Anyone who's a Corbinite should take a long look at themselves.

They've basically kept in power an unelectable, terrorist sympathising communist with no chance of winning. As such the Tories have gotten away with being the weakest party we have seen in modern times as there is no competition.

You need a strong opposition to get the most out of a government and without it, look what we have!

tarkys_ears wrote:Anyone who's a Corbinite should take a long look at themselves.

They've basically kept in power an unelectable, terrorist sympathising communist with no chance of winning. As such the Tories have gotten away with being the weakest party we have seen in modern times as there is no competition.

You need a strong opposition to get the most out of a government and without it, look what we have!

I believe this proves my point.

This guy wants to accept all the smears and lies that all the Tory press throw at Corbyn to keep a **** Tory government in power, but wants to blame Labour for that and not the Tory press or the Tory government.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I believe this proves my point.

This guy wants to accept all the smears and lies that all the Tory press throw at Corbyn to keep a **** Tory government in power, but wants to blame Labour for that and not the Tory press or the Tory government.

They had a chance with David Milliband, someone I'd probably have voted for.

They ousted him because he wanted to make party funding changes I believe, installed his idiot brother and the rest is history.

But you keep telling yourself that Corbin is the answer

tarkys_ears wrote:They had a chance with David Milliband, someone I'd probably have voted for.

They ousted him because he wanted to make party funding changes I believe, installed his idiot brother and the rest is history.

But you keep telling yourself that Corbin is the answer

I don't expect you to be able to answer this, but i'll ask anyway.

What was it about Ed Miliband that made you think he was an idiot?

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't expect you to be able to answer this, but i'll ask anyway.

What was it about Ed Miliband that made you think he was an idiot?

His squeeky voice

Burnley Ace wrote:We WERE that has no relevance now. What happened to us in the last 100 years? We lost an Empire, spent a number of years rebuilding after wars, were the “sick man of Europe” and were on our arse before the EEC let us join. The EU army couldn’t have happened when we were in the EU however, have you noticed how we have to ask the EU to help us escort our ships. We aren’t in the Eurozone so tighter fiscal rules don’t apply!

What type of country is going to offer us a better deal than we would have got in the EU?

Free trade deals aren't about "how much can we screw them for and how much can they screw out of us". Hopefully. Free trade, which most of us appear to be in favour of, are MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. A good trade deal will be profitable for us and profitable for the other side.

We have not been able to negotiate a sensible deal with the EU, principally because the EU is determined to ensure that a free trade deal is not profitable for us - ie. not mutually beneficial. As both leavers and remainers have pointed out, the EU feels it has to be seen to punish the country that wants to leave, because of we do well out of it, the other countries might vote to leave as well. Hence, no free trade deal unless it's on punishing terms - so punishing, in fact, that even the pro-Remain House of Commons won't go for it.

And if you are trying to make out that joining the EEC in 1973 was what caused the recovery from being the "sick man of Europe", think again. Wilson's and Callaghan's governments made the economy worse; it was while Healey was Chancellor that we needed the loan form the IMF, the stringent currency restrictions a la USSR, and the 101% top rate tax. The winter of discontent was 1878-9. Thatcher's government in 1979 was what got a grip on the financial crisis.

tarkys_ears wrote:His squeeky voice

Like I said, i doubted you'd have an answer, and i was right.

Burnley Ace wrote:We WERE that has no relevance now. What happened to us in the last 100 years? We lost an Empire, spent a number of years rebuilding after wars, were the “sick man of Europe” and were on our arse before the EEC let us join. The EU army couldn’t have happened when we were in the EU however, have you noticed how we have to ask the EU to help us escort our ships. We aren’t in the Eurozone so tighter fiscal rules don’t apply!

What type of country is going to offer us a better deal than we would have got in the EU?

Hunt saying it will be a european effort to protect our ships, is just another attempt to undermine Brexit. It's good to have everyone's support, thus what meigh ours are for, but we shod be capable of protecting our own ships on our own. The response from Hi t is a typical limp twisted effort, and shows why he would have been a disaster as tory leader.
You cant treat with reasonable people, when they are unreasonable the only thing they understand is strength. We aren't weak, but at the same we are only as strong as our leadership.
Countries that feel they are getting a poor deal off europe will flock to Britain if they think they can get a better deal. It's about making profit, not the size of the profit. There are opportunities there to be grabbed.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You don't know. You're not willing to even speculate, yet you're willing to speculate, without any supporting evidence, that we will be able to make better deals.

