politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pre-Christmas voodoo surveys might have had a big move against

williamglenn said:

PlatoSaid said:

Those who don't like Remoaners would perhaps do better to follow the same logic.

My own version would be Remainsheviks.

Yes, that's much more of a parallel. Like!

SouthamObserver said:

@MarkHopkins - Remoaner is harmless, but clearly pejorative. I just can't see even the tamest of insults in Brexiteer. I am clearly missing something, but can't for the life of me see what it is.

You are obviously insufficiently acquainted with your inner snowflake. There are doubtless workshops to help you out with this kind of thing.

Duplicated, sorry

The strangest comment from the losers is that as they represent 48% of the population, therefore their views should be taken into account. Picture the result the other way round. Had we voted to Remain by the same margin, would the winners fret about representing the Leave views?.

"Hmm, perhaps we should remain, but only with changes. What should we ditch? Perhaps demand to have an absolute right to control our borders? Sorry, the EU say that's non-negotiable. Perhaps be able to over-rule some European judgements? Sorry, no dice there. Tough. Sorry lads, you'll just have to live with what the winners decide. Whatever that is."

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.

Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now

You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.

Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?

I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?

So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?

Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?

What a performance by Thistlecrack!

Fantastic.

OldKingCole said:

Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?

Yes, I do. I seriously believe that, if the vote had been the other way, no-one would presently be asking for an immediate re-run.

Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.

Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.

AnneJGP said:

OldKingCole said:

Does anyone seriously suppose that, if the vote had been the other way, the Faragists etc wouldn't have been constantly in the public press urging a further re-run?

Yes, I do. I seriously believe that, if the vote had been the other way, no-one would presently be asking for an immediate re-run.

Rather, those who believe we will be better off out in the long run would undoubtedly have gone on attempting to win hearts & minds.

Mr Cameron's renegotiation package would be under continuous scrutiny for breaches of the promises he was given by the heads of government.

No one is asking for a rerun.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.

Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now

You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.

Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?

I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?

So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?

Always the same "clever" points.

Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.

Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.

What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.

rcs1000 said:

It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.

Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.

I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.

The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.

Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.

Is a Muskateer a furry Musketeer?

Or is that Dogtanian?

The Dogtanian theme tune is the only thing I can play on the piano...

Charles said:

What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.

A superficial analogy.

Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.

Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.

Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.

I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.

My grandfather's motto was "never create an enemy unintentionally"

That seems like a similar philosophy...

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.

A superficial analogy.

Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.

Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.

If we don't like the direction Leave has gone, then we vote in a different party to take us in a different direction.

That's democracy.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.

A superficial analogy.

Trump is a man elected to an office for a fixed period of time - he alone must be judged on his performance in power, and he is free to renounce any of his campaign pledges as he sees fit.

Brexit is a direction with no destination, no implementation plan and no consensus even among its supporters about what either of those things look like. On top of that it was propelled to victory by a bunch of liars who were riding the political waves for their own purposes, mixed in with some naive and ignorant idealists who view the world with rose-tinted glasses. Not a day should go by in which these people are able to escape being made to justify their stance, because if they are found wanting, the country has a right to make its judgement felt.

Too many of your ilk - yourself included - give the impression they wish to set the result aside. That is the outrage.

But you chose not to address it.

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

It is horribly saddening the undignified way so many of the people who lost the referendum are fighting yesterdays battle.

Weasel words, false pretence, just all so fake.. why don't they just campaign for a second referendum? The idea of a referendum on the terms is so ridiculous I cant believe they are suggesting it! Why don't we have a referendum on every trade deal with a foreign country in that case? That's all the EU is now

You should be thrilled that everyone is taking such an interest in the UK's geopolitical place in the world.

Or do you believe there is anything more important facing the country right now?

I am talking about the unedifying way people in the UK who lost the referendum are trying to twist and turn until they find some way of undermining the result.. what are you talking about?

