Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:51 AM

Also, while I am sure that small-minded nationalism, a fantasy of a return to the 'great days of empire' when Britain was a big player, right wing dreams of increasing profits by reducing regulation and working conditions etc did make a lot of people vote Brexit, it is not reasonable, accurate or helpful to tar all Brexit voters with the same brush (or to tar and feather them ha ha, tasteless joke).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 10:34 AM

From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:06 AM
I've just tried muttering "stupid woman" and "stupid woman" int a mirror, and my mouth movements looked identical.

So they should, the words are the same.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:15 AM

So they should, the words are the same.

Stunning! Comrade Corbyn discovered the exact same thing but lies to avoid apologising. If he lies about little things now can he be trusted to tellthe truth on major issues?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:17 AM

"I can't understand why the word "woman" is evidently seen as offensive. I don't imagine "stupid man" would be. Pretty clearly Hersa May was acting in a particularly stupid manner at the time."

Kevin, the answer to that is in my posts of 20 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM and 08:20 AM. They do it deliberately in order to distract simpletons from what is actually going on. Every time the Tories get up to their necks in a disaster of their own making, they drag out the dead-cat claims. Useless and clueless, led by a Praying Mantis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:33 AM

"Another fine display of Coprolalia from backwoodsman, Perhaps it is a facade to masquerade behind, or perhaps it should be backwardman?

It is said swearing is the inevitable crutch of the inarticulate!"

As I've told you before, I am not in any way inarticulate - my Degree is evidence of my ability with our language. And there's nothing involuntary in my use of expletives where you're concerned - they are a deliberate demonstration of the utter contempt in which I hold you and your vile racist, extremist views.

Now Foxtrot Romeo Oscar.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:47 AM

Corbyn's Faux Pas (if that's what it was - not sure what happened to "innocent until proven guilty these people are so fond of when it's a woman or child-groping Tory under scrutiny) - it measures small next to Trump's "pussy-grabbing behavior which is ignored by Insulting Iains when he whines that "the elected President should be allowed to get on with his job"
Seem to remember Nigel stepped up to the line and sprang to the defence of Gropey Greene when the call came as did Maggie Mayfly
There's sexual mis behaviour and sexual misbehaviour depending on who does it, it seems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:12 PM

Jim
If you can't understand the difference between sexual behaviour which, it is claimed, happened in private, and for which there appears to be no separate corroboration, and comments made live in front of the members of the Commons, and in full view of the nation (thanks to television), then I doubt that any explanation from me would help you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:25 PM

And I didn't "spring to the defence" of Greene. I merely called for the due process to be followed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:34 PM

Nigel
If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid, but no maore stupid than most of us have been - melee that was taking place was enough to make anybody lose ther cool
I you are really upset Corbyn sid what he is accused of in public - how horrified are you that your parliamentary representatives behaved the way hey did publicly yesterday - childishly stupid - the lot of them
As for differentiating between, supporting that behavior and that of gropers and pedos - are you serious!!!!
The speaker appeared to believe there was room for doubt but hey - Corbyn is Corbyn so he must be guilty
Give us a break - this is a photo-opportunity for people whose party is rapidly swirling down the pan - nothing more
Westminster is full of sexual predators from all sides - far more serious that a slip of the tongue in the heat of a punch up, and you damn well know it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:34 PM

Nigel
If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid, but no maore stupid than most of us have been - melee that was taking place was enough to make anybody lose ther cool
I you are really upset Corbyn sid what he is accused of in public - how horrified are you that your parliamentary representatives behaved the way hey did publicly yesterday - childishly stupid - the lot of them
As for differentiating between, supporting that behavior and that of gropers and pedos - are you serious!!!!
The speaker appeared to believe there was room for doubt but hey - Corbyn is Corbyn so he must be guilty
Give us a break - this is a photo-opportunity for people whose party is rapidly swirling down the pan - nothing more
Westminster is full of sexual predators from all sides - far more serious that a slip of the tongue in the heat of a punch up, and you damn well know it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:37 PM

Backwardman you really do not have to explain your obvious inadequacies to me.

