I haven't voted Tory since 2005 and Blair won.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I haven't voted Tory since 2005 and Blair won.
That isn't at all how Paul has come across to me He has come across as a highly intelligent person who is dismayed that we have taken such an obviously disasterous path. He obviously cares deeply about the country and its people.
The truth is nobody knows. We have to wait until the end of the process to know what the hell is going on.
It was.
Realism is a crime these days.
Cor blimey some real snowflakes on here. As far as I can see Paul is just being realistic and has long been stating that the EU wouldn’t be bowing down to the UK governments every demand despite the protestations of a few on here that have gone missing.
True that.
Hmm but wasn't just called due to Tories clamoring for it from the backbenches though was it? That was happening for years.
UKIP won 4m votes, and the momentum was growing. Who's to say it wouldn't have all spiralled out of control and gone mainstream if all the voices were ignored?
I would recommend Panadol.
It more or less was. Cameron threw them what he thought was just a bone to keep them in line.
Pretty amazing capitulation by May. This whole thing would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
The UKIP vote was growing and it should’ve been allowed to run its natural course. Their arguments could’ve eventually been exposed or they could’ve been forced to provide numerous manifesto based on facts and won an election in the future. But Cameron cut the natural path short and meant we had the farce of a referendum.
The whole thing is infuriating and just highlights the shambolic performances of the political parties in this country over 30+ years.
The worrying thing is this won’t be learnt from, as the loudest mouth pieces on either side have been given the biggest platform during this debate. I dread to think where it is heading
Amazing outcome in the early hours of today. Still getting my head around it. Northern Ireland citizens who have Irish passports will retain all their rights as EU citizens. The British gov have made guarantees ruling out any kind of hard Irish Border. They have signed up to no border infrastructure, and in regulatory terms its as-you-were guaranteed across this island. And they have explained how that's going to happen - its because the same regulatory rules will apply on both sides of the border. "(...in the absence of agreed solutions) the UK will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement". Now or in the future! Looks like not just NI alignment with the rules of both these bodies, but overall UK alignment, in perpetuity, has been made the safety net, the fallback position. Talk about tying your hands! I have read the full document three times now, and I am still in dry mouthed shock. What did the DUP achieve by holding it up?
Is this agent May spiking the Brexit guns while posturing on the deck? These guarantees are unilateral, it's like, this is what the UK will do, and nothing about what Ireland will do or what the EU will do. Anyhow a 'hard' Brexit now seems to be written out of the script, not matter what the outcome of negotiations. 'No deal' also seems to be written out of the script. They move on to Phase Two in what seems a fairly weak position having effectively caved in on all fronts to the EU. The DUP have been shafted and Nigel PUKIP is livid. At the end of this process what will be left of Brexit? Or is there some other interpretation possible?
Is this agent May spiking the Brexit guns while posturing on the deck? These guarantees are unilateral, it's like, this is what the UK will do, and nothing about what Ireland will do or what the EU will do. Anyhow a 'hard' Brexit now seems to be written out of the script, not matter what the outcome of negotiations. 'No deal' also seems to be written out of the script. They move on to Phase Two in what seems a fairly weak position having effectively caved in on all fronts to the EU. The DUP have been shafted and Nigel PUKIP is livid. At the end of this process what will be left of Brexit? Or is there some other interpretation possible?
Ok so as a staunch remainder objectively looking for a positive. Is it possible situation whereby we take the “Norway” route of being in the single market but with trade tariffs - a clearly “worse off” scenario as far as the relationship with our largest trading block goes - balanced by our new ability to strike individual trade deals with other countries around the world. So potentially acting as a conduit for trade between America/China/Australia ect and other EU countries?
Swapping a slightly stroppy marriage for a messy divorce that involves paying to get fecked up the arse by the EU while having to wear a gimp mask. Negotiations continue over what the safe word should be.
Negotiations have progressed well. May has agreed to carry on wearing the gimp mask, they have mutually agreed that a safe word isn't needed as the UK will take whatever the EU gives but the UK have been granted a major concession by the EU agreeing to use lube occasionaly.
If it had gone mainstream then yeah it would have been a fair enough call. The voices from the Tory backbenches have always been there so again it was largely irrelevant.
No it was a calculated gamble from Cameron in order to stop UKIP siphoning off votes from the Tories and leading to Labour wins. Largely political.