You're very selective when it comes to what you're willing to speculate on, aren't you? This is why i asked the question. Not for a "bite", because I knew you had **** all with which to back up your assertion.

And you have **** all to back up your claim that the country will be a loser overall, just speculation.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Hunt saying it will be a european effort to protect our ships, is just another attempt to undermine Brexit. ...

Colburn_Claret wrote:And you have **** all to back up your claim that the country will be a loser overall, just speculation.

Basic ******* negotiation theory. If you have less to offer then you have less to negotiate with. I think even the most pig-**** thick brexiteers can grasp that fact.

dsr wrote:Free trade deals aren't about "how much can we screw them for and how much can they screw out of us". Hopefully. Free trade, which most of us appear to be in favour of, are MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. A good trade deal will be profitable for us and profitable for the other side.

We have not been able to negotiate a sensible deal with the EU, principally because the EU is determined to ensure that a free trade deal is not profitable for us - ie. not mutually beneficial. As both leavers and remainers have pointed out, the EU feels it has to be seen to punish the country that wants to leave, because of we do well out of it, the other countries might vote to leave as well. Hence, no free trade deal unless it's on punishing terms - so punishing, in fact, that even the pro-Remain House of Commons won't go for it.

And if you are trying to make out that joining the EEC in 1973 was what caused the recovery from being the "sick man of Europe", think again. Wilson's and Callaghan's governments made the economy worse; it was while Healey was Chancellor that we needed the loan form the IMF, the stringent currency restrictions a la USSR, and the 101% top rate tax. The winter of discontent was 1878-9. Thatcher's government in 1979 was what got a grip on the financial crisis.

This is often said - that the EU is "determined to ensure that a free trade deal is not profitable for us" and other similar things, when the EU has never said that. They've said they can't have Britain conclude a deal that has the benefits of membership without the obligations. That isn't in any way unreasonable. That some people have to twist that into "the EU is out to screw us over" is quite sad. I can understand why - you have to make the EU a bogeyman, and do what you can to polarise the debate - but it suggests your arguments don't stand up without having to embellish them.

AndrewJB wrote:This is often said - that the EU is "determined to ensure that a free trade deal is not profitable for us" and other similar things, when the EU has never said that. They've said they can't have Britain conclude a deal that has the benefits of membership without the obligations. That isn't in any way unreasonable. That some people have to twist that into "the EU is out to screw us over" is quite sad. I can understand why - you have to make the EU a bogeyman, and do what you can to polarise the debate - but it suggests your arguments don't stand up without having to embellish them.

Of course they haven't said that. They wouldn't, would they. They're legally obliged to negotiate in good faith, so they wouldn't be stupid enough to say they aren't doing. Obviously the fact that they haven't said it is proof of nothing; but their actions tell the story.

The benefits of membership, as far as the UK is concerned. is free trade. The rest of the EU's activity - the parliament, the political union, the CAP and CFP, the mooted EU army, etc - that is not a benefit, and that's why they're willing to let us out of most of those. But free trade is the big benefit, and it is mutual. The total amount imported from and exported to the EU by the UK, is the same amount as the total exports and imports to the UK by the EU. Agreeing free trade would have a mutual benefit worth the same in absolute terms to both sides.

But, of course, the EU is bigger by a factor of about 4. So if this free trade doesn't happen, the proportionate loss to the UK is four times the loss to the EU. And, as Lancaster has frequently pointed out, the EU will use its power and size to do down its smaller neighbour. Mutual benefit doesn't come into it.

nil_desperandum wrote:Don't know why I'm bothering, but my post was clearly about German right wing politicians and businessmen in the 30s assuming that they could just put the outsider Hitler into power for a brief time, before reverting to normality.
A lot of Brexiteers and Conservatives are making similar assumptions with the maverick Johnson.


So I'm not comparing Johnson to Hitler at all, but referencing the dangerous game that the Tory Party are playing in handing power to him despite all the evidence that he is completely unsuitable.

nil_desperandum wrote:So I'm not comparing Johnson to Hitler at all

No. Definitely not. No mention of Boris Johnson and Hitler in the same breath, whatsoever!








