More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't know why you keep virtue signalling if it makes you so angry when I call you out for it.
I have no problem with people calling out racists.
I'm not having that the majority of people from Burnley are racist though

Not accepting the premise, but why do you think it makes me angry?

[If it be your will]

Headlines like this make me laugh: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346898" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's all gone to s***, May! Give it up!

[Damo]

Not accepting the premise, but why do you think it makes me angry?

Because of your angry retort everytime someone mentions it

[Right_winger]

I think you missed his point of implying most people in Burnley are racist, but never mind.
Or perhaps you didn't, but chose to signal your virtue as per

Someone gets it.

Spectacularly missing of the point and then going on the attack from a synthetic argument created out of pure anger and hatred.

The arguments could be flung right back at them as to prove the majority of folks from Burnley are white thick homophobic racists. In fact you could extend that to everyone who voted leave.... or are white..... etc

[Damo]

Headlines like this make me laugh: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346898" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's all gone to s***, May! Give it up!

What about headlines like this?

IMG_20171214_191512.jpg (284.3 KiB) Viewed 2016 times

[HatfieldClaret]

Headlines like this make me laugh: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346898" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's all gone to s***, May! Give it up!

She's right though.

We will have left the EU before the deal is finalised so the parliament vote won't affect the fact we will have left.

I say this of course with no ability to see into the future, coz only God knows what's going to happen the way things are trundling along......

And if you don't believe in God, it was only a turn of phrase, and God is gender neutral and never sexually harassed anyone, or watched porn online or made any reference to a white Christmas; apparently.....

Think I've covered it all.

[Imploding Turtle]

Because of your angry retort everytime someone mentions it

Here's my reply

"virtue-signalling" another pathetic retort from those who want to feel better about themselves when the other side is saying "hey, don't be racist c*nts".

Do you not get embarrassed when you post such replies? How long before you start calling us cucks and beta-males?

Please show me where I expressed anger.

[Imploding Turtle]

The real truth is, Damo, that every time you resort to accusing others of virtue-signalling you're just demonstrating your own ignorance of what virtue-signalling actually is.

Virtue-signalling is the deliberate expression of an insincerely held opinion to garner approval from others. So when you say i'm virtue-signalling what you're really saying is that i don't actually hold the opinions i express, and that i'm doing it just for approval. This begs at least two questions:

1- Do you really think i'm being insincere when i express my opinions? If so, why do you believe that?
and
2 - Do you really think I care if other people approve of my opinions? And again, if so, why?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no" then you're using words you don't know the meaning to. If the answer to either or both questions is "yes" then i expect you'll be able to explain why exactly it is that you hold that opinion about me.

[Damo]

The real truth is, Damo, that every time you resort to accusing others of virtue-signalling you're just demonstrating your own ignorance of what virtue-signalling actually is.

Virtue-signalling is the deliberate expression of an insincerely held opinion to garner approval from others. So when you say i'm virtue-signalling what you're really saying is that i don't actually hold the opinions i express, and that i'm doing it just for approval. This begs at least two questions:

1- Do you really think i'm being insincere when i express my opinions? If so, why do you believe that?
and
2 - Do you really think I care if other people approve of my opinions? And again, if so, why?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no" then you're using words you don't know the meaning to. If the answer to either or both questions is "yes" then i expect you'll be able to explain why exactly it is that you hold that opinion about me.

1. Yes
2. Yes

[Lancasterclaret]

Paul, plenty of room on the LC happy bus and I fully agree with the idea that we should all be looking at this together to find a way out of it.....but I don't see the extreme brexiteers comprising at all.

[Imploding Turtle]

1. Yes
2. Yes

Please explain why you hold that kind of opinion about me. What have i ever said or done that would make you think i'm not expressing my sincere opinions?

[If it be your will]

What about headlines like this?

IMG_20171214_191512.jpg

Yes, they make me laugh, too!

[If it be your will]

1. Yes
2. Yes

Number 1 is 'Absolutely not'. It's obvious. (Number 2 is anyone's guess - he's nuts.)

[martin_p]

What about headlines like this?

IMG_20171214_191512.jpg

No one seems to be able to trace the source of this headline tweeted by Dan Hannan. Made up b*******?

[Lancasterclaret]

Dan Hannan reputation has taken an absolute battering in the last 18 months.

