CardyTheClaret wrote:I always thought despite being a bit of a cocky, argumentative **** you were actually quite bright.

Why is it that you people can't ever explain your opinion? I've got beinright telling me i've got numbers wrong but he can't tell me how, and now you telling me i've done something wrong in a post, but you can't tell me how either. Are you both just trolls?

Tell the truth, you think i've criticised the BXP idiot for calling other people idiots and traitors, don't you? That's what you think i've done, because you can't read. Isn't it? What you've done is mistaken my criticism of his hypocrisy for criticism of his language, because that's just how bright you are.

martin_p wrote:Of course if you add ‘self confessed liar’ to the bottom then the rest of it becomes questionable.

I could also add , "regular Marty slayer".

Ain't that the truth!

RingoMcCartney wrote:I could also add , "regular Marty slayer".

Ain't that the truth!

You'll find that was already covered in Martin's post

CardyTheClaret wrote:I always thought despite being a bit of a cocky, argumentative **** you were actually quite bright.

It'd be unfair to label him a complete idiot.


There are bits missing.

RingoMcCartney wrote:It'd be unfair to label him a complete idiot.


There are bits missing.

This was actually funny, which means you obviously didn't come up with it.

Devils_Advocate wrote:You'll find that was already covered in Martin's post

Glory is something Marty is seldom covered in.

aggi wrote: For those who are curious, here is Ringo's CV. I'm not really sure why he decided to post it:

Ringo McCartney - passed 11plus. Grammar school educated. HNC with 95 ish% distinctions in all modules. 2.1 in business management. Former independent and tied financial advisor dealing with high net worth clients. Qualified to give advice on pensions, mortgages, savings and lump sum investments for the medium to long term.

Greenmile was indeed wrong. Mortgage advisor was only one of the many strings to Ringo's bow.

That's how you indulge your fetish about part of my career! Think of all the time you could have spent trawling back to find a single post I made. And you'd have been far more accurate to boot!

Greenmile wrote:You missed “one of the feckers at the bottom”.

Instead you ended up being schooled. By one of your fellow remoaners!

Imploding Turtle wrote:This was actually funny, which means you obviously didn't come up with it.

A "shooting yourself in the foot" post , if ever I saw one.

I thought this was the funnier quip-

You once asked , while stood inside it, whether a lift was going up or down.


You got it wrong.



Despite having two guesses!........

AndrewJB wrote:I would argue that pretty much every leave scenario is worse than remaining, but at least with Labour's deal you can vote on it. Nobody else is offering a referendum on their deal.

No a clean break Brexit is the very best option.

RingoMcCartney wrote:I'm saying you wont be going in a voting booth in Burnley. You're a metropolitan bubble dweller.

You have no dog in this fight.

Good thing for Burnley that Peter Pike - a Londoner - wasn't told to push off because he wasn't local.

Back to Julie Cooper (as Burnley born and with relatives still there, I have an interest). what in her voting record do you disagree with?

AndrewJB wrote:Good thing for Burnley that Peter Pike - a Londoner - wasn't told to push off because he wasn't local.

Back to Julie Cooper (as Burnley born and with relatives still there, I have an interest). what in her voting record do you disagree with?

She was instructed to support Brexit by her Burnley electorate and she ignored them - 'I know what's good for Burnley and my opinion/decision is more important than yours' - She will feel the full democratic consequence of her inaction on Dec 12th.

Mala591 wrote:She was instructed to support Brexit by her Burnley electorate and she ignored them - 'I know what's good for Burnley and my opinion/decision is more important than yours' - She will feel the full democratic consequence of her inaction on Dec 12th.

So Burnley supports the two deals that have been put before Parliament then? No chance for the Brexit Party if they do.

Mala591 wrote:She was instructed to support Brexit by her Burnley electorate and she ignored them - 'I know what's good for Burnley and my opinion/decision is more important than yours' - She will feel the full democratic consequence of her inaction on Dec 12th.

Support any old Brexit that comes before the house? Labour have been fairly clear about the kind of Brexit they'd support, and neither May nor Johnson have brought such a deal before the house.

AndrewJB wrote:Support any old Brexit that comes before the house? Labour have been fairly clear about the kind of Brexit they'd support, and neither May nor Johnson have brought such a deal before the house.

