the tyranny of the 2016 52%". Thank you for giving me a good old chuckle.
For the record I have absolutely no problem at all with the LDs campaigning to overturn the result of the referendum. Can't say I respect them for it though.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Stereotomy said: > > > Pff, you're telling me that you don't use a timer when you're playing your cat at chess? Amateur. > > Ah, all becomes clear. > > No, mine gets stressed out by that. Insists that it's against the spirit of the game. > > Cats eh.
Of course, the greatest form of animal chess is this...
> @RightChuck said: > > @RightChuck said: > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome. > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
My wife and I have both voted conservative in our postal ballot today demonstrating that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters, we remain loyal to our party in defiance of Farage, unlike many thousands of so called loyal supporters and activists who will vote for Farage, the absurd Widdecombe, and the rest of the no deal wreckers.
Our dislike and distrust of Farage gave us a thought to counter him by voting for the Lib Dems as the only party with a clear message against Farage, but the vote for our party was the only correct course for us to take
Having been loyal to TM and her deal the time has now come for TM to stand aside no later than immediately after the EU results are known which coincides with another ridiculous HOC holiday break from the 23rd May to the 4th June. TM needs to invite the election of her successor in this time and to continue as caretaker PM until a full election process has been completed including the two names sent to the members for their final decision
It does seem the ladies are on the march with McVey, Leadsom, Pritel, and no doubt Mordaunt, Truss, and others all wanting the succession
> @Casino_Royale said: > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > Utterly clueless.
And do you think this hypothetical second vote for Brexit would be UK-wide, or would the division between England and the rest become even starker?
> @Casino_Royale said: > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > Utterly clueless.
There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin.
They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication.
Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP.
Bit of a shocker on the posting name, given your evident views and recent events political party-wise.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
> @148grss said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them. > > > > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct. > > > > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values. > > > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism. > > This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit.
The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.
The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy.
> @Anorak said: > I'm on a mailing list for politics.co.uk. This is their weekly article. I think it's excellent and insightful, and there's food for thought for Leavers and Remainers alike. It's well worth 5 minutes of your time. > https://mailchi.mp/politics/week-in-review-political-stasis-is-underpriced?e=8922a89754 > <i>"...in reality, this is what has defined Brexit for the last three years: a furiously churning status quo in which nothing actually changes. This is why you feel completely out the loop if you miss a morning's worth of Brexit news, but as if nothing has changed when you miss a month's worth."</i>
Yes, that's very good. The narrow point that it's usually best to bet on things NOT happening as soon as expected is good for PB tipsters, too.
Bit of a shocker on the posting name, given your evident views and recent events political party-wise.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
Sorry -screwed up the quote - replying to @TOPPING
From other thread, I see Danny Baker has issued an updated apology and this time I believe it, and am now confident he did not intend it to be racist.
BBC still right to fire him given that others who do not listen to his shows will find it difficult to accept his explanation, combined with his very poor initial apology. Sure he will be back somewhere soon and I will continue to enjoy listening to him.
I think it was a crazy thing to put out, and there is never an excuse for a white person to compare someone of mixed race to a primate... but the punishment shouldn’t have been a sacking, & he’s almost certainly not racist
> @Sean_F said: > > @148grss said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them. > > > > > > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct. > > > > > > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values. > > > > > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism. > > > > This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit. > > The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms. > > The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy.
We are literally discussing one academic definition of fascism, and its points.
We were saying that the rhetoric and policies of The Brexit Party, UKIP and ERG factions tick many of the points that encompass that definition. If you disagree with that, please discuss those points and not just say the word "fascism" is lazy. Because the definition we are talking about is well defined and well discussed.
> @williamglenn said: > One out of two Big G. Well done for voting Cons but May should go nowhere. No one else could improve, change, reject, or replace her deal so we may as well stick with her. > > The only argument for removing May is that another leader (presumably someone with intact Brexit credentials) would face exactly the same constraints and that this realisation might help people face up to reality instead of blaming the leader. I'm not sure it would work.
The paucity of this level of unimaginative thinking doesn't pass muster - its been tested to death for 3 years.
The Uk needs some bold Trump level action to accelerate Brexit - not more of the same civil service sloth paced spreadsheet managed sludge.
> > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
I'm sorry, are you calling me a liar? I say that I know people and of people who have changed from remain to leave because it is true. I have no doubt there are people who have changed the other way. I do not find it in the slightest difficult to understand that my experience is not necessarily universal. I had imagined that you were similarly aware.
> > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. --------------------------------- So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you?
> @Casino_Royale said: > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > Utterly clueless.
Beams and motes.
Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin.
They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication.
Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP.
The last few weeks has shown the Remain side couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
They’ve been all over the shop and then just talked to their ultra Revoke base, using the same sort of rhetoric as Aaron Banks just turned on its head.
They’d start as favourites in any second referendum campaign and slowly turn Remain inclined floating voters off as the weeks of the campaign progressed by swearing, and calling Farage and other Brexiteers Nazis.
Meanwhile, the meme that this was a vote to overturn an original democratic decision that still hadn’t been implemented by useless politicians would gain traction and win out.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
> @Casino_Royale said: > It's an effective slogan. Though the LDs only now being rewarded for Brexit stance us weird. > > It could get them to 20-25% in the Euros. > > It wouldn’t win a second referendum.
The polls suggest it might only get them 10-15%. It will play well with the FBPE crowd but not sure its going to entice the soft remainer.
My wife and I have both voted conservative in our postal ballot today demonstrating that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters, we remain loyal to our party in defiance of Farage, unlike many thousands of so called loyal supporters and activists who will vote for Farage, the absurd Widdecombe, and the rest of the no deal wreckers.
Our dislike and distrust of Farage gave us a thought to counter him by voting for the Lib Dems as the only party with a clear message against Farage, but the vote for our party was the only correct course for us to take
Having been loyal to TM and her deal the time has now come for TM to stand aside no later than immediately after the EU results are known which coincides with another ridiculous HOC holiday break from the 23rd May to the 4th June. TM needs to invite the election of her successor in this time and to continue as caretaker PM until a full election process has been completed including the two names sent to the members for their final decision
It does seem the ladies are on the march with McVey, Leadsom, Pritel, and no doubt Mordaunt, Truss, and others all wanting the succession
You’re loyal.
Except when you’re not loyal.
A political party is *not* a football club. If, as a voter or general member, the party shifts beyond the bounds that you find acceptable, it is perfectly reasonable to shift your vote or membership away from it. In fact, it's the sensible thing to do. If BigG did that during Blair's time, given the leadership of IDS and Hague, fair enough.
In fact, rather than berating people who did so, Conservatives should be asking why they did so, and wondering if they're heading down the same route again.
BigG has been loyal to TM and the deal: in fact, he's been much more loyal than you have when you went with Brexit, which is destroying the party. You put your loathing of the EU above loyalty to the party and Cameron.
> @RightChuck said: > > @RightChuck said: > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. > > I'm sorry, are you calling me a liar? I say that I know people and of people who have changed from remain to leave because it is true. I have no doubt there are people who have changed the other way. I do not find it in the slightest difficult to understand that my experience is not necessarily universal. I had imagined that you were similarly aware.
