| Total farce 22:08 - Apr 1 with 10282 views | StokieBlue |
They still can't agree on anything.
I think we all need to channel a bit of Douglas Adams at this point.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| Total farce on 10:42 - Apr 2 with 3357 views | Guthrum |
| Total farce on 10:04 - Apr 2 by WeWereZombies |
Really? In 1938? And as to who led the way in 1940? Not everyone agreed with appeasement. |
In 1938, the vast majority of people in the UK were against another war - at all costs. Many of them had servd in the last one, or lost family members. Witness the jubilation upon Chamberlain's return with his "Peace for our time". |  |
| |
| Total farce on 10:51 - Apr 2 with 3335 views | XYZ |
| Total farce on 10:02 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
The 16 million people who got off their backsides and voted remain deserve representation. In 2017 they were given the opportunity to vote for that representation. 85% of the electorate voted for parties who stood in a manifesto pledge to honour the referendum.
MP’s who had no intention of voting for even a soft Brexit should have been honest enough to say so at the time of the election. |
It is possible to respect the result of the referendum and support remaining. Does someone have a monopoly on the meaning of the phrase?
The "85% voted for …." is, IMO, rubbish on a number of levels. The "National Interest" being one of them. |  | | |
| Total farce on 10:53 - Apr 2 with 3329 views | WeWereZombies |
| Total farce on 10:42 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
In 1938, the vast majority of people in the UK were against another war - at all costs. Many of them had servd in the last one, or lost family members. Witness the jubilation upon Chamberlain's return with his "Peace for our time". |
From Winston S. Churchill 'The Gathering Storm' (Volume 1 of his 'History of The Second World War'), Penguin, London, 1985 page 290:
'It is not easy...to portray for another generation the passions which raged in Britain about the Munich Agreement. Among Conservatives families and friends in intimate contact were divided to a degree the like of which I have never seen.' |  |
| |
| Total farce on 11:09 - Apr 2 with 3305 views | BlueRaider |
| Total farce on 22:41 - Apr 1 by pointofblue |
I disagree - May didn't hold enough of a majority from the 2015 general election to get anything through the House. She needed a landslide, gambled on getting one and failed. |
Correct, there were around 20 MPs in her party who were ardent remainers (Soubry, Grieve, Boles etc), which was why she called the election. Then she campaigned like an utter chump and allowed Corbyn to go unchallenged | |
| |
| Total farce on 11:19 - Apr 2 with 3289 views | Guthrum |
| Total farce on 10:53 - Apr 2 by WeWereZombies |
From Winston S. Churchill 'The Gathering Storm' (Volume 1 of his 'History of The Second World War'), Penguin, London, 1985 page 290:
'It is not easy...to portray for another generation the passions which raged in Britain about the Munich Agreement. Among Conservatives families and friends in intimate contact were divided to a degree the like of which I have never seen.' |
Altho he was heavily involved with the anti-appeasement movement, so was more likely to associate with those strongly against it. Plus pacifism (or a strong desire to concentrate on domestic and economic policy) was more widespread in Labour supporters. | |
| |
| Total farce on 11:26 - Apr 2 with 3278 views | WeWereZombies |
| Total farce on 11:19 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
Altho he was heavily involved with the anti-appeasement movement, so was more likely to associate with those strongly against it. Plus pacifism (or a strong desire to concentrate on domestic and economic policy) was more widespread in Labour supporters. |
From the next page:
'At the opening of the three days' debate on Munich he (First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Duff Cooper) made his resignation speech. This was a vivid incident in our Parliamentary life. Speaking with ease and without a note, for forty minutes he held the hostile majority of his party under his spell. It was easy for Labour men and Liberals in hot opposition to the Government of the day to applaud him.' | |
| |
| Total farce on 12:08 - Apr 2 with 3244 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 10:51 - Apr 2 by XYZ |
It is possible to respect the result of the referendum and support remaining. Does someone have a monopoly on the meaning of the phrase?
The "85% voted for …." is, IMO, rubbish on a number of levels. The "National Interest" being one of them. |
As I said earlier, absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to stay in the EU. But if you are a remain MP who has stated on several occasions that you will respect the result of the referendum and stood on a manifesto pledge to deliver a Brexit, then vote against the softest of soft Brexits then it's pretty clear that you have been dishonest with the electorate.
Anna Soubry, for example, was outspoken against a hard Brexit and has been open and consistent on this. Howerever, during the 2017 election campaign she stated that she would make the case for a soft Brexit with the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market. She said that Brexit should be represented by the 48% as much as the 52%, which is fair enough.