So in a general election won by the Conservatives would you condemn all Labour voters for accepting a Conservative government for ever more and not giving up the hope of a future Labour government?

Always the same "clever" points.

Labour voters should accept the result of the election and not try to impede the Tories forming the government. The day afterwards they can, of course, campaign for a Labour government to be elected at the next general election.

Similarly Remainers should not impede or seek to impede the decision of the referendum being implemented (as many give the impression they are trying to do). They are, of course, perfectly entitled to try and persuade people to call a referendum and vote to region the EU in future.

What many Remainder are currently doing is akin to trying to persuade members of tge Electoral College to vote for Hillary over Trump. Constitutionally they might be theorectically entitled to do so, but democratically it would be an outrage.

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

It's clear that the root of Brexiteer is Muskateer, as in The Three Muskateers.

Anyone who says different is an idiot and will be banned.

I hate to think that I might inadvertently cause offence, so I usually stick to Leaver and Remainer.

The only time I can recall considering using Brexiteer recently was in relation to David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, when I was considering "the three Brexiteers (motto: "all for one and everyone for himself")".

Yes, it would be a terrible thing if you caused offence inadvertently Alastair. I hope you and your partner had a good Christmas yesterday after such a difficult year.

To cause offense inadvertently would take all the fun out of it, I gather? (If I may say so without giving offence!)

Charles said:

Too many of your ilk - yourself included - give the impression they wish to set the result aside. That is the outrage.

But you chose not to address it.

On the contrary, I want the full weight of the great expectations, the impossible dreams and the false hopes of the 17 million to fall squarely on the shoulders of the elite - yourself included - who encouraged them to put their faith in this chimera.

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I thought even a mention of a voodoo poll was banned?

Can't believe that you said the V word

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss JGP, thank you

I do 'do' Christmas. Presents, tree, larger than usual meal, etc. Just not a Christian.

I'll vote for that. As a NorthWestern European for 10,000 or so generations.

King Cole, you're older than I thought

[I did enjoy reading the Pope wibble about consumerism not being the true meaning of Christmas. A pagan, or historian, might say Christmas isn't the true meaning of Samhain...].

Mr. Topping, I enjoy reading Mr. Charles' thoughts, and look forward to his next post.

Mr. D, indeed. And the lack of F1 doesn't help (although hopefully there'll be some profit had if Mercedes has the best car next year).

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, you're older than I thought

[I did enjoy reading the Pope wibble about consumerism not being the true meaning of Christmas. A pagan, or historian, might say Christmas isn't the true meaning of Samhain...].

Mr Dancer, you misread. My ancestors, so far as I can tell, albeit with the possible exception of, in order, a Viking and a Gypsy many generations ago, have lived in these islands since humans moved back in from Iberia and the Low Countries after the last Ice Age.
And they all celebrated the return of the sun after the Winter Solstice.
I agree with you about Nadolig Lawen.

Mr. Topping, the only way we'll find out for certain is if we end up staying.

Personally, I'm very sceptical of such a claim.

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

We're surely not going to go over this again.

The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.

The 'deal' simply said that in light of the fact that we'd always opted out of things like the Euro and Schengen, it was quite clear that Treaty of Rome had not obliged us to take part in any such endeavours and wouldn't do so in the future.

It really wasn't worth the amount of discussion it got and Cameron would have been better off not wasting his time thinking that a statement of the obvious would appease the oblivious.

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

No.

The Conservatives were elected with a majority, they proposed a referendum and it is down to them, and no one else, to implement the result as they see fit as long as they are in government.

Cameron staying would have made it easier, that's probably why he quit. Does anyone for a minute believe that if he had stayed, and was implementing Brexit as he saw fit to, the Cameroons on here would be grizzling about the result and constructing the logical contortions they are now?

ThreeQuidder said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

We're surely not going to go over this again.

The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.

...because you might have to admit that the centrepiece of the Remain campaign was meaningless?

Snooze

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

We're surely not going to go over this again.

The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.

You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.

This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.