I am not calling you a liar and nothing I wrote was intended to imply this. So apologies if it read like that.
It is just simply not true to say that the only change is from Remain to Leave. There will be changes the other way as well.
That is why I think it so deceitful for the Brexiteers to keep on quoting the 17.4 million figure when no-one knows what the current figure would now be for the sort of Brexit the Brexiteers now want.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @solarflare said: > > How about some alternatives, if bollocks is too much (it isn't)? > > > > Bums to Brexit > > Butt out, Brexit! > > Brexit's a bitch > > Brexit: gone for a burton? > > Bullocks to Brexit > > Brexit: bizarre buzzword? > > Barbarous balderdash bombshell Brexi....I think you get the idea with that. > > I prefer Bollox to the Bullshit called Brexit
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
Beams and motes.
Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
Some Brexiteers are saying that. That’s neither my position nor the Government’s position.
The referendum would be on whether to respect the original decision - to Leave the EU by any route or form.
> @TudorRose said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. > --------------------------------- > So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you? >
We have elections every 4 years these days. Sometimes every 2 years. Sometimes we have had 2 elections in one year. Given that the current extension lasts until the end of October, it is not inconceivable that we might not have left the EU on the 4th anniversary of the vote. So having a fresh vote would not be such an odd thing to do.
The case for another vote is that now we know what Brexit would actually mean i.e. we know what a WA looks like - which we did not know in June 2016 - and it is perfectly democratic to ask the people if they want to go ahead on that basis or not. Indeed, some would argue that it would be undemocratic not to ask them.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > > > Utterly clueless. > > Beams and motes. > > Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite. > > And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks. > > The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
"No Deal" is a meme invented by remainers to scare people. Deals are already in place to allow planes to fly.
"Not May's deal" is how we are likely to leave. The sooner the Con party realises this the better for them.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @TudorRose said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > > > > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > > > > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > > > > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. > > --------------------------------- > > So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you? > > > > > We have elections every 4 years these days. Sometimes every 2 years. Sometimes we have had 2 elections in one year. Given that the current extension lasts until the end of October, it is not inconceivable that we might not have left the EU on the 4th anniversary of the vote. So having a fresh vote would not be such an odd thing to do. > > The case for another vote is that now we know what Brexit would actually mean i.e. we know what a WA looks like - which we did not know in June 2016 - and it is perfectly democratic to ask the people if they want to go ahead on that basis or not. Indeed, some would argue that it would be undemocratic not to ask them. ----------------------- Under the FTPA it's every 5 years these days.
> @148grss said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @148grss said: > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them. > > > > > > > > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct. > > > > > > > > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values. > > > > > > > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism. > > > > > > This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. > > > > The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms. > > > > The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy. > > We are literally discussing one academic definition of fascism, and its points. > > We were saying that the rhetoric and policies of The Brexit Party, UKIP and ERG factions tick many of the points that encompass that definition. If you disagree with that, please discuss those points and not just say the word "fascism" is lazy. Because the definition we are talking about is well defined and well discussed.
If you're excluding attitudes towards democracy and violence towards opponents from any discussion of what a fascist is, then you're using a flawed definition of what a fascist is. Attlee's and Churchill's parties would tick most of those boxes, but they weren't fascists.
> @TGOHF said: > > The paucity of this level of unimaginative thinking doesn't pass muster - its been tested to death for 3 years. > > The Uk needs some bold Trump level action to accelerate Brexit - not more of the same civil service sloth paced spreadsheet managed sludge. >
Trump-level action from an English nationalist would be the worst nightmare for unionist blowhards. Be careful what you wish for.
> @williamglenn said: > > > Trump-level action from an English nationalist would be the worst nightmare for unionist blowhards. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night.....
> @Cyclefree said: > > @RightChuck said: > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome. > > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok.
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
Beams and motes.
Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument.
For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
> @TGOHF said: > > Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night..... > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz >
No, but it might mean deciding that if Northern Ireland and Scotland are obstacles to a proper Brexit, then we'd be better off without you.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > > > > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > > > > > Utterly clueless. > > > > Beams and motes. > > > > Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite. > > > > And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks. > > > > The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile. > > Some Brexiteers are saying that. That’s neither my position nor the Government’s position. > > The referendum would be on whether to respect the original decision - to Leave the EU by any route or form.
Whether it's your position or not is irrelevant.
It looks as if a very significant part of the Tory party is now moving to a No Deal position. That was not the position of the Brexit campaign during the referendum. It was not the basis on which the victory was won. To try and push it through now, which is what a significant proportion of the Tory party is trying to do, is dishonest. It is tantamount to a form of misrepresentation to the voters.
> @Stereotomy said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > Weren't you CUK-curious at one point? > > > > > > > > > > Please, it’s before the watershed. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I have kept using that shortening partially because I think it's funny that they gave themselves such an embarrassing acronym, but I didn't really think about how in the context of my comment that could come across as making fun of Big_G rather than Change UK. That wasn't my intention.
And I did not see it as anything other than a fair question
> > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
>
>
> > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
>
>
>
> That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
>
>
>
> I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
>
>
>
> It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
>
> I'm sorry, are you calling me a liar? I say that I know people and of people who have changed from remain to leave because it is true. I have no doubt there are people who have changed the other way. I do not find it in the slightest difficult to understand that my experience is not necessarily universal. I had imagined that you were similarly aware.
I am not calling you a liar and nothing I wrote was intended to imply this. So apologies if it read like that.
It is just simply not true to say that the only change is from Remain to Leave. There will be changes the other way as well.
That is why I think it so deceitful for the Brexiteers to keep on quoting the 17.4 million figure when no-one knows what the current figure would now be for the sort of Brexit the Brexiteers now want.
Who on earth said that "the only change is from Remain to Leave"? Certainly not me. I think that came from your imagination. Apology accepted though, even if somewhat puzzling.
> @RightChuck said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > > > > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > > > > > Utterly clueless. > > > > Beams and motes. > > > > Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite. > > > > And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks. > > > > The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile. > > I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument. > > For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
Oh, here we go again: once we're out, we won't be negotiating a transitional agreement. The WA is not the same as an FTA. So your option (b) is a nonsense.
It is either a deceit or a lot of Brexiteers, including many MPs and Cabinet Ministers, simply do not understand what they are talking about.
> @williamglenn said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > > Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night..... > > > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > > > > No, but it might mean deciding that if Northern Ireland and Scotland are obstacles to a proper Brexit, then we'd be better off without you.
Brexit has put Sindy off for 30 years - check the polling.
Ulster isn't going anywhere either.
Get some actual positive arguments for staying in the EU and how £12Bn pa is great value if you want to prevent the inevitable.
> @felix said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > > > > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome. > > > > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. > > How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok.
Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament.
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin.
They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication.
Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP.
The last few weeks has shown the Remain side couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
They’ve been all over the shop and then just talked to their ultra Revoke base, using the same sort of rhetoric as Aaron Banks just turned on its head.