"A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding." -Joseph Cook

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:43 PM

If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid,
100% he did. Whether he said what he was accused of saying is another matter.
Yes, groping is more serious than calling someone a 'stupid woman'. An admission, and apology would have sorted things.
While not an expert lip-reader, I know enough to tell that what he said did not match his claim that it was "stupid people", and it may well have been "stupid woman".
However, to come back and lie to Parliament (which is what he appears to have done) is more serious than calling Mrs May a stupid woman.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:06 PM

If Corbyn is lying about his words, that opens him to criticism. But I can't see that there is anything to apologise for in the term he is accused of using. Theresa May was behaving in a cheap stupid way, and she actually is a woman. I'm not sure whether she has ever called Corbyn a "stupid man", but she's said things a lot more insulting to and about him.

Well spotted Nigel. I should have typed "people" there. Or spotted it, if it was my bossy computer that made the mistake. But my observation stands. If I said the words out loud, they looked different, but if I muttered them to myself, they looked the same - and that was what Corbyn was doing. Even if he did use the W word which is evidently seen as offensive.y

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:33 PM

"100% he did.100% he did."
He claimedhe said something else and nobody had come up with evidence that he didn't - certainly not the speaker
You people are certainly very quick with your rope over the branch when their's political capital to be made from it
Nobody could possibly have heard what he said and, as someone with a slight grasp of lip-reading, I couldn't make it out
I'm sure no expense will be speared obtaining professional help on these extremely serious matter
He only lied if he lied - you and your good citizens have already made your minds up on that one- so let's drag the bastrd out of his cell and string him up
Politicians lying to Parliament - Heaven forfend
Are you joking!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:37 PM

1) There are rules in the house that govern the behaviour of an MP. The latest revision was issued by no less authority than the squeaker, very recently.
2) Corbyn had to be dragged back to the house to be questioned over his conduct.
3)He then lies to the house about what he said, despite recognized experts in lip reading corroborating the original accusation.
4) When in a hole,why keep digging? His behaviour is neither honest, nor of the standard expected of an MP.
5) To be caught In flagrante delicto on camera, to be viewed by all, is hardly the action of an intelligent man.

Is not" Oh yes he did" a staple of Christmas pantomime, now recently migrated to the commons?
But it was not mother goose making the accusation now, was it? And we can all lipread the words ourselves as many times as we like.
stupid woman

1 min 11 seconds in

Tsk Tsk, guilty of misogyny as well!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:41 PM

""A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding."
Have you counted your insults and racist jibes lately
You're a bigger joke than your mate

If the Tory party were i the slightest bit concerned about the position of women in Parliament would they have ever appointed Creepy- Crawly Johnson, (who thinks the term 'Foreign Relations has "Sexual" in the middle) in a senior position ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:45 PM

Ye Gods, clutching at straws or what.

One point though Iains the speaker quite clearly said that the people who maintained Corbyn said 'stupid woman' were not experts. You, I am sure, are well aware of that so you are lying to us all.

Should we go get a rope and find a tree ?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:10 PM

Raggy who cares what the squeaker says. I said experts, not a weasel.

Like little jimmie you need to read, assimilate, and think before
posting otherwise you may end up looking as stupid as him.

A complete waste of time asking little jimmie to provide proof of his statements below. He never has before when challenged. A measure of the man I feel.
""A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding."
Have you counted your insults and racist jibes lately.
I do not make racist jibes and neither do I insult people, I merely describe them accurately.

However I keep a file of his more outrageous allegations, because he has a nasty habit of denying the content of his posts. Others posting here have more integrity, making such extreme measures unnecessary.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:22 PM

Funny how our resident right wingers come over all pro feminist when Corbyn is accused of something he may or may not have said yet kept quiet when proven sex pest and misogynist Andrew Griffiths had the party whip restored just in time for a crucial vote...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:26 PM

...or when Phillip Hammond mouthed the same words back in July.

Hypocrites, the lot of them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:39 PM

OH! Look what Guido's found:

https://order-order.com/2018/12/20/ireland-no-deal-no-hard-border/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:02 PM

This is all very silly. Jezza didn't actually *say* anything. He mouthed it. It was sotto voce. Muttered at best. Inaudible. His critics like to claim that he *said* a thing because they wanted him to say it. Jaysus, let's get the best friggin' lipreader in town, fellow Tories. We're desperate. We simply must get something, anything, on this man. They also wanted him to be a friend of Hamas. They wanted him to be an antisemite. It's very odd, this wanting someone to be horrible. Well I'd prefer a world in which no-one was horrible, frankly. Let's judge people on what they actually do or actually say (out loud, infinitely preferably). Let's grow up, in other words. Nothing to see (or hear) here. Move on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

When did "woman" become "a profane expression", the use of which "betrays a person's low breeding"?