I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

We're surely not going to go over this again.

The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.

You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.

This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.

I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.

What would our legal recourse have been had it been violated? Was it's modification subject to unanimity, for example? It's hardly moronic to ask these sorts of questions.

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Ally_B said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

I appreciate "clever" points might elude you.

Likewise it's up to anyone who opposes any electoral decision to oppose it whenever they want. No one is seeking to overturn the referendum result. They are seeking to help define the post-referendum landscape.

Too many Remainers give the impression they want to overturn the result.

There is clearly no need to overturn the result as that is now written history. However there needs to be "put to the country" what Leave means because we never heard any of that during the referendum. 48% knew what they were voting for economically, the remainder didn't. Was it EEA, WTO or Uncle Tom Cobley and all? When the Government comes up with the good deal they are going to negotiate for us then that can be put to the country and this issue to rest for a generation. Of course, if it isn't good and hospitals have to close because they can no longer be funded; interest rates have to go up to protect against a run on the currency and many of the negative consequences highlighted in the referendum come to pass then I expect the clamour to kick Brexit into the very long grass (along with its parliamentary supporters) will not be ignored.

Not true. Many of the 48% believed the lie that ever closer union was off the table.

It was. Dave's deal ensured it would have been.

Was it ever shown to be binding? I thought it was just an 'agreement', rather than a treaty change.

We're surely not going to go over this again.

The deal said we could opt out of Ever Closer Union. Debating whether it would have been struck down or honoured is not a productive use of time.

You were the one saying it ensured ever closer union was off the table. I was only questioning if it was really ensured or not.

This illustrates the moronocity of some Leavers. The democratically-elected government secured a deal. Brexiters are so half-witted as to believe that if the agreement was subsequently violated then our democratically-elected government would have said: Oh OK then.

I'm surprised such Brexiters aren't constructing hides and stockpiling baked beans in the woods.

What would our legal recourse have been had it been violated? Was it's modification subject to unanimity, for example? It's hardly moronic to ask these sorts of questions.

We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.

Mr. Topping, a serious lack of faith in the EU's integrity (or the deal Cameron got, such as it was) is an indictment of the political establishment, not the electorate.

Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.

At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.

Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/world/europe/eu-medicines-agency-britain-brexit.html

NY Times: Hidden Costs of ‘Brexit’ Continue to Mount

The moving of an EU organization out of the Britain after Brexit is an "unanticipated consequences"?

Well given that people like Charles think it's 'nothing to do with the EU' it probably wasn't universally anticipated...

Moses_ said:

Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.

At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.

Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.

Well at least they do mention that those are voodoo polls and that no actual poll says what the voodoo polls say.

But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?

Speedy said:

Moses_ said:

Well that just goes to show that on this site voodoo polls are only acceptable if they show what Remainers want.

At any other time and when I posted what was a voodoo poll inadvertently the regulars descended on me like a ton of bricks. TSE was the first on that occasion. Any one who thinks a voodoo poll showing more wished to leave would have ever got an airing in the comments let alone the thread header is simply Mad. The daily mail green tick system is regularly abused with thousands of ticks in a few seconds for one thing or another and this is the same.

Not a good day for PB.com. Never thought I would see the day voodoo polls would get coverage. Forgot how utterly desperate Remainers are becoming though.

Well at least they do mention that those are voodoo polls and that no actual poll says what the voodoo polls say.

But yes why is there a thread on PB about voodoo polls ?

The thread is clearly debunking voodoo polls.

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.

What about things decided by QMV? Anyway, that doesn't answer the question about the enforceability of the agreement.

Enforceability of the agreement is moot. We'll never know.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.

What about things decided by QMV? Anyway, that doesn't answer the question about the enforceability of the agreement.

Enforceability of the agreement is moot. We'll never know.

So we'll also never know if it would have ensured that we stayed out of ever closer union.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

We decided not to sign the Fiscal Compact. We we are and were sovereign.