Labour want to maintain the benefits of the single market. That means freedom of movement. The useless Cooper will know full well the majority of her constituents voted for brexit because they want to end to freedom of movement.

taio wrote:Labour want to maintain the benefits of the single market. That means freedom of movement. The useless Cooper will know full well the majority of her constituents voted for brexit because they want to end to freedom of movement.

How do you know this? Genuine question as I'm guessing there must have been a survey or poll that showed it. Also (another genuine question), how has freedom of movement negatively impacted on Burnley?

I would think it not hard for someone to work out that Cooper would not need any further surveys or polls to tell her what the majority of the 66% of her leaver constituents wanted in terms of Brexit.
To think otherwise would be incredibly naive and I don't see how whether freedom of movement has affected Burnley or not has got anything to do with it.
Why can't some people work it out that Cooper was following Labour Party policy which is greatly at odds with the public

Cooper is a remainer.
When she knocked at my door she lost her cool and was rude and unprofessional .
I only asked her if she would give me a Referendum on Europe.

Just glad I have another party to vote for now.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why is it that you people can't ever explain your opinion? I've got beinright telling me i've got numbers wrong but he can't tell me how, and now you telling me i've done something wrong in a post, but you can't tell me how either. Are you both just trolls?

Tell the truth, you think i've criticised the BXP idiot for calling other people idiots and traitors, don't you? That's what you think i've done, because you can't read. Isn't it? What you've done is mistaken my criticism of his hypocrisy for criticism of his language, because that's just how bright you are.

That’s not what I was on about, but here’s a clue...you’ve just done it again in that post. Have a re-read.

Can she play a central midfield role?

CardyTheClaret wrote:That’s not what I was on about, but here’s a clue...you’ve just done it again in that post. Have a re-read.

Nah. I'm not interesed any more. I was, initially, because i was willing to discuss it with you. But you're choosing to be a prick, so i'll let you be you.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've got beinright telling me i've got numbers wrong but he can't tell me how...

won't*

Imploding Turtle wrote:Nah. I'm not interesed any more. I was, initially, because i was willing to discuss it with you. But you're choosing to be a prick, so i'll let you be you.

Since calling you out for being a hypocrite you’ve called me a coward, told me I can’t read, questioned my intelligence and called me a prick. All the while proving my point. Hardly basis for a discussion, is it?

CardyTheClaret wrote:Since calling you out for being a hypocrite you’ve called me a coward, told me I can’t read, questioned my intelligence and called me a prick. All the while proving my point. Hardly basis for a discussion, is it?

None of that is hypocrisy.

And i was willing to have a discussion, at first. My initial reply was more than reasonable. But if you tell someone that there's something wrong in their post, and then refuse to explain your opinion then i think it's you who has demonstrated an unwillingness for discussion in the first place.

If you want to go back to the beginning and explain what you think is wrong with my post we can do that. But I think we both know that's not going to happen, because you're not interested in a discussion. You never were.

Barry_Chuckle wrote:Can she play a central midfield role?

She'd be more suited to the left wing.

Imploding Turtle wrote:None of that is hypocrisy.

And i was willing to have a discussion, at first. My initial reply was more than reasonable. But if you tell someone that there's something wrong in their post, and then refuse to explain your opinion then i think it's you who has demonstrated an unwillingness for discussion in the first place.

If you want to go back to the beginning and explain what you think is wrong with my post we can do that. But I think we both know that's not going to happen, because you're not interested in a discussion. You never were.

“i've criticised the BXP idiot for calling other people idiots”

Elizabeth wrote:I would think it not hard for someone to work out that Cooper would not need any further surveys or polls to tell her what the majority of the 66% of her leaver constituents wanted in terms of Brexit.
To think otherwise would be incredibly naive and I don't see how whether freedom of movement has affected Burnley or not has got anything to do with it.
Why can't some people work it out that Cooper was following Labour Party policy which is greatly at odds with the public

If freedom of movement hasn’t negatively impacted Burnley, then why would “most” Burnley leave voters be concerned by it? Perhaps the ones you know feel it’s an important issue, but others don’t?

CardyTheClaret wrote:“i've criticised the BXP idiot for calling other people idiots”

Now you're resorting to dishonestly quoting me out of context

AndrewJB wrote:I would argue that pretty much every leave scenario is worse than remaining, but at least with Labour's deal you can vote on it. Nobody else is offering a referendum on their deal.

Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

Imagine if there had been a referendum about the Long Side Stand - "Do you want to leave it as it is or to tear it down and replace it?". And if the vote had gone in favour of tearing it down and replacing it, Labour could come along with a "confirmatory referendum" - asking the question "When you said "tear it down and replace it", did you mean "leave it up" or did you mean "tear it down and replace it with an identical copy". The "tear it down" voters might feel short changed.

dsr wrote:Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

Imagine if there had been a referendum about the Long Side Stand - "Do you want to leave it as it is or to tear it down and replace it?". And if the vote had gone in favour of tearing it down and replacing it, Labour could come along with a "confirmatory referendum" - asking the question "When you said "tear it down and replace it", did you mean "leave it up" or did you mean "tear it down and replace it with an identical copy". The "tear it down" voters might feel short changed.

You need to work on your analogies

dsr wrote:Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

[CITATION NEEDED]

TVC15 wrote:You need to work on your analogies

Where as, your put downs are , obviously, very much, a work in progress.

dsr wrote:Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

Imagine if there had been a referendum about the Long Side Stand - "Do you want to leave it as it is or to tear it down and replace it?". And if the vote had gone in favour of tearing it down and replacing it, Labour could come along with a "confirmatory referendum" - asking the question "When you said "tear it down and replace it", did you mean "leave it up" or did you mean "tear it down and replace it with an identical copy". The "tear it down" voters might feel short changed.

A fait point , well made.

Imploding Turtle wrote:
[CITATION NEEDED]

Here's a citation, for people who struggle with small print.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tom Edgington of BBC Reality Check wrote:What would a Labour Leave option look like?
Mr Corbyn says Labour will negotiate a Brexit deal which maintains a very close trading relationship with the EU. This would be achieved by staying in a customs union and keeping close alignment to the single market.

That would mean the UK would be able to continue trading with the EU without tariffs (taxes on imports) being applied.

It would also reduce the need for checks, making it less likely that an Irish backstop would be needed. The Irish border problem has been a major sticking point for Brexit.

However, being in a customs union would prevent the UK from striking its own trade deals with other countries on goods, such as the US.

RingoMcCartney wrote:Where as, your put downs are , obviously, very much, a work in progress.

Hardly required for you though eh Wrongo ?
We just sit here and watch you make a tit of yourself trying to spell difficult words like “fair”.

(Emoji of me laughing at my own jokes)

dsr wrote:Here's a citation, for people who struggle with small print.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you lied. Again. As usual.

dsr wrote:Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

the BBC article you linked that proved you're full of **** wrote:If an election is called, Labour says it would go into a campaign arguing for a new public vote on Brexit.

If it won the election and held another referendum, voters would be able to choose between a "credible Leave option" and Remain. However, there is internal disagreement about for which side Labour should campaign.

Mr Corbyn wants the party to remain neutral while it spends up to three months negotiating a new Brexit deal. The party would organise a referendum within six months and decide which position to back at a special conference.

So Labour are saying that there will be a referendum between Brexit with a deal, and remain. That's not rigged. You're upset because it won't include a No Deal option, but that's just tough ****. If you extremists wanted a No Deal option then you shouldn't have campaigned 3 years ago for Brexit with a deal, you should have campaigned for a hard, no deal brexit instead of lying about your intentions.

Maybe if this all comes to pass and we choose to Remain you should campaign for a new referendum, and maybe that time you'll not lie to us about the kind of Brexit you're trying to achieve.

Is it correct to refer to labour offering a Brexit deal , this tarting up what is being offered is what caused this mess in the first place because the referendum was always supposed to be about remain or no-deal Brexit.

We are being offered the following by voting for Julie:

- Remain in the EU as an EEA member with voting rights on the regulations applied
- Leave the EU but remain an EEA member with no voting rights on the regulations applied

This in itself starts a debate on whether the current deal where we can decide the regulations applied to us or labours deal where we can't is better than either a no deal Brexit or remaining.

Out of choosing between no deal Brexit, the current deal, remain and labours deal, I would say that labour's deal is the worst option of the lot.

*edited to replace EEC with EEA.