Since the word is in no way offensive, and the adjective attached to it was perfectly appropriate in face of Theresa May's loudmouthed panto performance - look at the video - there would have been no reason for Jeremy saying he didn’t mutter it if he didn't. As I point out, words muttered are far less easy to unambiguously interpret than if he had been speaking out, or shouting in the same way as Theresa May had been doing.

This is a phoney diversion, transparently so.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

When did "woman" become "a profane expression", the use of which "betrays a person's low breeding"?

Since the word is in no way offensive, and the adjective attached to it was perfectly appropriate in face of Theresa May's loudmouthed panto performance - look at the video - there would have been no reason for Jeremy saying he didn’t mutter it if he didn't. As I point out, words muttered are far less easy to unambiguously interpret than if he had been speaking out, or shouting in the same way as Theresa May had been doing.

This is a phoney diversion, transparently so.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:25 PM

I've done it again (or my computer has). That second "didn't" should havebeen "did". I thought I'd better point that out before Nigel does.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:48 PM

"dragged back to the house"? I think not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:55 PM

I see that in his end- of-year news conference Vladimir Putin has been talking about Brexit and declared himself fervently in the support of the view that a second chance for people in the UK to vote on this would be an offence against democracy. And of course everyone knows how strongly he supports all democratic principles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM

And of course he spoke up in support of Trump, and denounced those who find it hard to accept him as president. Just because 2 million more people voted for his opponent than voted for him...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 06:27 PM

I note that a YouGov poll is now giving remain a 59-41 lead over May's deal. Not that I'd rely on such things over-much, but I would say to brexiteers, should there be a third referendum, be very afraid...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 06:56 PM

https://www.facebook.com/904705202/posts/10161155567570203/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:01 PM

Rees Moggie has the solution: he says

If Ireland had no intention of setting up customs checkpoints along the politically-sensitive frontier, there is no need for the contentious Irish backstop element of Theresa May’s deal.

According to the Express, Rees Moggie has 'shit down' the argument about the backstop with this 'simple' solution.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:03 PM

Woops, should have been 'shut down'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:19 PM

I think you may have got it right first time.

With the UK being tied to WTO rules after a hard Brexit, the only way to avoid a hard border in Ireland would be for Northern Ireland to become a member of the WTO in its own right, separate from the rest of the UK. I somehow can't see the DUP going for that, though it would make some sense. Or rather, because it would make some sense, as a step towards a two Ireland constitutional arrangement outside the UK. Here's an RTÉ story on that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:45 AM

There is all this talk about customs work being done without a hard border, but as I understand it this will/would take years to develop.
They'll have to start charging tariffs to goods from Northern Ireland when we come out, so something will have to be done. I predict a lot of criminality/smuggling - possibly in both directions.

But Rees Mogg assumes that the UK won't want to put up hard borders ie it will stick to the Good Friday agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:01 AM

Wonderful article from The London Economic

Enjoy :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:14 AM

Rees-Mogg and co have been making that argument since the referendum, so there is little justification in the Express repeating it now - the EU have always been clear they don't want a hard border either in any circumstances. But there is a world of difference between what people want and what the law and circumstances may oblige them to do.

Einstein is often attributed with the saying "Everything should be as simple and possible but no simpler." (Actually, what he said was more complicated than that! :) .) The Irish border has been the subject of intense negotiation between the UK and the EU. As Mogg was saying that while the negotiations were happening, it is incredibly unlikely it was not considered and rejected as unworkable.

We have discussed lots of variations of this in this thread or its predecessor. As with most subtopics, we have not got beyond and assertion it could work with no explanation of how that can cope with all the differing requirements of the 'users'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:38 AM