After the election she wrote "“You may recall that in the run up to last year’s General Election I made it clear that if I were re-elected, I would continue to make the case for the Customs Union and the Single Market".
Last night she voted against a soft Brexit with the UK remaining in the customs union.
Chuka Umunna stated at the General election of 2017 that he " opposed a second referendum on Brexit" and supported a softer Brexit with the UK remaining in the Customs Union and the Single Market.
He also voted against the UK remaining in the Customs Union.
The very people who have bee against a hard Brexit because it would be damaging to this country (fair enough) and have been calling for a soft Brexit (again, fair enough) are now voting against a soft Brexit. That is dishonest. [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 12:09]
|  |
| |
| Total farce on 14:01 - Apr 2 with 3175 views | XYZ |
| Total farce on 12:08 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
As I said earlier, absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to stay in the EU. But if you are a remain MP who has stated on several occasions that you will respect the result of the referendum and stood on a manifesto pledge to deliver a Brexit, then vote against the softest of soft Brexits then it's pretty clear that you have been dishonest with the electorate.
Anna Soubry, for example, was outspoken against a hard Brexit and has been open and consistent on this. Howerever, during the 2017 election campaign she stated that she would make the case for a soft Brexit with the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market. She said that Brexit should be represented by the 48% as much as the 52%, which is fair enough.
After the election she wrote "“You may recall that in the run up to last year’s General Election I made it clear that if I were re-elected, I would continue to make the case for the Customs Union and the Single Market".
Last night she voted against a soft Brexit with the UK remaining in the customs union.
Chuka Umunna stated at the General election of 2017 that he " opposed a second referendum on Brexit" and supported a softer Brexit with the UK remaining in the Customs Union and the Single Market.
He also voted against the UK remaining in the Customs Union.
The very people who have bee against a hard Brexit because it would be damaging to this country (fair enough) and have been calling for a soft Brexit (again, fair enough) are now voting against a soft Brexit. That is dishonest. [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 12:09]
|
It's worth remembering that no party's manifesto was endorsed by the 2017 GE. Parties not forming a government have never been expected to stick by a losing manifesto.
It's worth remembering that significant evidence of cheating and foreign interference in the 2016 referendum has come to light since the 2017 GE.
If dishonesty is your objection, can I recommend the @ByDonkeys twitter feed. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Total farce on 18:22 - Apr 2 with 3118 views | vapour_trail |
| Total farce on 14:01 - Apr 2 by XYZ |
It's worth remembering that no party's manifesto was endorsed by the 2017 GE. Parties not forming a government have never been expected to stick by a losing manifesto.
It's worth remembering that significant evidence of cheating and foreign interference in the 2016 referendum has come to light since the 2017 GE.
If dishonesty is your objection, can I recommend the @ByDonkeys twitter feed. |
He doesn’t want to go there. He repeatedly and tediously parroted most of the lines on their billboards as gospel for our pleasure, over a sustained period of time. |  |
| |
| Total farce on 18:33 - Apr 2 with 3103 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 18:22 - Apr 2 by vapour_trail |
He doesn’t want to go there. He repeatedly and tediously parroted most of the lines on their billboards as gospel for our pleasure, over a sustained period of time. |
Hello Mr Angry. How are you today?
It was good to see I was occupying a space in your Brain whilst not posting on here. One assumes you are a man of your word and will post considerably less now I have returned to this fine messageboard.
In fairness that was the deal clincher for my return. xx | |
| |
| Total farce on 18:37 - Apr 2 with 3098 views | Pecker |
| Total farce on 22:15 - Apr 1 by blueislander |
The EU must be in a state of disbelief that UK MPs cannot get anywhere near resolving this. |
It suits the EU. |  | | |
| Total farce on 18:40 - Apr 2 with 3093 views | SpruceMoose |
| Total farce on 18:33 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
Hello Mr Angry. How are you today?
It was good to see I was occupying a space in your Brain whilst not posting on here. One assumes you are a man of your word and will post considerably less now I have returned to this fine messageboard.
In fairness that was the deal clincher for my return. xx |
I find it ironic that the person who had to take a break from the board due to his inability to control himself is calling other posters 'Mr Angry' and accusing them of being obsessed.
What was the point of your break if you're going to come back and behave just as badly as you did before? |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Total farce on 18:41 - Apr 2 with 3092 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 14:01 - Apr 2 by XYZ |
It's worth remembering that no party's manifesto was endorsed by the 2017 GE. Parties not forming a government have never been expected to stick by a losing manifesto.