He's deleted loads of stuff he's put out there pre-referendum but its all coming back out and they are all absolute zingers (if you voted remain and think Leave might have been a bit economical with the truth)

[CrosspoolClarets]

Replying to another poster on the last page, this isn’t about who is right or wrong, it is about judgement. I feel the ship should be sailed one way, towards a slightly less liberal and fairer destination that will hopefully make us wealthier too but without the huge poverty sitting alongside it.

I really am struggling to get my head around you, crosspool and dsr (all clearly bright and switched on) being completely unable to get past the idea that Brexit is bad news economically. You literally have nothing to back up your view, but masses of evidence to disprove it (sorry, not evidence, just a an overwhelming amount of experts saying the same thing).

I feel like I’ve explained this loads of times (my judgement, not evidence). I obviously haven’t done a full economic analysis, I’ve seen what there is and formed an opinion. The things that back up my economic view are below:

1. The EU is hell bent on integration, so there isn’t a status quo. In 10 years I see us benefitting more from Brexit than in 2 years, but in 10 years I would see the EU status quo costing us too, in membership fees and in the fallout from a euro crisis.

2. All of the economic modelling I have seen suggests that migration is due to fall hugely. I disagree. I think some control would be applied, and sterling being lower will put some off, but GDP growth would be higher than forecast due to higher migration (lower than now, higher than the economist forecast)

3. I have always felt confident we would agree a free trade deal which would more or less mimic the single market access we have (Juncker’s panic last Monday when May upset the DUP tells me I was right). Thus the economic hit would be limited.

4. Renegotiating our quotas and resetting our tariffs should allow us to boost our GDP by making some overseas things cheaper (food, clothing, shoes) and other things we make here more competitive.

5. Free trade deals around the world, particularly with the US, China and India. This should make some things cheaper still and allow people to spend more on other things, boosting the economy.

6. Deregulating, not willy-nilly but targetted at silly EU rules that cost our businesses money. Rules on the management of farmland would be one example (my wife is a former farm conservation advisor so don’t think I mean shafting the environment).

I appreciate it is an IF we can make these things happen, but IF we can do these things (IF May is allowed to stick to her red lines), it seems to me to be fairly obvious that we will be better off as a country. I genuinely don’t know what the MPs are doing voting this down, if they do. It’s madness. One foot in, one foot out, would indeed be worse than the status quo.

[Lancasterclaret]

All that sounds good Crosspool, but the timescale is, well, I think its optimistic to see all that in ten years.

That is a generation. Thats a lot of people relying on a lot of "ifs".

[If it be your will]

I agree, CrosspoolClaret, there was no inherent reason Brexit couldn't have worked, the big problem we have now is a lack of time. When we invoked article 50 we effectively had 18 months, and half is already gone. I cannot understand what the rush was, but from this point there is no hope of getting the trade deals to make this work in time. As such we're careering towards Remain in all but name (but with no influence), Remain, or hard brexit. The first of these options is so stupid it should be discounted as an option. So as a country we need to decide quickly: is it to be remain or hard brexit?

[Lancasterclaret]

Pretty sure May will drop the requirement in law for us to leave by the article 50 date as a matter of common sense to give us the time we need to do this properly.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I agree, CrosspoolClaret, there was no inherent reason Brexit couldn't have worked, the big problem we have now is a lack of time. When we invoked article 50 we effectively had 18 months, and half is already gone. I cannot understand what the rush was, but from this point there is no hope of getting the trade deals to make this work in time. As such we're careering towards Remain in all but name (but with no influence), Remain, or hard brexit. The first of these options is so stupid it should be discounted as an option. So as a country we need to decide quickly: is it to be remain or hard brexit?

Well you have Gina Millar and the other clowns in the circus to thank for that.

I don’t feel we are into your binary choice yet, the EU will be desparate for a deal, they have other fish to fry.

If it comes down to it though, it has to be hard brexit, or there would be uproar. Bear on mind 65% of people either want to leave or be in a EU with reduced central powers. That ain’t going to change, and the latter ain’t going to happen. The tide in the UK is only going one way, May sees that, luckily.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thats a hell of an assumption, and contrary to any polling.

And the dismissal of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is a worry as well.

[Damo]

No one seems to be able to trace the source of this headline tweeted by Dan Hannan. Made up b*******?