If Carlsberg did comparing Boris Johnson and Adolf Hitler .........

dsr wrote:Of course they haven't said that. They wouldn't, would they. They're legally obliged to negotiate in good faith, so they wouldn't be stupid enough to say they aren't doing. Obviously the fact that they haven't said it is proof of nothing; but their actions tell the story.

The benefits of membership, as far as the UK is concerned. is free trade. The rest of the EU's activity - the parliament, the political union, the CAP and CFP, the mooted EU army, etc - that is not a benefit, and that's why they're willing to let us out of most of those. But free trade is the big benefit, and it is mutual. The total amount imported from and exported to the EU by the UK, is the same amount as the total exports and imports to the UK by the EU. Agreeing free trade would have a mutual benefit worth the same in absolute terms to both sides.

But, of course, the EU is bigger by a factor of about 4. So if this free trade doesn't happen, the proportionate loss to the UK is four times the loss to the EU. And, as Lancaster has frequently pointed out, the EU will use its power and size to do down its smaller neighbour. Mutual benefit doesn't come into it.

We will be fine America will share the spoils from Irans oil once the war gets underway.

Nothing to worry about at all.

Bfcboyo wrote:We will be fine America will share the spoils from Irans oil once the war gets underway.

Nothing to worry about at all.

Ah yes. I remember how the Iraq war was going to pay for itself. How'd that work out?

Stop throwing the fly back at the bank . Come on play fair and get in the landing net.

RingoMcCartney wrote:

No. Definitely not. No mention of Boris Johnson and Hitler in the same breath, whatsoever!








If Carlsberg did comparing Boris Johnson and Adolf Hitler .........

What are you comparing Boris Johnson to Hitler for, Ringo?

I mean, you’ve mentioned them both in the same sentence, so that must be what you’re doing, right?

And I must be comparing you to both of them in my opening sentence to this post, right?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Basic ******* negotiation theory. If you have less to offer then you have less to negotiate with. I think even the most pig-**** thick brexiteers can grasp that fact.

We dont have less to offer.
We are the 3rd largest economy in Europe.
We account for about a 5th of Europes exports.
They export more to Britsin, than they import.
We shove 39billion into their coffers.


They dont want to stop trading with us, and they dont want to lose that 39billion, because it leaves a hole they cannot fill. They cant take that 5th of trade and send it elsewhere, and germany and france cant replace the 39billion. We have lots of room for negotiations. If you cant understand that then.........


Apart from trading what are they offering us that we would lose.
A single army, we dont want it
Open borders, we dont want it
European Court of Justice, we dont want it
Tighter fiscal controls, we dont want it
Undemocratically elected leaders, we dont want it

Except today we're getting an undemocratically elected leader.

I don’t really understand the negativity around a European armed forces. Our armed forces have been systematically dismantled by successive governments and is no longer fit for purpose, as a fighting force.

Perhaps a European force would be a good option.

I want open borders. You don’t.

Democracy, as mentioned above by C&J what’s democratic about the arrival of Boris, and previously Theresa May and Gordon Brown. Democracy is only any good if politicians can be held to account, whether they’re elected or not.

Things need changing in the EU as Macron has said, but for me it is a worthwhile institution.

You do know that one fifth is only 20%.

I’m sure that the Europeans will have some ideas on how to replace the 39 billion, and most probably at our expense.

Heathclaret wrote:
Democracy, as mentioned above by C&J what’s democratic about the arrival of Boris, and previously Theresa May and Gordon Brown. Democracy is only any good if politicians can be held to account, whether they’re elected or not.

We can hold them to account at the next election. The new leader does a poor job and we can vote to remove them and their party. We, as individuals, cannot directly hold the EU leadership to account.

burnleymik wrote:We can hold them to account at the next election. The new leader does a poor job and we can vote to remove them and their party. We, as individuals, cannot directly hold the EU leadership to account.

Please tell me how I, as an individual, can get rid of Boris Johnson and the Tories. I live in a constituency with a Labour MP who I voted for at the last election.

burnleymik wrote:We can hold them to account at the next election. The new leader does a poor job and we can vote to remove them and their party. We, as individuals, cannot directly hold the EU leadership to account.

That’s not quite true though is it. All politicians lie and make pledges they don’t keep.

Even if you do vote for change in an election, the Uk system of constituencies still favours one party, and in all honesty as Brian Walden once said, both sides of the house want the status quo to continue, that way they can line their pockets. This belief that you get want you want when you vote is naive.