They’d start as favourites in any second referendum campaign and slowly turn Remain inclined floating voters off as the weeks of the campaign progressed by swearing, and calling Farage and other Brexiteers Nazis.
Meanwhile, the meme that this was a vote to overturn an original democratic decision that still hadn’t been implemented by useless politicians would gain traction and win out.
For sure, no indications that a remain campaign will do any better this time around - although the big selling point will be "just make it stop" rather than basing it around project fear this time.
Remain will be relying on the failings of brexit, if it's a case of remain vs May's deal (or a may-Corbyn deal) then I can't see who would actually mobilise in favour of it, and once you put a definition to Leave it immediately alienates a large chunk of the brexit pool. No deal would stand a good chance of pulling off the "tell them again" line but it's almost impossible to see how it makes it onto a ballot paper now.
> @Paristonda said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum. > > > > > > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting. > > > > > > Utterly clueless. > > > > There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin. > > > > They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication. > > > > Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP. > > > The last few weeks has shown the Remain side couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. > > They’ve been all over the shop and then just talked to their ultra Revoke base, using the same sort of rhetoric as Aaron Banks just turned on its head. > > They’d start as favourites in any second referendum campaign and slowly turn Remain inclined floating voters off as the weeks of the campaign progressed by swearing, and calling Farage and other Brexiteers Nazis. > > Meanwhile, the meme that this was a vote to overturn an original democratic decision that still hadn’t been implemented by useless politicians would gain traction and win out. > > For sure, no indications that a remain campaign will do any better this time around - although the big selling point will be "just make it stop" rather than basing it around project fear this time. > > Remain will be relying on the failings of brexit, if it's a case of remain vs May's deal (or a may-Corbyn deal) then I can't see who would actually mobilise in favour of it, and once you put a definition to Leave it immediately alienates a large chunk of the brexit pool. No deal would stand a good chance of pulling off the "tell them again" line but it's almost impossible to see how it makes it onto a ballot paper now.
A Remain vs May deal referendum would decide the next GE - in favour of the Brexit party.
> @TGOHF said: > > Brexit has put Sindy off for 30 years - check the polling. > > Ulster isn't going anywhere either. > > Get some actual positive arguments for staying in the EU and how £12Bn pa is great value if you want to prevent the inevitable. >
Brexit hasn't happened yet, and you're confusing opinions with tangible facts. Brexit destroys the case for the union in every nation of the UK.
> If you're excluding attitudes towards democracy and violence towards opponents from any discussion of what a fascist is, then you're using a flawed definition of what a fascist is. Attlee's and Churchill's parties would tick most of those boxes, but they weren't fascists.
"Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. [...] Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."
So you don't think any of this might ring true for the rhetoric of BP, UKIP or the ERG?
I understand the argument will boil down to 52% said they wanted out, and if you are for out you support democracy, but those 52% aren't monolithic, and the rhetoric around the voice of the volk... sorry the "Democratic Will of the People", yeah, sounds a bit fashy.
On the violence issue, the British Yellow Vests outside parliament square, and the Tommy Squad are good examples of right wing mobs at arms length from the "respectable parties", but come on, UKIP wouldn't exist without Farage, the BP is an extension of Farage and UKIP as currently is is only an evolution from Faragism. abc bcd cde def. The first group may not have any of the same letters bits of the makeup of the first, but it is easy to see the connection and the entire point of Eco's essay.
> @Casino_Royale said: > My wife and I have both voted conservative in our postal ballot today demonstrating that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters, we remain loyal to our party in defiance of Farage, unlike many thousands of so called loyal supporters and activists who will vote for Farage, the absurd Widdecombe, and the rest of the no deal wreckers. > > > > Our dislike and distrust of Farage gave us a thought to counter him by voting for the Lib Dems as the only party with a clear message against Farage, but the vote for our party was the only correct course for us to take > > > > Having been loyal to TM and her deal the time has now come for TM to stand aside no later than immediately after the EU results are known which coincides with another ridiculous HOC holiday break from the 23rd May to the 4th June. TM needs to invite the election of her successor in this time and to continue as caretaker PM until a full election process has been completed including the two names sent to the members for their final decision > > > > It does seem the ladies are on the march with McVey, Leadsom, Pritel, and no doubt Mordaunt, Truss, and others all wanting the succession > > You’re loyal. > > Except when you’re not loyal.
In 60 years I voted twice for labour for Blair when the party was tired out and he had the right policies at the time. Today in an even bigger crisis I voted for my party when tens of thousands of conservative members, activists and voters will act against the party by voting Farag e and in your terms become fair weather tories.
> @TGOHF said: > > Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro. > > Which destroys the case for Sindy. >
Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland?
> I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument.
>
> For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
Oh, here we go again: once we're out, we won't be negotiating a transitional agreement. The WA is not the same as an FTA. So your option (b) is a nonsense.
It is either a deceit or a lot of Brexiteers, including many MPs and Cabinet Ministers, simply do not understand what they are talking about.
Well no need to be quite so brusque! I was merely putting the point as I think it's meant and suggesting no deceit was necessarily intended. You may well be right that many Ministers and MPs don't understand what they are talking about, but I personally wouldn't restrict that description to only one side of the argument.
And of course I know the WA is not the same as an FTA. That is why I said 'negotiate the same issues" - ie money, NI and citizens - from outside.
You appear unable to believe that people who don't see the world entirely your way are anything other than stupid.
> @williamglenn said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > > Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro. > > > > Which destroys the case for Sindy. > > > > Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland?
President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
My wife and I have both voted conservative in our postal ballot today demonstrating that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters, we remain loyal to our party in defiance of Farage, unlike many thousands of so called loyal supporters and activists who will vote for Farage, the absurd Widdecombe, and the rest of the no deal wreckers.
Our dislike and distrust of Farage gave us a thought to counter him by voting for the Lib Dems as the only party with a clear message against Farage, but the vote for our party was the only correct course for us to take
Having been loyal to TM and her deal the time has now come for TM to stand aside no later than immediately after the EU results are known which coincides with another ridiculous HOC holiday break from the 23rd May to the 4th June. TM needs to invite the election of her successor in this time and to continue as caretaker PM until a full election process has been completed including the two names sent to the members for their final decision
It does seem the ladies are on the march with McVey, Leadsom, Pritel, and no doubt Mordaunt, Truss, and others all wanting the succession
One out of two Big G. Well done for voting Cons but May should go nowhere. No one else could improve, change, reject, or replace her deal so we may as well stick with her.
They only have dead wood to pick from so why change one woodentop for another.
> @kinabalu said: > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
> @RobD said: > > @kinabalu said: > > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist. > > That word has become meaningless.
An explanation of why this word has a meaning, and makes sense in this context:
On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @felix said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago? > > > > > > > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome. > > > > > > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange. > > > > > > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote. > > > > > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain. > > > > > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago. > > > > > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote. > > > > How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok. > > Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament.
But the important principle is the one people like Cyclefree ignore - namely that Brexit needs to happen before there is another vote. Until then no-one actually knows how it will work out. My own view is that 5 years out of the EU would be enough to see us return but to try and reverse the vote before implementation is truly a deceit on the voters.