Every tweet I saw regarding it quoted a financial Times article. It came up as the top search when searching the quote.
Would take a 9 year old just a few seconds to find.
https://www.ft.com/content/e514575e-dc1 ... 4b1c09b482" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Damo]

Please explain why you hold that kind of opinion about me. What have i ever said or done that would make you think i'm not expressing my sincere opinions?

1, The amount of time you spend both on here, and searching for negative news 're Donald trump suggests you have absolutely no time to do anything other than preach at people on message boards.
If you were sincere I'd assume you would be doing even the most miniscule, pro active thing to help the people you lecture folk about.

2. If you couldn't care less, then why are you still asking me to explain why I think you care what people think?

[martin_p]

Every tweet I saw regarding it quoted a financial Times article. It came up as the top search when searching the quote.
Would take a 9 year old just a few seconds to find.
https://www.ft.com/content/e514575e-dc1 ... 4b1c09b482" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well your link is behind a firewall, but it calls the story ‘ Money managers nervous over prospect of PM Corbyn’ not the headline quoted. Maybe you should ask a nine year old to help?

[RingoMcCartney]

To look at this thread, you'd think that 99.9% of people were Remoaners.

Watching BBC Question Time.

Remoaners. You're guys took one hell of a beating!!!!!

God bless the Real People of Burnsley!!

[upanatem]

Replying to another poster on the last page, this isn’t about who is right or wrong, it is about judgement. I feel the ship should be sailed one way, towards a slightly less liberal and fairer destination that will hopefully make us wealthier too but without the huge poverty sitting alongside it.



I feel like I’ve explained this loads of times (my judgement, not evidence). I obviously haven’t done a full economic analysis, I’ve seen what there is and formed an opinion. The things that back up my economic view are below:

1. The EU is hell bent on integration, so there isn’t a status quo. In 10 years I see us benefitting more from Brexit than in 2 years, but in 10 years I would see the EU status quo costing us too, in membership fees and in the fallout from a euro crisis.

2. All of the economic modelling I have seen suggests that migration is due to fall hugely. I disagree. I think some control would be applied, and sterling being lower will put some off, but GDP growth would be higher than forecast due to higher migration (lower than now, higher than the economist forecast)

3. I have always felt confident we would agree a free trade deal which would more or less mimic the single market access we have (Juncker’s panic last Monday when May upset the DUP tells me I was right). Thus the economic hit would be limited.

4. Renegotiating our quotas and resetting our tariffs should allow us to boost our GDP by making some overseas things cheaper (food, clothing, shoes) and other things we make here more competitive.

5. Free trade deals around the world, particularly with the US, China and India. This should make some things cheaper still and allow people to spend more on other things, boosting the economy.

6. Deregulating, not willy-nilly but targetted at silly EU rules that cost our businesses money. Rules on the management of farmland would be one example (my wife is a former farm conservation advisor so don’t think I mean shafting the environment).

I appreciate it is an IF we can make these things happen, but IF we can do these things (IF May is allowed to stick to her red lines), it seems to me to be fairly obvious that we will be better off as a country. I genuinely don’t know what the MPs are doing voting this down, if they do. It’s madness. One foot in, one foot out, would indeed be worse than the status quo.

Well stated, Crosspool. Can I add another, which is one of the reasons I voted 'leave'?

7. The southern European countries are in a parlous state economically, with massive debt (particularly Greece) and very high unemployment rates (over 40%), especially amongst the young. Long-term unemployment is also worryingly high in Greece and Italy. At some stage there could well be a bale-out or some other major eruption (Greece exiting the EU? Greece going back to the drachma and de-valuing?) and if/when this happens I would prefer the UK to be out rather than in. People talk about the massive risks economically in Brexiting (yes, I agree). For me there are equally high risks in remaining.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, I think you need to look at your info for 7.

[RingoMcCartney]

Well stated, Crosspool. Can I add another, which is one of the reasons I voted 'leave'?

7. The southern European countries are in a parlous state economically, with massive debt (particularly Greece) and very high unemployment rates (over 40%), especially amongst the young. Long-term unemployment is also worryingly high in Greece and Italy. At some stage there could well be a bale-out or some other major eruption (Greece exiting the EU? Greece going back to the drachma and de-valuing?) and if/when this happens I would prefer the UK to be out rather than in. People talk about the massive risks economically in Brexiting (yes, I agree). For me there are equally high risks in remaining.

Add a question to the above.

