Getting the tone of an ad completely wrong – politicalbetting.com

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.

The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.

There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.

If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.

The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.

So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.

The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.

I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?

A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.

Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.

In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.

Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more

Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.

Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?

The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality

Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.

We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin

Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...

dixiedean said:

86-6.
A deeper hole than ever. Some bowling this.

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

This is a silly metaphor because it doesn't capture the reality that the absence of the EU is the normal state rather than vice versa.

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist, but in reality it's simply the state of not being in the EU. It doesn't need to be believed in, propped up or justified. It just is.

Sean_F said:

There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, that's precisely why you lost.

I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.

But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.

We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again

The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state

Scott_xP said:

Sean_F said:

There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,

Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.

The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.

There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.

If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.

The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.

So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.

The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.

I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?

A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.

Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.

In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.

Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more

Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.

Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?

The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality

Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.

We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin

Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...

Effectively it was at the time until Hitler went further and invaded Poland

MISTY said:

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, that's precisely why you lost.

I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.

You were wrong then, and wrong now.

Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.

And now here we are.

When you go out into the street, do you see people or do you see Orcs?

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo

Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?

Honestly. It’s just bonkers

Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.

That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.

Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet.
Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.

The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.

There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.

If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.

The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.

So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.

The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.

I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?

A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.

Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.

In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.

Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more

Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.

Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?

The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality

Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.

We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin

Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...

Effectively it was at the time until Hitler went further and invaded Poland

Really ?
You seem to have forgotten that he went on to annexe the entire country well before Poland.

Gardenwalker said:

I would not be surprised to see the EU move into slightly more formalised two spheres; Euro and non-Euro.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

Sean_F said:

There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,

Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland

No she's not.

She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.

The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.

Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. xP, that's precisely why you lost.

I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.

You were wrong then, and wrong now.

Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.

And now here we are.

You really have been ordained in the Church of the Poisoned Mind.....

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.

But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.

We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again

The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state

Driver said:

RH1992 said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

The Edinburgh Agreement protected us against that. They can huff and puff about the pressure all they like but we had that nice bit of paper. I remember watching that Blair and Brown years documentary on iPlayer a few months ago and the pressure to join up was massive and we were roundly flamed by the rest of the EU when we refused, but we didn't buckle and we had our permanent opt out. That's gone now.

A remain vote would have changed everything, politically speaking.

MattW said:

Do any of our London reporters know whether more people are cycling today?

France 24 are telling me that the whole thing is closed down about every 10 minutes.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Still pushing that myth Nigel

I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.

carnforth said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo

Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?

Honestly. It’s just bonkers

Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.

That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.

Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.

You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?

What a bore you are.

That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling

It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here

Don’t do it

On the contrary.

Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.

Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.

Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.

But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.

We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again

The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

Do any of our London reporters know whether more people are cycling today?

France 24 are telling me that the whole thing is closed down about every 10 minutes.

Why don’t you check London media instead of obsessing over every perceived slight in the foreign press?

Gardenwalker said:

carnforth said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo

Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?

Honestly. It’s just bonkers

Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.

That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.

Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.

You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?

What a bore you are.

That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.

That’s not the point he’s making.

He’s not making a point.

He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.

There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.

He’s a time-waster.

MISTY said:

Gardenwalker said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.

The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.

You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

Well this aged well. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1558801982835531781/video/1

You should probably post that twice daily because it’s a perfect reproach to loons like Driver.

No need for a tag there. And you won't catch me disagreeing that things could have been handled much better - but the loons like Bienkov and Scotty just couldn't admit they had lost.

Who is Bienkov?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

That is not correct. The EU makes laws on areas that are covered by treaties that are agreed by the 27. Ultimately sovereignty lies with the sovereign state. The UK decided, following a referendum that it no longer wished to be bound by those treaties, so had ultimate sovereignty. The other members also have the same option.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.

Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

carnforth said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

williamglenn said:

Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist

Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo

Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?

Honestly. It’s just bonkers

Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.

That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.

Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.

You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?

What a bore you are.

That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.

That’s not the point he’s making.

He’s not making a point.

He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.

There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.

He’s a time-waster.

It's a prediction informed by three decades of Brussels-watching. If you think it's a waste of time, you aren't compelled to reply.

Sweden has been obliged to join the Euro for over 20 years and has never joined nor come under any pressure to join. Can you explain why this is the case and why you think it would be different for us?

DavidL said:

MISTY said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.

Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).

It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.

I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.

'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'

'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'

'We too can have wars with our farmers....'

'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'



...Should go down well in Stoke...

That's completely unfair. There are also cheap nannies and bottom wipers in private nursing homes to be taken into account.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.

The idea that Brexit has been "spoilt" is one only being shared by pro-EU fanatics like yourself, Scott and Nigel.

Brexiteers by and large seem to be grounded in reality saying that we've roughly got what we voted for and then proposing what could be improved upon which is precisely how sovereignty and taking back control is supposed to work.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Driver said:

the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.

Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?

It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.

If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster

Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.

Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.

Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.

(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)

Sovereignty is not a very good term.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.

We lost some flexibility inside the EU.

But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:

Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"

Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.

That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.

Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.

Nope. For reasons I have just set out in another reply.

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

Sean_F said:

There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,

Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland

No she's not.

She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.

The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.

Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.

Do they have to agree? The treaties have already been agreed by both sides and the implementation including any action for breaches is something that sits with the Commission rather than with the individual countries. I am not sue Poland or anyone else would even be asked whether they agree. It would simply be enacted as a consequence of following the existing treaties.

They might object, protest or even try to ignore any trade war, but I don't believe they could stop one since they have already agreed to a set of consequences for breaches of the agreement. The only organisation that might have a say would be the ECJ but I suspect they would look at the treaties and decide the UK is in breach - depending of course on what we had decided to do. .

DavidL said:

The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.

dixiedean said:

DavidL said:

The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.

Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.

DavidL said:

dixiedean said:

DavidL said:

The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.

Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.

Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.

A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.

Stark_Dawning said:

The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.