On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger
> @TGOHF said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @TGOHF said: > > > > > > Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro. > > > > > > Which destroys the case for Sindy. > > > > > > > Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland? > > Long lunch William ? >
> @RightChuck said: > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > > I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument. > > > > > > For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux. > > > > Oh, here we go again: once we're out, we won't be negotiating a transitional agreement. The WA is not the same as an FTA. So your option (b) is a nonsense. > > > > It is either a deceit or a lot of Brexiteers, including many MPs and Cabinet Ministers, simply do not understand what they are talking about. > > Well no need to be quite so brusque! I was merely putting the point as I think it's meant and suggesting no deceit was necessarily intended. You may well be right that many Ministers and MPs don't understand what they are talking about, but I personally wouldn't restrict that description to only one side of the argument. > > And of course I know the WA is not the same as an FTA. That is why I said 'negotiate the same issues" - ie money, NI and citizens - from outside. > > You appear unable to believe that people who don't see the world entirely your way are anything other than stupid.
The EU has already said that if Britain left without the current WA, the same issues: money, NI and citizens would be the same as under the WA i.e. we take what they offer or nothing.
What we would lose are the transitional arrangements allowing our trade to continue as now.
As for your last comment, I am afraid you are wrong. My views on Brexit have changed quite a lot over the last few years. I have written quite a few headers from a position which is much closer to the Brexit perspective than many died-in-the-wool Remainers. I am no fan of the EU. If I now sound brusque (sorry I didn't mean to) is because I see lots of people in public life talking absolute balls on the subject and putting the future for my children at risk. That makes me very cross.
Having a different viewpoint I couldn't care less about. Being wilfully ignorant and refusing to educate oneself is unforgivable. There are too many in this argument who are in the latter camp and far too many of them are in or claiming to lead our political parties. They deserve all the contempt I can feel for being stupid.
> @RobD said: > > @kinabalu said: > > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist. > > That word has become meaningless.
It does get slung around. However, viz Trump, I am using it carefully and (I think) correctly. A 'wannabe' fascist. However not provable without access to inside his head - his deepest and most private thoughts - and that I do not have. Thankfully, I can't get in there.
On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger
No, "Bollywood news" comes up first, "Bollocks to Brexit" only 5th!
> @kinabalu said: > > @RobD said: > > > @kinabalu said: > > > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist. > > > > That word has become meaningless. > > It does get slung around. However, viz Trump, I am using it carefully and (I think) correctly. A 'wannabe' fascist. However not provable without access to inside his head - his deepest and most private thoughts - and that I do not have. Thankfully, I can't get in there.
Similar to when professional psychologists were diagnosing him with mental disorders without actually interacting with him personally. Very unprofessional.
I voted Brexit Party in the Eastern region today. The Conservatives were stated as "conservative and Unionist" which had a nice retro feel. Presume it is the same across the UK and intended to keep the single Blue MEP north of the border.
Tye Chanhe UK box looked very empty and spoke volumes about their level of competence. Hilarious that these so superior politicians like Soubs and Chukka are so flaming useless at running a party.🤣
> @felix said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > @felix said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > @RightChuck said: > > > > > > > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament. > > But the important principle is the one people like Cyclefree ignore - namely that Brexit needs to happen before there is another vote. Until then no-one actually knows how it will work out. My own view is that 5 years out of the EU would be enough to see us return but to try and reverse the vote before implementation is truly a deceit on the voters.
And from where does this important principle come from? Article 50 had an in-built cooling off period of two years. It was implicit in that that a country might change its mind and the ECJ has confirmed that as a matter of EU law. Does everything in a government's manifesto have to happen before we get another GE? Oh no, it doesn't. In fact, nothing in a manifesto has to happen at all - as the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Whether or not we have another referendum before we Brexit is not a matter of principle but simply a matter of politics, it seems to me. It is not an ideal solution. Far from it. It may make matters worse. But since Parliament cannot decide then the only option may be to ask the people again.
If Parliament had agreed the deal I could have lived with it. But it hasn't. So a way out of the cul de sac needs to be found. Asking the voters may be the least worst of the available options.
I hope if Britain does Brexit it does OK. But I am sceptical because I see those who want Brexit - especially on a no deal basis - as people who have little or no understanding about the real world of trade and treaties and contractual agreements and strongly suspect that if they are in charge things will not be OK at all.
> @Concanvasser said: > I voted Brexit Party in the Eastern region today. The Conservatives were stated as "conservative and Unionist" which had a nice retro feel. Presume it is the same across the UK and intended to keep the single Blue MEP north of the border. > > Tye Chanhe UK box looked very empty and spoke volumes about their level of competence. Hilarious that these so superior politicians like Soubs and Chukka are so flaming useless at running a party.🤣
Admit it, you voted Brexit Party because the arrow told you to.
> @kinabalu said: > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist. >
In a globally-connected world where states seemingly have less power and constitutional checks and balances are strong, there's paradoxically less perceived risk in electing a leader with anti-democratic tendencies.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger > > No, "Bollywood news" comes up first, "Bollocks to Brexit" only 5th!
> On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger
>
> No, "Bollywood news" comes up first, "Bollocks to Brexit" only 5th!
Comments
What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
I do, however, think he appeals to certain types of fascists, and does little, if anything, to actively repel them. There is (as is sadly too frequent in our politics) a certain amount of dog-whistling going on in many of his speeches.
I see the Brexit Party as little different to UKIP, and where UKIP went, the Brexit Party will follow. Those choosing to vote for it might want to consider that ...
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @RightChuck said:
> > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> >
> > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
>
> Brexiters don't know; that is why they are frit of a further referendum. If they were confident they would be calling for it.
That's a good point. Brexit is there for the taking, Mrs May has a deal that is indeed Brexit, Labour want to soften it a bit, but still it's Brexit. Surely the hard Brexit crash out WTO people should be calling for another referendum as the only way they could get No Deal.
> > @RightChuck said:
>
> > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
>
>
>
> You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
>
> If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
>
> What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
>
> I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
It somewhat sad that so many people of a Leaver persuasion think that it is "undemocratic" for anyone to have a view that the whole debacle is, well, a debacle. It is absolutely right that the LibDems should continue to campaign for what they collectively believe to be right, even if they were in a tiny minority, which clearly they are not. They have a duty to represent differing views from the tyranny of the 2016 52%, and seek to persuade that the country is going to hell as they see it. This is democracy in action.
> I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them.
>
> As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct.
>
> A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @RightChuck said:
> > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> >
> > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
>
> Brexiters don't know; that is why they are frit of a further referendum. If they were confident they would be calling for it.
Imagine walking into a restaurant and ordering something, only for the waiter to keep coming back every fifteen minutes and asking you if you're sure that's what you ordered? Or if maybe you've changed your mind?
Imagine being forced to wait for food so long that the waiter actually thinks he's doing you a *favour* by asking you if you still want what you ordered.
Then imagine local spiv Nigel opens up a takeaway down the road that delivers what you ordered fast, no waiting, no mucking about, no waiters asking if sir is *sure* that is what he ordered.