It's worth remembering that significant evidence of cheating and foreign interference in the 2016 referendum has come to light since the 2017 GE.
If dishonesty is your objection, can I recommend the @ByDonkeys twitter feed. |
If you think that foreign interference and cheating (bearing in mind that the remain campaign also set up five separate remain campaigns in the final month before the referendum so they could circumnavigate spending restrictions) then you haven't learned the lessons of why Leave won.
None of this excuses MP's who stood on a platform of honouring the result of the referendum at the GE, and have spent the past three years advocating a soft Brexit and remaining in the customs union, voting against a soft Brexit and remaining in the customs union.
Extreme remainers and extreme leavers are two cheeks of the same arsehole. Extreme remainers like Chuka and AS will vote for nothing other than a second referendum (believing we will vote to remain) and extreme leavers won't support anything other than No Deal.
Somewhere down the middle is a compromise that neither wing are prepared to support. | |
| |
| Total farce on 18:44 - Apr 2 with 3072 views | footers |
| Total farce on 18:40 - Apr 2 by SpruceMoose |
I find it ironic that the person who had to take a break from the board due to his inability to control himself is calling other posters 'Mr Angry' and accusing them of being obsessed.
What was the point of your break if you're going to come back and behave just as badly as you did before? |
And name-checking us in his opening posts! GB wears footers n Spruce jim-jams!
Hope he likes steam engines :) |  |
| |
| Total farce on 18:51 - Apr 2 with 3052 views | XYZ |
| Total farce on 18:41 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
If you think that foreign interference and cheating (bearing in mind that the remain campaign also set up five separate remain campaigns in the final month before the referendum so they could circumnavigate spending restrictions) then you haven't learned the lessons of why Leave won.
None of this excuses MP's who stood on a platform of honouring the result of the referendum at the GE, and have spent the past three years advocating a soft Brexit and remaining in the customs union, voting against a soft Brexit and remaining in the customs union.
Extreme remainers and extreme leavers are two cheeks of the same arsehole. Extreme remainers like Chuka and AS will vote for nothing other than a second referendum (believing we will vote to remain) and extreme leavers won't support anything other than No Deal.
Somewhere down the middle is a compromise that neither wing are prepared to support. |
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. I don't need you to tell me why Leave won, thanks.
Your other comments are really just chucking the blame around. Nice use of the "BBC equivalence" technique ("extreme remainers"). You're equating the TIGs to JRM and his mob who blithely promote german anti-semites, racist and white-nationaists.
You supported it. Which one of the multi-coloured versions of Brexit did you vote for?
This is a tory failure full stop. The time to consult with Corbyn was 24 June 2016; not 2 April 2019, four days after she promised we would have left.
Edit for typo [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 18:55]
| | | |
| Total farce on 19:16 - Apr 2 with 3012 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 18:40 - Apr 2 by SpruceMoose |
I find it ironic that the person who had to take a break from the board due to his inability to control himself is calling other posters 'Mr Angry' and accusing them of being obsessed.
What was the point of your break if you're going to come back and behave just as badly as you did before? |
Hello Sprucey. I trust we find you in fine fettle?
FYI the reason I took a break from the board was because I took it far to much to heart when somebody posted an oft repeated antisemitic trope. Phil agreed with me that the post I took offence to, pre edit, was antisemitic.
I note that you then claimed I had called another poster a racist, which I didn't, and that Phil had to correct you on two occasions.
Now back to Mr Angry.
If he is going to log on for no other purpose than to have a pop at me then I feel I am justified in responding in kind. I'm rather unsure what this has to do with you. And if you were consistent in your criticism then you would aim something similar in his direction.
XYZ and myself are quite capable of having a grown up discussion whilst holding opposing views without an intervention from somebody who acts like the TWTD version of a loutish heckler.
I note that you have taken me off ignore. If you have done so in order to chew the cud in a civil and polite manner then I am happy to reciprocate. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have cordial relations with you on TWTD.
However, if you have taken me off ignore for no other reason than to bait and abuse me then I suggest you reverse the decision and put me back on your div list.
Sadly, I see that your opening gambit to me last evening was to call me a deranged and vicious individual, with no provocation on my part. This suggests that you are not interested in the former but would prefer to indulge in the latter. If this is the case then I bid you good evening. | |
| |
| Total farce on 19:18 - Apr 2 with 3008 views | SpruceMoose |
| Total farce on 19:16 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
Hello Sprucey. I trust we find you in fine fettle?
FYI the reason I took a break from the board was because I took it far to much to heart when somebody posted an oft repeated antisemitic trope. Phil agreed with me that the post I took offence to, pre edit, was antisemitic.