Walk onto any steet of any town in the United kingdom and ask it.

Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker?

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

[aggi]

Add a question to the above.

Walk onto any steet of any town in the United kingdom and ask it.

Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker?

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

VETO

[Damo]

Well your link is behind a firewall, but it calls the story ‘ Money managers nervous over prospect of PM Corbyn’ not the headline quoted. Maybe you should ask a nine year old to help?

IMG_20171215_001923.jpg (621.09 KiB) Viewed 1838 times

IMG_20171215_001948.jpg (332.52 KiB) Viewed 1838 times

IMG_20171215_002023.jpg (391.61 KiB) Viewed 1838 times

There you go.
I don't subscribe to FT
Neither does my 9 year old son and even he was capable of sourcing this info.
If you like I will forward you his email

[RingoMcCartney]

VETO

Don't need one. Now we're leaving.

Stop deflecting.

What would be the answer?

Fighting for Jean Claude Drunker. Or to defend these islands

Which one? No ifs no buts keep it nice n straight forward.

Which one would they say?

Come on. Let your "inner Ringo" loose! As you said when you made a total twit of yourself claiming Clarke wasn't elected !!!!

Drunker or these islands?

[Imploding Turtle]

1, The amount of time you spend both on here, and searching for negative news 're Donald trump suggests you have absolutely no time to do anything other than preach at people on message boards.
If you were sincere I'd assume you would be doing even the most miniscule, pro active thing to help the people you lecture folk about.

2. If you couldn't care less, then why are you still asking me to explain why I think you care what people think?

I don't search for negative news about Trump, i don't have to.

What is it I'm lecturing people about? What opinion have I shared that you think can only be sincere if i'm actively doing something about? And please make sure this answer doesn't make you look stupid and contradicts any previous opinions you've expressed about the left-wing who march for or against certain inhumane policies.

And why do I have to be actively doing something? Not that i'm not, but why can you only argue against arguments for which someone is actively doing something to push forward beyond making an argument for it?

The truth is, Damo, that you don't know what I do and don't do. And even if you did it wouldn't justify your ad hominem attacks against me, because that's what you're doing every time you criticise someone for "virtue-signalling". It's intellectual cowardice on your part because it tells me that any time someone shares an opinion that you know to be fundamentally decent but one that you don't like, you can just instead accuse that person of not really holding that opinion as a way to make yourself feel less ashamed of your heartless and perhaps inhumane attitudes towards certain people.

And no, i couldn't care less about what you think of my opinions. But I do care when you start telling other people that my opinions aren't really my opinions, and that's exctly what you're doing to everyone when you accuse them of virtue-signalling. Tell people you think i'm a liberal hippy who lives with his head in the clouds. I'm fine with that. But don't lie about me.

[If it be your will]

IMG_20171215_001923.jpg

IMG_20171215_001948.jpg

IMG_20171215_002023.jpg

There you go.
I don't subscribe to FT
Neither does my 9 year old son and even he was capable of sourcing this info.
If you like I will forward you his email

So they asked 4 private equity owners their views on Corbyn? I'm forced to wonder when my interests last aligned with private equity owners. I can assure you, articles like this don't do Corbyn any harm at all, quite the opposite. (I still found the headline funny, however.)

[Sidney1st]

Add a question to the above.

Walk onto any steet of any town in the United kingdom and ask it.

Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker?

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

The armed forces are sent around the world to dick about in stuff that doesn't concern us the majority of the time.

[Imploding Turtle]

So they asked 4 private equity owners their views on Corbyn? I'm forced to wonder when my interests last aligned with private equity owners. I can assure you, articles like this don't do Corbyn any harm at all, quite the opposite. (I still found the headline funny, however.)

You've got to love how people like Damo voted for Brexit to stick it to the exact types of people whose opinions they refer to when they want to criticise Corbyn as being a danger.

[Dazzler]

The armed forces are sent around the world to dick about in stuff that doesn't concern us the majority of the time.

Aye that's right,Bosnia being one of those 'dick about in stuff' that didn't concern us.
Have those that were being persecuted ever thanked those that 'dicked about" for their cause?

[claretandy]

Looks like this massive vote has changed everything ....

[Imploding Turtle]

Why should Westminster trust that the Conservative PM will do what's in the best interests of the UK when this whole fisaco came about because a Conservative PM chose to do what was best for the Conservative party over what was best for the UK in the first place?