Which restauraunt do you think the punters would flock to?
https://talksport.com/football/540787/tottenham-fan-champions-league-ajax-drunken-mistake/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1126815715682656256
> How about some alternatives, if bollocks is too much (it isn't)?
>
> Bums to Brexit
> Butt out, Brexit!
> Brexit's a bitch
> Brexit: gone for a burton?
> Bullocks to Brexit
> Brexit: bizarre buzzword?
> Barbarous balderdash bombshell Brexi....I think you get the idea with that.
I prefer Bollox to the Bullshit called Brexit
BBC still right to fire him given that others who do not listen to his shows will find it difficult to accept his explanation, combined with his very poor initial apology. Sure he will be back somewhere soon and I will continue to enjoy listening to him.
> About that trade war...
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1126815715682656256
He's advocating agricultural dumping on poor countries which is the last thing they need.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them.
> >
> > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct.
> >
> > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
>
> One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit.
When he does talk politics, though, he turns into a europhile Farage spitting left, right and centre and pushes every button I have.
> > @isam said:
> > Credit where it is due, the Lib Dems are crushing CHUKa's TIGgers on the remain side of the great Brexit debate.
> >
> > What on earth are Chukas mob playing at? It was always a strange idea to think that standing on a platform of keeping all the things the public dislike from the first 16 years of the century and calling it ‘Change’ was going to work, but not putting up candidates in two by elections since they formed is totally bizarre.
> >
> > Soubry booed from start to finish on QT last night, preaching being civil while branding Farage racist, some change.
> >
> > If I didn’t dislike them so much I’d feel sorry for them
>
> The pro austerity, pro remain vote (Which when you stick Soubry up as a talking head is essentially what you're selling) isn't huge.
I think they made a mistake admitting Tory MPs - it seems to have quickly gone from being SDP Mark 2 to being Cameroons Mark 2.
For the record I have absolutely no problem at all with the LDs campaigning to overturn the result of the referendum. Can't say I respect them for it though.
Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
Utterly clueless.
> > @Stereotomy said:
>
> > Pff, you're telling me that you don't use a timer when you're playing your cat at chess? Amateur.
>
> Ah, all becomes clear.
>
> No, mine gets stressed out by that. Insists that it's against the spirit of the game.
>
> Cats eh.
Of course, the greatest form of animal chess is this...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
> > @RightChuck said:
>
> > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
>
>
>
> You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
>
> If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
>
> What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
>
> I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
Except when you’re not loyal.
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
And do you think this hypothetical second vote for Brexit would be UK-wide, or would the division between England and the rest become even starker?
It wouldn’t win a second referendum.
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin.
They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication.
Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP.
Bit of a shocker on the posting name, given your evident views and recent events political party-wise.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them.
> > >
> > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct.
> > >
> > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
> >
> > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
>
> This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit.
The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.
The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy.
> I'm on a mailing list for politics.co.uk. This is their weekly article. I think it's excellent and insightful, and there's food for thought for Leavers and Remainers alike. It's well worth 5 minutes of your time.
> https://mailchi.mp/politics/week-in-review-political-stasis-is-underpriced?e=8922a89754
> <i>"...in reality, this is what has defined Brexit for the last three years: a furiously churning status quo in which nothing actually changes. This is why you feel completely out the loop if you miss a morning's worth of Brexit news, but as if nothing has changed when you miss a month's worth."</i>
Yes, that's very good. The narrow point that it's usually best to bet on things NOT happening as soon as expected is good for PB tipsters, too.
Not sure what's going on there - my posting name came from a non-political forum and isn't tailored to PB, and the rest of your meaning is unclear to me. But never mind, no biggie.
Sorry -screwed up the quote - replying to @TOPPING
I think it was a crazy thing to put out, and there is never an excuse for a white person to compare someone of mixed race to a primate... but the punishment shouldn’t have been a sacking, & he’s almost certainly not racist
If I had to guess I’d say about the same in Wales and England, slightly stronger in Scotland and less in NI.
> > @148grss said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them.
> > > >
> > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct.
> > > >
> > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
> > >
> > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
> >
> > This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power. They then dismantle these for others when they gain power. The Nazis argued in favour of "Free Speech" to protect themselves, and got rid of it pretty sharpish. Also, you seem to have a specific definition of fascism; Umberto Eco's definition may differ from that. But going from his definition, the current lurch to the right in this country and elsewhere seems to fit.
>
> The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.
>
> The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy.
We are literally discussing one academic definition of fascism, and its points.
We were saying that the rhetoric and policies of The Brexit Party, UKIP and ERG factions tick many of the points that encompass that definition. If you disagree with that, please discuss those points and not just say the word "fascism" is lazy. Because the definition we are talking about is well defined and well discussed.
The ERG jokers have taken the limelight off him unfairly for too long.
> One out of two Big G. Well done for voting Cons but May should go nowhere. No one else could improve, change, reject, or replace her deal so we may as well stick with her.
>
> The only argument for removing May is that another leader (presumably someone with intact Brexit credentials) would face exactly the same constraints and that this realisation might help people face up to reality instead of blaming the leader. I'm not sure it would work.
The paucity of this level of unimaginative thinking doesn't pass muster - its been tested to death for 3 years.
The Uk needs some bold Trump level action to accelerate Brexit - not more of the same civil service sloth paced spreadsheet managed sludge.
> > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> >
> > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
>
> That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
>
> I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
>
> It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
---------------------------------
So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you?
> This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> Utterly clueless.
Beams and motes.
Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
The last few weeks has shown the Remain side couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
They’ve been all over the shop and then just talked to their ultra Revoke base, using the same sort of rhetoric as Aaron Banks just turned on its head.
They’d start as favourites in any second referendum campaign and slowly turn Remain inclined floating voters off as the weeks of the campaign progressed by swearing, and calling Farage and other Brexiteers Nazis.
Meanwhile, the meme that this was a vote to overturn an original democratic decision that still hadn’t been implemented by useless politicians would gain traction and win out.
edit: nevermind
> It's an effective slogan. Though the LDs only now being rewarded for Brexit stance us weird.
>
> It could get them to 20-25% in the Euros.
>
> It wouldn’t win a second referendum.
The polls suggest it might only get them 10-15%. It will play well with the FBPE crowd but not sure its going to entice the soft remainer.
In fact, rather than berating people who did so, Conservatives should be asking why they did so, and wondering if they're heading down the same route again.
BigG has been loyal to TM and the deal: in fact, he's been much more loyal than you have when you went with Brexit, which is destroying the party. You put your loathing of the EU above loyalty to the party and Cameron.
> > @RightChuck said:
>
> > > @RightChuck said:
>
> >
>
> > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
>
>
> > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
>
>
>
> That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
>
>
>
> I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
>
>
>
> It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
>
> I'm sorry, are you calling me a liar? I say that I know people and of people who have changed from remain to leave because it is true. I have no doubt there are people who have changed the other way. I do not find it in the slightest difficult to understand that my experience is not necessarily universal. I had imagined that you were similarly aware.
I am not calling you a liar and nothing I wrote was intended to imply this. So apologies if it read like that.
It is just simply not true to say that the only change is from Remain to Leave. There will be changes the other way as well.