I note that you then claimed I had called another poster a racist, which I didn't, and that Phil had to correct you on two occasions.
Now back to Mr Angry.
If he is going to log on for no other purpose than to have a pop at me then I feel I am justified in responding in kind. I'm rather unsure what this has to do with you. And if you were consistent in your criticism then you would aim something similar in his direction.
XYZ and myself are quite capable of having a grown up discussion whilst holding opposing views without an intervention from somebody who acts like the TWTD version of a loutish heckler.
I note that you have taken me off ignore. If you have done so in order to chew the cud in a civil and polite manner then I am happy to reciprocate. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have cordial relations with you on TWTD.
However, if you have taken me off ignore for no other reason than to bait and abuse me then I suggest you reverse the decision and put me back on your div list.
Sadly, I see that your opening gambit to me last evening was to call me a deranged and vicious individual, with no provocation on my part. This suggests that you are not interested in the former but would prefer to indulge in the latter. If this is the case then I bid you good evening. |
Just.. go easy this time Glassers old boy. Go easy. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Total farce on 19:24 - Apr 2 with 2997 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 18:51 - Apr 2 by XYZ |
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. I don't need you to tell me why Leave won, thanks.
Your other comments are really just chucking the blame around. Nice use of the "BBC equivalence" technique ("extreme remainers"). You're equating the TIGs to JRM and his mob who blithely promote german anti-semites, racist and white-nationaists.
You supported it. Which one of the multi-coloured versions of Brexit did you vote for?
This is a tory failure full stop. The time to consult with Corbyn was 24 June 2016; not 2 April 2019, four days after she promised we would have left.
Edit for typo [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 18:55]
|
I'm saying that I don't believe that foreign interference had any influence over how your average disenfranchised Geordie living in one of T Dan Smith's high rises voted.
Re your second point. Given the chance I would vote to remain. As this is not an option I believe that a customs union and close relationship with the EU, soft Brexit, is an acceptable compromise that respects the narrow margin of the referendum result.
I make no comparisons with the beliefs of JRM and the TIGS (you have quite rightly summed up correctly the disgusting associations JRM has) other than their entrenched views on EU membership.
There is not a Brexit other than NO DEAL that the swivel eyed loons would countenance. Just as there is no other option than remain that the TIGS would now support. That is completely at odds with what they have said ever since June 2016.
IRe your last para. I agree 100%. There should have been a cross party negotiating team from day one. I said that at the time.
May. however, wanted to own and deliver Brexit. She put her party and her own personal legacy before the interests of the country. [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 19:27]
| |
| |
| Total farce on 19:27 - Apr 2 with 2979 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 19:18 - Apr 2 by SpruceMoose |
Just.. go easy this time Glassers old boy. Go easy. |
I'm easy like Sunday morning. | |
| |
| Total farce on 19:40 - Apr 2 with 2945 views | jas0999 |
ALL current MPs need to be voted out at next election. | | | |
| Total farce on 19:43 - Apr 2 with 2940 views | vapour_trail |
| Total farce on 19:16 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
Hello Sprucey. I trust we find you in fine fettle?
FYI the reason I took a break from the board was because I took it far to much to heart when somebody posted an oft repeated antisemitic trope. Phil agreed with me that the post I took offence to, pre edit, was antisemitic.
I note that you then claimed I had called another poster a racist, which I didn't, and that Phil had to correct you on two occasions.
Now back to Mr Angry.
If he is going to log on for no other purpose than to have a pop at me then I feel I am justified in responding in kind. I'm rather unsure what this has to do with you. And if you were consistent in your criticism then you would aim something similar in his direction.
XYZ and myself are quite capable of having a grown up discussion whilst holding opposing views without an intervention from somebody who acts like the TWTD version of a loutish heckler.
I note that you have taken me off ignore. If you have done so in order to chew the cud in a civil and polite manner then I am happy to reciprocate. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have cordial relations with you on TWTD.
However, if you have taken me off ignore for no other reason than to bait and abuse me then I suggest you reverse the decision and put me back on your div list.
Sadly, I see that your opening gambit to me last evening was to call me a deranged and vicious individual, with no provocation on my part. This suggests that you are not interested in the former but would prefer to indulge in the latter. If this is the case then I bid you good evening. |
Sorry, deranged and vicious? What on earth are you on about. Link please? | |
| |
| Total farce on 19:47 - Apr 2 with 2935 views | XYZ |
| Total farce on 19:24 - Apr 2 by GlasgowBlue |
I'm saying that I don't believe that foreign interference had any influence over how your average disenfranchised Geordie living in one of T Dan Smith's high rises voted.