but I would say to brexiteers, should there be a third referendum,

1) After Labour won under Harold Wilson, a referendum was held on whether to remain in the Communities after a renegotiation of its membership. The result was in favour of remaining. The European Community were three international organizations that were governed by the same set of institutions. These were the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), and the European Economic Community (EEC)
2)he Maastricht Treaty built upon the Single European Act and the Solemn Declaration on European Union in the creation of the European Union. The treaty was signed on 7 February 1992 and came into force on 1 November 1993. The Union superseded and absorbed the European Communities as one of its three pillars. The first Commission President following the creation of the EU was Jacques Delors, who briefly continued his previous EEC tenure before handing over to Jacques Santer in 1994.
The Community institutions became the institutions of the EU but the roles of the institutions between the pillars are different. The Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice are largely cut out of activities in the second and third pillars, with the Council dominating proceedings. This is reflected in the names of the institutions, the Council is formally the "Council of the European Union" while the Commission is formally the "Commission of the European Communities". This allowed the new areas to be based on intergovernmentalism (unanimous agreement between governments) rather than majority voting and independent institutions according to supranational democracy. after the Treaty of Maastricht, Parliament gained a much bigger role. Maastricht brought in the codecision procedure, which gave it equal legislative power with the Council on Community matters. Hence, with the greater powers of the supranational institutions and the operation of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council, the Community pillar could be described as a far more federal method of decision making.
The Amsterdam Treaty transferred rule making powers for border controls, immigration, asylum and cooperation in civil and commercial law from the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar to the European Community (JHA was renamed Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) as a result). Both Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice also extended codecision procedure to nearly all policy areas, giving Parliament equal power to the Council in the Community.

In 2002, the Treaty of Paris which established the European Coal and Steel Community (one of the three communities which comprised the European Communities) expired, having reached its 50-year limit (as the first treaty, it was the only one with a limit). No attempt was made to renew its mandate; instead, the Treaty of Nice transferred certain of its elements to the Treaty of Rome and hence its work continued as part of the EEC area of the Community's remit.

The Treaty of Lisbon merged the three pillars and abolished the European Community; with the European Union becoming the Community's legal successor. Only one of the three European Communities still exists and the phrase "European Communities" no longer appears in the treaties.
The European Union has seven principal decision making bodies, its institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors. Competence in scrutinising and amending legislation is shared between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, while executive tasks are performed by the European Commission and in a limited capacity by the European Council (not to be confused with the aforementioned Council of the European Union). The monetary policy of the eurozone is determined by the European Central Bank. The interpretation and the application of EU law and the treaties are ensured by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The EU budget is scrutinised by the European Court of Auditors. There are also a number of ancillary bodies which advise the EU or operate in a specific area.

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, 23 June 2016, 51.9% to leave, turnout 72.2%

The second referendum in the uk was for a very different entity to that voted for under Wilson's government. Primarily as a result of the Maastricht treaty.

Therefore to talk of a possible 3rd referendum is a bit of a misleading, simplistic distortion.
From 1975 to present the EU has morphed from an economic union to an increasingly political union, usurping national identities and rights of self government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:43 AM

Jacob Rees Mogg Hero of the year!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/tcw-hero-of-the-year-the-mogg/

"The Leftist media and the Leftist MPs in his own party have gone for him over everything from his Catholicism, the number of kids he has, his suits, to ultimately his political views. Some of this criticism is fair enough; most of the personal attacks most certainly are not. Philip Collins, in the Times on the 14thof December said it was time the team of JRM ‘were taken outside and shot’. Collins didn’t mean this literally, we assume, but still it is somewhat ironic that the Mogg is painted as the extremist when writers use language such as this.
   Jacob Rees-Mogg has faced these relentless, poisonous personal attacks with grace and fortitude. He has never attacked another MP, least of all his Prime Minister, in a personal way. It is this dignity in the face of stone-throwing that drives his opponents crazy"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:58 AM

From that article linked to by Iains:

Jacob Rees-Mogg could become another greasy-pole-climbing, payroll MP. He could just put his head down and hope to make his way into cabinet. But he is no ordinary man; he is a man of principle, courage, honesty, integrity and dignity. He could just put his head down and hope to make his way into cabinet. But he is no ordinary man; he is a man of principle, courage, honesty, integrity and dignity, as we have noted many times on TCW, and Kathy most recently here.