That is why I think it so deceitful for the Brexiteers to keep on quoting the 17.4 million figure when no-one knows what the current figure would now be for the sort of Brexit the Brexiteers now want.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1126829214454435844
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1126831466883768320
> > @solarflare said:
> > How about some alternatives, if bollocks is too much (it isn't)?
> >
> > Bums to Brexit
> > Butt out, Brexit!
> > Brexit's a bitch
> > Brexit: gone for a burton?
> > Bullocks to Brexit
> > Brexit: bizarre buzzword?
> > Barbarous balderdash bombshell Brexi....I think you get the idea with that.
>
> I prefer Bollox to the Bullshit called Brexit
_______________________________________________________________
'Don't Brexit, Fix It'
sums up my position.
'Tough on B****t, Tough on the Causes of B****t
came from a Blairite and is a bit too much for me.
The referendum would be on whether to respect the original decision - to Leave the EU by any route or form.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> > >
> > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
> >
> > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
> >
> > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
> >
> > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
> ---------------------------------
> So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you?
>
We have elections every 4 years these days. Sometimes every 2 years. Sometimes we have had 2 elections in one year. Given that the current extension lasts until the end of October, it is not inconceivable that we might not have left the EU on the 4th anniversary of the vote. So having a fresh vote would not be such an odd thing to do.
The case for another vote is that now we know what Brexit would actually mean i.e. we know what a WA looks like - which we did not know in June 2016 - and it is perfectly democratic to ask the people if they want to go ahead on that basis or not. Indeed, some would argue that it would be undemocratic not to ask them.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
> >
> > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
> >
> > Utterly clueless.
>
> Beams and motes.
>
> Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
>
> And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
>
> The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
"No Deal" is a meme invented by remainers to scare people. Deals are already in place to allow planes to fly.
"Not May's deal" is how we are likely to leave. The sooner the Con party realises this the better for them.
> > @TudorRose said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> > > >
> > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
> > >
> > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
> > >
> > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
> > >
> > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
> > ---------------------------------
> > So we should have a referendum every 3 years on this in case people have changed their minds? How often would you like general elections; once a fortnight be OK for you?
> >
>
>
> We have elections every 4 years these days. Sometimes every 2 years. Sometimes we have had 2 elections in one year. Given that the current extension lasts until the end of October, it is not inconceivable that we might not have left the EU on the 4th anniversary of the vote. So having a fresh vote would not be such an odd thing to do.
>
> The case for another vote is that now we know what Brexit would actually mean i.e. we know what a WA looks like - which we did not know in June 2016 - and it is perfectly democratic to ask the people if they want to go ahead on that basis or not. Indeed, some would argue that it would be undemocratic not to ask them.
-----------------------
Under the FTPA it's every 5 years these days.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @148grss said:
> > > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > > I have a lot of respect for your posts Mr F, but if you think that it is a "bit of a stretch" you are deluding yourself. I am a centrist Tory, so I don't throw around the "fascist" word indiscriminately like those on the left, but I have no doubt that Farage appears to meet most if not all those criteria, and very much glorifies in them. It is then an argument as to whether Eco's criteria are indeed what they purport to be, rather than Farage's adherence to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the views of Brexit supporters, they are by no means a unified opinion, but glorifying militarism (WW2 obsession), obsessing about plots (numerous examples of paranoia about remainers, EU etc.) , admire action for its own sake (Brexit is exactly this), then these criteria seem to be pretty common place amongst those that are its most extreme/ardent advocates. As for the Enlightenment, I fear our limited education system means that most voters, let alone Brexit supporters, have never heard of it, and if they have, probably regard it as a foreign construct.
> > > > >
> > > > > A vote for Farage is a vote for fascist values.
> > > >
> > > > One can't be a fascist and a democrat. Hostility to democracy and love of violence, is at the very root and marrow of fascism.
> > >
> > > This just isn't true. Fascists always try to use the veneer of democratic norms to gain power.
> >
> > The fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's were quite clear that they intended to bring democracy to an end - in their eyes democracy had failed their countries. Establishing dictatorships is not something that fascists just drifted into - they made clear that rule by an autocratic messianic leader was the way forward. A democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.
> >
> > The modern use of "fascist" to mean "right wing populist" is lazy.
>
> We are literally discussing one academic definition of fascism, and its points.
>
> We were saying that the rhetoric and policies of The Brexit Party, UKIP and ERG factions tick many of the points that encompass that definition. If you disagree with that, please discuss those points and not just say the word "fascism" is lazy. Because the definition we are talking about is well defined and well discussed.
If you're excluding attitudes towards democracy and violence towards opponents from any discussion of what a fascist is, then you're using a flawed definition of what a fascist is. Attlee's and Churchill's parties would tick most of those boxes, but they weren't fascists.
>
> The paucity of this level of unimaginative thinking doesn't pass muster - its been tested to death for 3 years.
>
> The Uk needs some bold Trump level action to accelerate Brexit - not more of the same civil service sloth paced spreadsheet managed sludge.
>
Trump-level action from an English nationalist would be the worst nightmare for unionist blowhards. Be careful what you wish for.
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1124073988525821953
>
>
> Trump-level action from an English nationalist would be the worst nightmare for unionist blowhards. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night.....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> > @RightChuck said:
> > > @RightChuck said:
> >
> > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> >
> >
> >
> > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
> >
> > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
> >
> > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> >
> > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
>
> That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
>
> I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
>
> It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok.
For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
>
> Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night.....
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
No, but it might mean deciding that if Northern Ireland and Scotland are obstacles to a proper Brexit, then we'd be better off without you.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> >
>
> > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> >
>
> > Utterly clueless.
>
>
>
> Beams and motes.
>
>
>
> Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
>
>
>
> And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
>
>
>
> The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
>
> Some Brexiteers are saying that. That’s neither my position nor the Government’s position.
>
> The referendum would be on whether to respect the original decision - to Leave the EU by any route or form.
Whether it's your position or not is irrelevant.
It looks as if a very significant part of the Tory party is now moving to a No Deal position. That was not the position of the Brexit campaign during the referendum. It was not the basis on which the victory was won. To try and push it through now, which is what a significant proportion of the Tory party is trying to do, is dishonest. It is tantamount to a form of misrepresentation to the voters.
> > @brokenwheel said:
> > Weren't you CUK-curious at one point?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please, it’s before the watershed.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I have kept using that shortening partially because I think it's funny that they gave themselves such an embarrassing acronym, but I didn't really think about how in the context of my comment that could come across as making fun of Big_G rather than Change UK. That wasn't my intention.
And I did not see it as anything other than a fair question
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> >
>
> > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> >
>
> > Utterly clueless.
>
>
>
> Beams and motes.
>
>
>
> Compare what those arguing for Brexit now were saying three years ago. No-one was arguing for a No Deal Brexit. Quite the opposite.
>
>
>
> And yet now we are being told that all those 17.4 million voters did in fact vote for a No Deal Brexit and that not to give them that is a betrayal of the vote. And that, frankly, is deceitful bollocks.
>
>
>
> The No Dealers have taken the inch the voters gave them and are trying to create a mile.