Re your second point. Given the chance I would vote to remain. As this is not an option I believe that a customs union and close relationship with the EU, soft Brexit, is an acceptable compromise that respects the narrow margin of the referendum result.
I make no comparisons with the beliefs of JRM and the TIGS (you have quite rightly summed up correctly the disgusting associations JRM has) other than their entrenched views on EU membership.
There is not a Brexit other than NO DEAL that the swivel eyed loons would countenance. Just as there is no other option than remain that the TIGS would now support. That is completely at odds with what they have said ever since June 2016.
IRe your last para. I agree 100%. There should have been a cross party negotiating team from day one. I said that at the time.
May. however, wanted to own and deliver Brexit. She put her party and her own personal legacy before the interests of the country. [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 19:27]
|
I've looked at a lot of evidence on the foreign interference stuff. It was highly targeted at niche swing voters based on illegally harvested personal data. It consisted of "Fake News" stories designed to hit the target's sweet spot. It included efforts to suppress to the "Remain" vote. The Leave campaigns spent a huge proportion of the spending on this project. They didn't believe they were wasting their money. Nigel Farage credited Steve Bannon as delivering the vote. My understanding is that if the referendum had legal force, rather than being advisory, it would have been declared null and void. Only because it was advisory was it not subject to those laws.
If your average disenfranchised Geordie living in one of T Dan Smith's high rises, who had, like all of us, had masses of his personal data harvested (3,000 "data points" for each and every one of us, including our Geordie friend) and he fell into one of their "niche" definitions then he will have been bombarded with Fake News in the week up to 23 June 2016.
It's really not a case of "belief"; it's a case of looking at the evidence.
Tory MP Damian Collins' DCMS Select Committee produced an excellent report into social media's influence. You should read it.
I asked which version of Brexit you originally voted for, not what you'd do now.
However, it is interesting that your view has changed as has others. I understand the point you're making that various MPs have danced around the subject and committed hypocritical acts, but I suspect there's few in the HoC that could survive that level of scrutiny and come up clean.
Very few come out of this with any honour. | | | |
| Total farce on 19:48 - Apr 2 with 2930 views | SpruceMoose |
| Total farce on 19:43 - Apr 2 by vapour_trail |
Sorry, deranged and vicious? What on earth are you on about. Link please? |
That was me, I said that. Not you. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Total farce on 19:48 - Apr 2 with 2926 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 19:43 - Apr 2 by vapour_trail |
Sorry, deranged and vicious? What on earth are you on about. Link please? |
it's a reply to Sprucey. It literally starts..... Hello Sprucey. [Post edited 2 Apr 2019 19:49]
| |
| |
| Total farce on 19:52 - Apr 2 with 2910 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Total farce on 19:47 - Apr 2 by XYZ |
I've looked at a lot of evidence on the foreign interference stuff. It was highly targeted at niche swing voters based on illegally harvested personal data. It consisted of "Fake News" stories designed to hit the target's sweet spot. It included efforts to suppress to the "Remain" vote. The Leave campaigns spent a huge proportion of the spending on this project. They didn't believe they were wasting their money. Nigel Farage credited Steve Bannon as delivering the vote. My understanding is that if the referendum had legal force, rather than being advisory, it would have been declared null and void. Only because it was advisory was it not subject to those laws.
If your average disenfranchised Geordie living in one of T Dan Smith's high rises, who had, like all of us, had masses of his personal data harvested (3,000 "data points" for each and every one of us, including our Geordie friend) and he fell into one of their "niche" definitions then he will have been bombarded with Fake News in the week up to 23 June 2016.
It's really not a case of "belief"; it's a case of looking at the evidence.
Tory MP Damian Collins' DCMS Select Committee produced an excellent report into social media's influence. You should read it.
I asked which version of Brexit you originally voted for, not what you'd do now.
However, it is interesting that your view has changed as has others. I understand the point you're making that various MPs have danced around the subject and committed hypocritical acts, but I suspect there's few in the HoC that could survive that level of scrutiny and come up clean.
Very few come out of this with any honour. |
Sorry. There was no version of Brexit on the ballot paper. It was a leave or remain option. The closeness of the vote leads me to believe we should have a sort Brexit.
Re your first point. May, or Corbyn if he becomes PM could revoke article 50 in order to have a full public inquiry into both campaigns and if it concludes that the campaigns were influenced by illegal behavior then re run the whole thing again.
I doubt either would have the courage to do so. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