What about things decided by QMV? Anyway, that doesn't answer the question about the enforceability of the agreement.

Enforceability of the agreement is moot. We'll never know.

So we'll also never know if it would have ensured that we stayed out of ever closer union.

Correct.

Do you want a 2nd ref on the terms?

What if we just went as far as Dave's deal to start off with?

Is there in market betting opportunities that , 1 .That the UK does not leave the EU before 2020.2That the UK does remain in the customs union.,3 .That the UK has access to the single market ? Plus any other variables .

SeanT said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.

"Brexiteers" is used disparagingly by those who lost the referendum, and appears in thread headers all the time.. isn't that the same?

No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?

I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers

Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?

Quick, call the semiotics police.

Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?

Perfectly ok.

So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words

Interesting.

You think "Mutineers" (rebels against legitimate authority) Plato for "privateers"(licensed pirates)

Both pretty negative!

I assumed it was a play on "Musketeers": plucky heroes standing up against the corrupt state in the interests of the people...

I agree, but quite plainly it was done in a mocking, contemptuous way. It has a rakish, almost cartoonish sound to it, and was used imo to make Leave look unreliable.

This is actually and provably rubbish. An article the other day (in the Gaurdian?) described a terse email from the FT to all its staff, during the campaign, instructing them always to say Brexiters and NEVER Brexiteers.

Why? Because Remain campaign focus groups and polls had showed that the term "Brexiteer" was a POSITIVE for the Leave campaign, thanks to its echoic assocations with buccaneer and musketeer, and even cavalier - Brexiteer sounded dashing and romantic. Meanwhile "Remainer" got a negative response simply as a word - with its dullness and sourness, and its connotations of "remains". Remains of the Day. Human Remains. Etc.

The referendum was won and lost on emotions. *Brexiteer* invoked good emotions.

I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick

EDIT: also they thought Farage was toxic

isam said:

SeanT said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

isam said:

Mike asked for "remoaners" not to be used, along with other derogatory names re Leave and Remain.

"Brexiteers" is used disparagingly by those who lost the referendum, and appears in thread headers all the time.. isn't that the same?

No, unless (oddly) you think any reference to Brexit is automatically negative?

I don't care what people call each other, and quite like "Brexiteer" ,but it is definitely used in a negative way by referendum losers

Ah, so instead of actually going with the meaning of words, we're going to presume what folk using them 'really' mean?

Quick, call the semiotics police.

Yes I suppose so. A bit like black people being able to use some words to describe themselves while others shouldn't. Are you ok with that?

Perfectly ok.

So whats the difference w Brexiteer? It is obviously used in a derogatory way (a play on Mutineer I suppose), yet Traitor etc are snowflake tears words

Iople...

I agree, but quite plainly it wasake Leave look unreliable.

This is actually and provably rubbish. An article the other day (in the Gaurdian?) described a terse email from the FT to all its staff, during the campaign, instructing them always to say Brexiters and NEVER Brexiteers.

Why? Because Remain campaign focus groups and polls had showed that the term "Brexiteer" was a POSITIVE for the Leave campaign, thanks to its echoic assocations with buccaneer and musketeer, and even cavalier - Brexiteer sounded dashing and romantic. Meanwhile "Remainer" got a negative response simply as a word - with its dullness and sourness, and its connotations of "remains". Remains of the Day. Human Remains. Etc.

The referendum was won and lost on emotions. *Brexiteer* invoked good emotions.

I am a Brexiteer, and proud of the name. But I think people whose side lost the referendum do, maybe wrongly, use it mockingly... they got a lot of things wrong (phone polls, its the economy stupid) so maybe this is the hat trick

EDIT: also they thought Farage was toxic

You thought Farage was a hero because he stood in front of a poster of a swarm of Middle Eastern refugees warning by implication that they were all coming over here, and because he agrees with you that the sheer number of Romanian Uber drivers is changing the face of our communities.

So he wanted to leave the EU, like you did.