>
> I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument.
>
> For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
Oh, here we go again: once we're out, we won't be negotiating a transitional agreement. The WA is not the same as an FTA. So your option (b) is a nonsense.
It is either a deceit or a lot of Brexiteers, including many MPs and Cabinet Ministers, simply do not understand what they are talking about.
> > @TGOHF said:
> >
> > Yes - of course any course of action bolder than May's approach means Nuremberg style rape joke rallys at the weekend and chlorine washed gammon for tea every night.....
> >
> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
>
> No, but it might mean deciding that if Northern Ireland and Scotland are obstacles to a proper Brexit, then we'd be better off without you.
Brexit has put Sindy off for 30 years - check the polling.
Ulster isn't going anywhere either.
Get some actual positive arguments for staying in the EU and how £12Bn pa is great value if you want to prevent the inevitable.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @RightChuck said:
> > > > @RightChuck said:
> > >
> > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
> > >
> > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
> > >
> > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> > >
> > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
> >
> > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
> >
> > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
> >
> > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
>
> How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok.
Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament.
Remain will be relying on the failings of brexit, if it's a case of remain vs May's deal (or a may-Corbyn deal) then I can't see who would actually mobilise in favour of it, and once you put a definition to Leave it immediately alienates a large chunk of the brexit pool. No deal would stand a good chance of pulling off the "tell them again" line but it's almost impossible to see how it makes it onto a ballot paper now.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > This thread is demonstrating to me how easily Remain could lose a second referendum.
>
> >
>
> > Just listen to yourselves and look at what you’re saying and posting.
>
> >
>
> > Utterly clueless.
>
>
>
> There is no doubt they would lose by a bigger margin.
>
>
>
> They had no good arguments last time - and project fear has seen to be lies and fabrication.
>
>
>
> Reduced to flags and slogans - like the Brussels branch of the SNP.
>
>
> The last few weeks has shown the Remain side couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
>
> They’ve been all over the shop and then just talked to their ultra Revoke base, using the same sort of rhetoric as Aaron Banks just turned on its head.
>
> They’d start as favourites in any second referendum campaign and slowly turn Remain inclined floating voters off as the weeks of the campaign progressed by swearing, and calling Farage and other Brexiteers Nazis.
>
> Meanwhile, the meme that this was a vote to overturn an original democratic decision that still hadn’t been implemented by useless politicians would gain traction and win out.
>
> For sure, no indications that a remain campaign will do any better this time around - although the big selling point will be "just make it stop" rather than basing it around project fear this time.
>
> Remain will be relying on the failings of brexit, if it's a case of remain vs May's deal (or a may-Corbyn deal) then I can't see who would actually mobilise in favour of it, and once you put a definition to Leave it immediately alienates a large chunk of the brexit pool. No deal would stand a good chance of pulling off the "tell them again" line but it's almost impossible to see how it makes it onto a ballot paper now.
A Remain vs May deal referendum would decide the next GE - in favour of the Brexit party.
>
> Brexit has put Sindy off for 30 years - check the polling.
>
> Ulster isn't going anywhere either.
>
> Get some actual positive arguments for staying in the EU and how £12Bn pa is great value if you want to prevent the inevitable.
>
Brexit hasn't happened yet, and you're confusing opinions with tangible facts. Brexit destroys the case for the union in every nation of the UK.
> If you're excluding attitudes towards democracy and violence towards opponents from any discussion of what a fascist is, then you're using a flawed definition of what a fascist is. Attlee's and Churchill's parties would tick most of those boxes, but they weren't fascists.
"Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. [...] Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."
So you don't think any of this might ring true for the rhetoric of BP, UKIP or the ERG?
I understand the argument will boil down to 52% said they wanted out, and if you are for out you support democracy, but those 52% aren't monolithic, and the rhetoric around the voice of the volk... sorry the "Democratic Will of the People", yeah, sounds a bit fashy.
On the violence issue, the British Yellow Vests outside parliament square, and the Tommy Squad are good examples of right wing mobs at arms length from the "respectable parties", but come on, UKIP wouldn't exist without Farage, the BP is an extension of Farage and UKIP as currently is is only an evolution from Faragism. abc bcd cde def. The first group may not have any of the same letters bits of the makeup of the first, but it is easy to see the connection and the entire point of Eco's essay.
I have no doubt that an extra smaller party in the UK can only bring further clarity to our political situation*.
(* @RightChuck that was another one of my zingers.
> My wife and I have both voted conservative in our postal ballot today demonstrating that, notwithstanding criticism from some quarters, we remain loyal to our party in defiance of Farage, unlike many thousands of so called loyal supporters and activists who will vote for Farage, the absurd Widdecombe, and the rest of the no deal wreckers.
>
>
>
> Our dislike and distrust of Farage gave us a thought to counter him by voting for the Lib Dems as the only party with a clear message against Farage, but the vote for our party was the only correct course for us to take
>
>
>
> Having been loyal to TM and her deal the time has now come for TM to stand aside no later than immediately after the EU results are known which coincides with another ridiculous HOC holiday break from the 23rd May to the 4th June. TM needs to invite the election of her successor in this time and to continue as caretaker PM until a full election process has been completed including the two names sent to the members for their final decision
>
>
>
> It does seem the ladies are on the march with McVey, Leadsom, Pritel, and no doubt Mordaunt, Truss, and others all wanting the succession
>
> You’re loyal.
>
> Except when you’re not loyal.
In 60 years I voted twice for labour for Blair when the party was tired out and he had the right policies at the time. Today in an even bigger crisis I voted for my party when tens of thousands of conservative members, activists and voters will act against the party by voting Farag e and in your terms become fair weather tories.
Well, good luck with that
> > @TGOHF said:
> Brexit hasn't happened yet, and you're confusing opinions with tangible facts. Brexit destroys the case for the union in every nation of the UK.
Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro.
Which destroys the case for Sindy.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1126781774263140352
>
> Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro.
>
> Which destroys the case for Sindy.
>
Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland?
And of course I know the WA is not the same as an FTA. That is why I said 'negotiate the same issues" - ie money, NI and citizens - from outside.
You appear unable to believe that people who don't see the world entirely your way are anything other than stupid.
> > @TGOHF said:
> >
> > Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro.
> >
> > Which destroys the case for Sindy.
> >
>
> Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland?
Long lunch William ?
> President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
That word has become meaningless.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
>
> That word has become meaningless.
An explanation of why this word has a meaning, and makes sense in this context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIN8oxnw__I
> > @felix said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > @RightChuck said:
> > > > > @RightChuck said:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You know, for certain, do you, that all those 17.4 million are still of the view that they were 3 years ago?
> > > >
> > > > If you'd like to suggest a more accurate number you're welcome.
> > > >
> > > > What I would say is that those who call for a second referendum on the grounds that people might have changed their minds are conspicuously those who haven't changed their minds in the slightest. Why they're so sure that other people will have done what they themselves will never do is somewhat mysterious to me, but then people are strange.
> > > >
> > > > I do know people, and of people, who voted remain but have changed to leave, but I wouldn't dream of pretending that that gave me an insight into the likely outcome of another vote.