The way democracy is thrown around as some yardstick of fairness is ridiculous. The will of the majority forced upon the minority, no matter how small the difference is not “ fair “ is it really.


The choices on offer in the Houses of Parliament, apart from the new leader of the Liberals, I don’t know much about her, makes me think that having an alternative is not really a bad idea.

Were people genuinely that bothered about being in Europe? Until that nuisance Farage started stirring it up with the help of the Sun, Mail and Express nobody was that arsed. The Tories panicked and the rest his history. Yet it seems to some to be Labours fault? And if you believe the smear campaign being waged against Corbyn, well, we will just keep having to put up with the Tories. Not the best outcome for ordinary people.

Colburn_Claret wrote:We dont have less to offer.
We are the 3rd largest economy in Europe.
We account for about a 5th of Europes exports.
They export more to Britsin, than they import.
We shove 39billion into their coffers.


They dont want to stop trading with us, and they dont want to lose that 39billion, because it leaves a hole they cannot fill. They cant take that 5th of trade and send it elsewhere, and germany and france cant replace the 39billion. We have lots of room for negotiations. If you cant understand that then.........


Apart from trading what are they offering us that we would lose.
A single army, we dont want it
Open borders, we dont want it
European Court of Justice, we dont want it
Tighter fiscal controls, we dont want it
Undemocratically elected leaders, we dont want it

Does the same not apply to us? We can't take that 45% of trade (I assume you mean exports here) and send it elsewhere? Or are we different?

Greenmile wrote:What are you comparing Boris Johnson to Hitler for, Ringo?

I mean, you’ve mentioned them both in the same sentence, so that must be what you’re doing, right?

And I must be comparing you to both of them in my opening sentence to this post, right?

Only an uneducated, illiterate clown would attempt to claim I'm the one comparing Boris Johnson to Hitler, Greenmile.

However, I'm willing to use your own logic, and the words "Greenmile" and "uneducated illiterate clown" are all mentioned in the previous sentence.

Try doing the maths.

You've proven English isn't your strong subject

RingoMcCartney wrote:Only an uneducated, illiterate clown would attempt to claim I'm the one comparing Boris Johnson to Hitler, Greenmile.

Physician, heal thyself.

martin_p wrote:Physician, heal thyself.

Poor.

Heathclaret wrote:That’s not quite true though is it. All politicians lie and make pledges they don’t keep.

It is though, if the new leader makes a mess of it and the voting public agree, they will lose a large vote share and ultimately their job. I can cast my vote, directly to help bring that about. I can do nothing directly about Junker, Tusk and Co. I mean just look at how Selmayr got his position and the power he has and then come back and try and argue the EU is not corrupt and is democratic.

Announcement at 11.45am.

Well, like most political guff that has been and gone without anything happening.

I'd love it now if JH got it

The odds you'd have got on Trump as POTUS and Boris as PM by the end of 2019 10 years ago, my word

Stop sucking each others cocks and get on with it.

It's Boris, we're sunk.

Boris wins it.

That was a shock result.

Boris 92,153
Hunt 46,656

Mother of God
Boris and Donald leaders of the western world
All we need now is Joe Pasquale to be next leader of Germany

Will those who voted Hunt and lost accept the result ?

Will those who voted for De Pfeffel claim that any criticism of him is an attempt to overturn the result?

They'll need to put their wellies on before leaving.

Strap yourselves in.

No standing, and keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times.

Its going to be a wild ride

Brilliant news really pleased for Boris.

Onwards and upwards. At least we now have a Prime minister who is on our side, not trying to be neutral between UK and EU. A vote for the optimists.

It'll be interesting to see what Parliament does now. If Hammond and friends do bring down the government, as they appear to want to, I presume they will be chucked out of the party? Is that the convention? Has it even happened before?

Buckle up people...

I think it's now fairly obvious that if we leave without a deal it'll be the end of the UK as we know it. I suspect Boris does too.

Just watching the news, I hope one of 1st things he does is shoot those noisy shouty 2hats outside parliament

dsr wrote:Onwards and upwards. At least we now have a Prime minister who is on our side, not trying to be neutral between UK and EU. A vote for the optimists.

It'll be interesting to see what Parliament does now. If Hammond and friends do bring down the government, as they appear to want to, I presume they will be chucked out of the party? Is that the convention? Has it even happened before?

Boris Johnson is on Boris Johnson’s side, no one else’s.