[claretandy]

It also makes No deal more likely according to the EU, They're will be no going back to get a better deal if Parliament rejects the deal.

[Imploding Turtle]

It also makes No deal more likely according to the EU, They're will be no going back to get a better deal if Parliament rejects the deal.

Well then, since she's refused to let any other party participate in the negotiations with the government then she better make sure she can get a deal that gets through parliament.

[evensteadiereddie]

It's all going rather well...........

[Sidney1st]

Aye that's right,Bosnia being one of those 'dick about in stuff' that didn't concern us.
Have those that were being persecuted ever thanked those that 'dicked about" for their cause?

Good choice of conflict there

I was thinking more along the lines of the Yanks war on Terror which is an issue they've made themselves after years of crappy foreign policies.

[Lancasterclaret]

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

The devil is in the detail though Ringo

https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-arm ... gKIHfD_BwE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

The armed forces are sent around the world to dick about in stuff that doesn't concern us the majority of the time.

Totally agree with you there sid. Our armed forces have been deployed in conflicts that have nothing to do with defending these islands. Waste of time, money and LIVES.

Not to mention Bliars illegal war, that resulted in the deaths of approximately 250,000 children.

However, my question -Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker?

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

It then leads to a further issue which you've highlighted. Or another question to ask the public with regards to remaining in the EU and it staying the same.

Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker? Which could then be involved, not in defending the EU, but potentially far flung incursions that may turn out to be illegal?

I think I know what the vast majority would say.

[RingoMcCartney]

The devil is in the detail though Ringo

https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-arm ... gKIHfD_BwE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But if we remain in the European Union, the EU doesn't remain static. It has grand expansion plans on many levels. The claim that when people voted to remain, they knew what they were voting for is garbage.

The EU is suffering from institutional mission creep.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/87 ... ence-force" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/89 ... EU-defence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just realised!! Your link is dated JUNE 2016 !!!!

Do try n post that that takes into account the recent eu defence force agreement signed by 24 EU nations !!!!

Your over a year out of date. Like you say, the details, lancs, the devil's in them.......

[Healeywoodclaret]

I've never seen anyone as blatantly thick as Ringo on the internet before.

You are thick. Could your "very middle class" family of Dental Surgeons not pay for a decent education for you?

[Sidney1st]

Totally agree with you there sid. Our armed forces have been deployed in conflicts that have nothing to do with defending these islands. Waste of time, money and LIVES.

Not to mention Bliars illegal war, that resulted in the deaths of approximately 250,000 children.

However, my question -Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker?

Because, if we stayed in the EU, despite being described by hard core europhile, Nick Clegg, as a "dangerous fantasy", the latter, is what has just been agreed to in Brussels.

It then leads to a further issue which you've highlighted. Or another question to ask the public with regards to remaining in the EU and it staying the same.

Do you feel that our armed forces should exist to defend these islands. Or, to form part if an EU army, presumably lead by Jean Claude Drunker? Which could then be involved, not in defending the EU, but potentially far flung incursions that may turn out to be illegal?

I think I know what the vast majority would say.

Our countries defense is always the prime priority, however we should get involved in things like Bosnia or Rwanda when it's clear genocide is happening.

Getting dragged into 'wars' by the Yanks however needs to stop because as it's been shown it doesn't actually make things any better and is just costing us lives and money needlessly.

[Lancasterclaret]

I repeat the devil is in the detail Ringo.

I know exactly what was agreed by the EU. Its not a European army.

Its the preparation work for a potential EU force at most, and a sensible funding deal for weapons specification and development

We'll be ok though, what is it? £20 billion less for our armed forces in the next defense review, barely enough frigates and destroyers to protect our new carriers, all three parts of the service about 90% of thier supposed strength.

But hey, at least we can rely on the Yanks.........oh

https://qz.com/1127984/eu-army-bloc-for ... ependence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Going back to QT btw, is no one else getting a wee bit concerned about all the Brexiteers who shout all the time, as if that somehow gives their words more force?

That old bloke ranting about us "getting into the single market" (the ones we have been part of for years) was a particular highlight (or lowlight depending on your views of political discourse in this country)

[upanatem]

Er, I think you need to look at your info for 7.

Hi Lancs, if my info is incorrect, could you please point out to me where you think I'm wrong, bearing in mind I have made 1 or 2 suppositions about what might happen?