> > >
> > > That is simply not true. The people I know who have changed their minds are leavers who would now vote to Remain.
> > >
> > > I don't know what the outcome of a second referendum would be. But I wonder why those keen to rely on the Will of the People are so reluctant to ask the People whether they have the same views as they did three years ago.
> > >
> > > It strikes me that they are scared that the answer might not be the same. Because, as I have written in a recent thread header, the substantive arguments for Brexit seem to have utterly fallen away and the only one left is a three-year old vote.
> >
> > How many referendums should we have before the matter is settled in your view? Clearly one more right now would be insufficient. I voted remain but take the view that the result should be respected and implemented before there are any further votes. Or maybe people like you are frit that once it happens the UK might do ok.
>
> Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament.
But the important principle is the one people like Cyclefree ignore - namely that Brexit needs to happen before there is another vote. Until then no-one actually knows how it will work out. My own view is that 5 years out of the EU would be enough to see us return but to try and reverse the vote before implementation is truly a deceit on the voters.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @TGOHF said:
> > >
> > > Sindy now means adopting the Spurtle as currency for 5 years until its swapped for the Euro.
> > >
> > > Which destroys the case for Sindy.
> > >
> >
> > Why assume the future of the union will only be decided by Scotland?
>
> Long lunch William ?
>
Not long enough!
> > @RightChuck said:
>
>
> >
>
> > I think the argument is that if we'd had a PM who didn't approach the EU in much the same way that she approaches a member of the Royal Family we'd have got a better deal; but now the damage is done the only sensible options are either a) to abandon the project or b) to leave with no deal and negotiate the same issues again from outside the Union. I don't see deceit in that argument.
>
> >
>
> > For what it's worth, and without having read it, I would be happy to proceed with May's deal faute de alleged mieux.
>
>
>
> Oh, here we go again: once we're out, we won't be negotiating a transitional agreement. The WA is not the same as an FTA. So your option (b) is a nonsense.
>
>
>
> It is either a deceit or a lot of Brexiteers, including many MPs and Cabinet Ministers, simply do not understand what they are talking about.
>
> Well no need to be quite so brusque! I was merely putting the point as I think it's meant and suggesting no deceit was necessarily intended. You may well be right that many Ministers and MPs don't understand what they are talking about, but I personally wouldn't restrict that description to only one side of the argument.
>
> And of course I know the WA is not the same as an FTA. That is why I said 'negotiate the same issues" - ie money, NI and citizens - from outside.
>
> You appear unable to believe that people who don't see the world entirely your way are anything other than stupid.
The EU has already said that if Britain left without the current WA, the same issues: money, NI and citizens would be the same as under the WA i.e. we take what they offer or nothing.
What we would lose are the transitional arrangements allowing our trade to continue as now.
As for your last comment, I am afraid you are wrong. My views on Brexit have changed quite a lot over the last few years. I have written quite a few headers from a position which is much closer to the Brexit perspective than many died-in-the-wool Remainers. I am no fan of the EU. If I now sound brusque (sorry I didn't mean to) is because I see lots of people in public life talking absolute balls on the subject and putting the future for my children at risk. That makes me very cross.
Having a different viewpoint I couldn't care less about. Being wilfully ignorant and refusing to educate oneself is unforgivable. There are too many in this argument who are in the latter camp and far too many of them are in or claiming to lead our political parties. They deserve all the contempt I can feel for being stupid.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
>
> That word has become meaningless.
It does get slung around. However, viz Trump, I am using it carefully and (I think) correctly. A 'wannabe' fascist. However not provable without access to inside his head - his deepest and most private thoughts - and that I do not have. Thankfully, I can't get in there.
> > @RobD said:
> > > @kinabalu said:
> > > President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
> >
> > That word has become meaningless.
>
> It does get slung around. However, viz Trump, I am using it carefully and (I think) correctly. A 'wannabe' fascist. However not provable without access to inside his head - his deepest and most private thoughts - and that I do not have. Thankfully, I can't get in there.
Similar to when professional psychologists were diagnosing him with mental disorders without actually interacting with him personally. Very unprofessional.
Tye Chanhe UK box looked very empty and spoke volumes about their level of competence. Hilarious that these so superior politicians like Soubs and Chukka are so flaming useless at running a party.🤣
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > @felix said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > > @RightChuck said:
> > > > > > @RightChuck said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Bollocks to 17.4m people (the majority). Because we're democrats."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well the whole point of a referendum is that it's a snapshot and in theory there's no reason to limit the number you take. Practical considerations suggest they should be employed sparingly though. Personally I'd settle for about the same number as we've had attempts to vote May's Deal through Parliament.
>
> But the important principle is the one people like Cyclefree ignore - namely that Brexit needs to happen before there is another vote. Until then no-one actually knows how it will work out. My own view is that 5 years out of the EU would be enough to see us return but to try and reverse the vote before implementation is truly a deceit on the voters.
And from where does this important principle come from? Article 50 had an in-built cooling off period of two years. It was implicit in that that a country might change its mind and the ECJ has confirmed that as a matter of EU law. Does everything in a government's manifesto have to happen before we get another GE? Oh no, it doesn't. In fact, nothing in a manifesto has to happen at all - as the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Whether or not we have another referendum before we Brexit is not a matter of principle but simply a matter of politics, it seems to me. It is not an ideal solution. Far from it. It may make matters worse. But since Parliament cannot decide then the only option may be to ask the people again.
If Parliament had agreed the deal I could have lived with it. But it hasn't. So a way out of the cul de sac needs to be found. Asking the voters may be the least worst of the available options.
I hope if Britain does Brexit it does OK. But I am sceptical because I see those who want Brexit - especially on a no deal basis - as people who have little or no understanding about the real world of trade and treaties and contractual agreements and strongly suspect that if they are in charge things will not be OK at all.
Tusk's 30% estimate on the UK not leaving might be slightly on the low side.
> I voted Brexit Party in the Eastern region today. The Conservatives were stated as "conservative and Unionist" which had a nice retro feel. Presume it is the same across the UK and intended to keep the single Blue MEP north of the border.
>
> Tye Chanhe UK box looked very empty and spoke volumes about their level of competence. Hilarious that these so superior politicians like Soubs and Chukka are so flaming useless at running a party.🤣
Admit it, you voted Brexit Party because the arrow told you to.
> President Donald J Trump is a fascist. By any reputable definition of the word he is. Or rather he isn't - not at all - but this is only because the pesky US constitutional checks & balances prevent it. Trump would LIKE to be a fascist and is frustrated that he cannot in practice be one. Not a proper one. But definitely a fascist at heart. Or to put it another way - although there is really no need to - he has the heart of a fascist.
>
In a globally-connected world where states seemingly have less power and constitutional checks and balances are strong, there's paradoxically less perceived risk in electing a leader with anti-democratic tendencies.
> On putting "boll" into a google search "bollocks to brexit" comes up first in the suggested searches ahead of various bollywood searches and a bollinger
>
> No, "Bollywood news" comes up first, "Bollocks to Brexit" only 5th!
Might be your search history.
Mr. D, the arrow was created by Hypno-Toad. It cannot be denied.