I would also like to know the answer to these questions. Also I’ve seen people state Norway only take 21% of the EU laws. If this is the case, it’s not just business as usual is it?
The DUP will be calling this a victory. Hard brexit, soft brexit, all they really care about is the union and they’ve got their guarantee from May that NI won’t be cut off from the rest of the UK.
If you have tariffs, you are not in the single market. And the last question is strange, EU countries don't need a conduit to trade with the countries mentioned and those trades will always have to comply with the EUCU and single market laws.
What about bespoke trade deals with high regulation countries that satisfy the EU, Canada, New Zealand and the likes?
Not sure what that has to do with my observations on Paul? I voted remain but have much sympathy for the many who have voted leave and did so in good faith believing that it would benefit them. Paul largely posts with utter contempt for leave voters branding them to a man as thick, racist xenophobes who deserve what’s coming to them because they’re stupid. There’s a leave voter equivalent of course. For me the lasting legacy of this referendum, whatever happens, is that this clear contempt that hardliners on either side have for each other has exposed an enormous divide in this country that will take at least a generation to bridge if at all.
Theres a good book on this very subject called The Road To Somewhere.
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
The ability to negotiate deals better suited the needs of our bilateral partners on issues such as
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42121442
If we are free to strike new trade deals.
You can negotiate the deals that you want but they will be limited to the UK and the other part.
Cheers Wibble, respect is mutual
Not how I see it. I see someone who has been passionate about his country making a massive mistake, someone who lives in the EU and can see the benefits. I see him continuing to make his points consistently despite others niggling and being narky with him
A sample of replies to other Remain posters.
Just as well you're not holier than thou.
They're not particularly damning quotes to be honest Paul. Try this one:
Manages to be unfunny, unclever and unpleasant all at the same time. Come on Wibble, you're better than that, I know you are.
How is that not exactly what he is accusing me of?
I had a long session with the "believing " poster who lied, misquoted , insulted the whole time but that's fine, you even agreed with him at some point.
Most people ignored him, but I challenged him full on. People didn't like it but I wasn't going to let a stream of lies go unchallenged
What is this, be nice to brexiters week
It's not exactly difficult to understand (although it appears you did anyway given that you wrote off the argument of an extremely intelligent scientist as 'pathetic'). If we enact major social and political change on the basis of a 51% majority, then what exactly happens next week when it swings back to 51% in the other direction? Do we enact further major social and political change? Do we do it again the following week if it swings back again?
The reason most sensible countries insist on 60-65% majorities in referendum is because they are more likely to represent a solid desire and not just a potentially temporary swing.
Insulting another member
You've got 1600 posts on this thread approx half of which are derogatory towards those who don't share your views. And like most bullies you really get your hackles up when challenged. As for any claims that you merely care passionately about your country they obviously don't extend to those who voted leave - you even feel it necessary to denigrate them on your profile page.
Like I said. A thoroughly unpleasant man without any insight into the position of others.
Black humor sourced from despair. Brexit is the worst think to happen to the UK since WW2 and to make it worse it is self inflicted.
Still on your holier than thou, St Remain quest, think you know it all, think you know what I'm like, you don't denigrate Brexiters, no, just Remainers, are you an apologist for leave voters. Always blame someone else, it's always someone else's fault.
If you don't understand what you're voting for, don't vote.
I really dont see what you are seeing with Paul. @Wibble appears to be in the same boat. There is an edge to what he says but I think you are over reacting. Tbh people who vote out of fear and mostly ignorance thus affecting my life make me go on edge too.
Last edited:
If I thought one of his points was right then I would agree. Many of yours are too, and I'm happy to say so. I have this weird thing where I try and assess the merits of both sides of an argument and then weigh the balance of them. Doesn't fit in well with the Caf unfortunately, but it's fairly normal in real life.
Crikey. Where's that utopia.
Whatever happened to the ‘criticise the post not the poster’ text you’d see before making a post?
You did say he made mincemeat out of me on a particular point which I was halfway through discussing and finally disproved, anyway, it doesn't matter, I agree with the rest of what you said which has been rather the point I've been making all along. You should assess both sides of an argument but do it in an informed way. If someone disagrees for a valid reason , fine, have no problem at all. But there has to be a valid reason, there's my problem.