Indeed you have said it many times. Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:08 AM

You don't like my talking about a third referendum (which would be predicated on very different information from that given to voters from the 2016 one), but you're happy to call the latter a second referendum, which was predicated, in your view, on the fact that the EU had become a very different beast, as you've painstakingly spelled out for us in some rather dense prose. Well let's just fantasise a little and guess at the percentage of the 2016 electorate who knew anything at all about your potted history as they voted. I'd guess about one in twenty (OK, Nigel, that isn't a percentage, so 5%?) How about you? In other words, it would be far-fetched to claim that the electorate voted the way they did because they disapproved of the evolution of the EU. I'm claiming that nearly all of them actually knew diddly squat about it. If you don't believe me, risk losing your mates down the pub by asking them what they know about the history of the EU since 1975. One point and fifteen passes, I should think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:20 AM

Too many froms.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM

"Philip Collins, in the Times on the 14thof December said it was time the team of JRM 'were taken outside and shot’. Collins didn’t mean this literally, we assume, but still it is somewhat ironic that the Mogg is painted as the extremist when writers use language such as this."

Now where have I heard that kind of extremist language before? Oh yes, it's what knuckle-dragger BrexShitters have, on numerous occasions, told me should happen to Remain voters, because we're 'traitors'.

When the boot's on the other foot... :-/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

Pretty good summing up here
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-lies-brexit-theresa-may-dream-team-boris-johnson-michael-gove-deceitful-bully-18th-a8194011.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

Pretty good summing up here
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-lies-brexit-theresa-may-dream-team-boris-johnson-michael-gove-deceitful-bully-18th-a8194011.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:12 AM

Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)
I suggest you take your issues with the article to the author/s.
Your petty little post is not worthy of consideration.

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM
Typical leftard exaggeration. Perhaps you would like to show us all an exanple of brexiteers suggesting killing remainiaca. Or are you guilty of terminological inexactitude? Prove me wrong!

If you don't believe me, risk losing your mates down the pub by asking them what they know about the history of the EU since 1975.
I would posit th eaverage MP ain't too clued up either. So where does that leave your argument?
Below is a fine example of the caliber of our MPs:
Talk about deluded!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-mp-who-lied-to-avoid-speeding-charge-compares-herself-to-jesus-d9tlpjg2t

She seems a little slow to resign her seat.
However as a Lawyer that pleaded not guilty and was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, I would think slammer time is a likely outcome. Under the Representation of the People Act any MP detained in the UK for more than a year is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and their seat will be vacated..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)
I suggest you take your issues with the article to the author/s.
Your petty little post is not worthy of consideration. 


I agree. Hence the reference to channelling Nigel. Nitpicking is rarely worthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:12 AM

Two years after their country voted for trade war against its neighbours, British nationalists, Iain and Karen, at last agree on something: that it is unfair for other countries to protect their own national interests. Such narrow-minded nationalism from the Paddies!
Old Moore’s Almanac 2019 prediction   Opposition to Irish chauvinism will unite the Remoaners and Brexiteers .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:26 AM

DMcG:
I agree. Hence the reference to channelling Nigel. Nitpicking is rarely worthy of consideration.

If it's rarely worthy of consideration, why do it. It's a poor excuse to say you're 'channeling' someone else in order to make a post which you then claim is unworthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:32 AM

Mayomick I think it probably more accurate to say that despite the posturings and threatening from the Taoiseach, his obduracy is not necessarily shared by the Irish government. They know full well that despite reciprocal agreements between the UK and republic, predating the EU, a hard brexit has the potential to devastate Ireland.
Losing the UK landbridge will have immense knock-on effects, especially on prices.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/project-pricey-16-ways-a-hard-brexit-would-hit-irish-pockets-1.3642215

Such an outcome helps no one!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

"From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM
Typical leftard exaggeration. Perhaps you would like to show us all an exanple of brexiteers suggesting killing remainiaca. Or are you guilty of terminological inexactitude? Prove me wrong!"

No exaggeration whatsoever. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told, on other social media sites, that Remainers are 'traitors who should be arrested, marched out and shot', and I'm confident that most, if not all, of the other posters on this and other Brexit threads have seen and/or heard comments of that nature. Do a bit of research, there's plenty of it on, e.g. Leaver FaceBook Pages, Twitter, Righty-websites (you'll get a big kick from trawling through those).

As a matter of lifelong principle, I don't tell lies - your use of the Churchillian 'Terminological Inexactitude' really does underline your ridiculous arrogance and pomposity, BTW - and anyway, I have no need to lie on this topic, there has been plenty of evidence of such outrageous comments, inclouding on TV news Vox-Pop clips, since the Referendum. Clearly, you have selective auditory/visual senses. Your being in denial doesn't detract one iota from the fact.

On a different topic, here is an example of a Tory minister in the House of Commons calling Yvette Cooper a 'bitch'.

When the boot's on the other foot...