SingaporeClarets wrote:Is it correct to refer to labour offering a Brexit deal , this tarting up what is being offered is what caused this mess in the first place because the referendum was always supposed to be about remain or no-deal Brexit.

We are being offered the following by voting for Julie:

- Remain in the EU as an EEC member with voting rights on the regulations applied
- Leave the EU but remain an EEC member with no voting rights on the regulations applied

This in itself starts a debate on whether the current deal where we can decide the regulations applied to us or labours deal where we can't is better than either a no deal Brexit or remaining.

Out of choosing between no deal Brexit, the current deal, remain and labours deal, I would say that labour's deal is the worst option of the lot.

This just shows how nonsensical and pointless this failed project has always been.

We start from the position of wanting a clean break from the EU. Leave with no deal. But the consequences of that are so severe that no sane government would ever do it. It's the demented option.

So then we start to move towards a position of leaving with some sort of deal in an orderly fashion. But the more these deals and options are scrutinised, it becomes clear that all of these options are worse than our current membership.

So then we move towards a position of looking at the softest possible Brexit. Single market access, freedom of movement, customs union, ECJ oversight etc.

And the question then quickly becomes: 'What's the point in leaving?'

And the answer is, there isn't one. There never was any point.

Strip away all the politics and emotion and full EU membership has always been the best thing for the UK by a country mile.

dsr wrote:Yes, but Labour's vote is rigged so that you can't vote against the EU. Labour's proposal is that you can vote with a choice of staying in the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions, or leaving the EU and abiding by its rules and restrictions. They are not giving an option of leaving the EU and leaving behind its rules and restrictions.

Imagine if there had been a referendum about the Long Side Stand - "Do you want to leave it as it is or to tear it down and replace it?". And if the vote had gone in favour of tearing it down and replacing it, Labour could come along with a "confirmatory referendum" - asking the question "When you said "tear it down and replace it", did you mean "leave it up" or did you mean "tear it down and replace it with an identical copy". The "tear it down" voters might feel short changed.

What do you expect? Johnson hasn't offered us a deal in which we remain in the customs union, and no confirmatory referendum either. If the Tories form the next government then this is what we're going to get, just like if Labour forms the next government (or the LibDems do), you're not going to get the brexit that you want.

Don't forget though - your part has been in power the whole time since the referendum, and it has failed to get it over the line. You only have them to blame.

SingaporeClarets wrote:Is it correct to refer to labour offering a Brexit deal , this tarting up what is being offered is what caused this mess in the first place because the referendum was always supposed to be about remain or no-deal Brexit.

We are being offered the following by voting for Julie:

- Remain in the EU as an EEC member with voting rights on the regulations applied
- Leave the EU but remain an EEC member with no voting rights on the regulations applied

This in itself starts a debate on whether the current deal where we can decide the regulations applied to us or labours deal where we can't is better than either a no deal Brexit or remaining.

Out of choosing between no deal Brexit, the current deal, remain and labours deal, I would say that labour's deal is the worst option of the lot.

Those campaigning for leave never coalesced around a single leave vision, but instead offered whatever kind of leave the listener wanted to hear. Had they campaigned on a hard "cut all ties" brexit, they would never have won.

AndrewJB wrote:How do you know this? Genuine question as I'm guessing there must have been a survey or poll that showed it. Also (another genuine question), how has freedom of movement negatively impacted on Burnley?

I'm not aware of a poll. It's based on the many conversations I've had locally which will be a statistically significant sample. It's very well known in the town that many people want more control of our borders including reducing immigration by stopping freedom of movement. You need to ask others how they feel freedom of movement has negatively impacted on them because I didn't vote against it. But I respect the people who did vote for such reasons and I think it's wrong that Cooper hasn't backed her constituents, or Brexit aside hasn't done anything positive at a local level.

Imploding Turtle wrote:He also voted against marriage equality, so he can go **** himself.

No. The bill passed. So he can **** who he likes now.

JohnMcGreal wrote:This just shows how nonsensical and pointless this failed project has always been.

We start from the position of wanting a clean break from the EU. Leave with no deal. But the consequences of that are so severe that no sane government would ever do it. It's the demented option.

So then we start to move towards a position of leaving with some sort of deal in an orderly fashion. But the more these deals and options are scrutinised, it becomes clear that all of these options are worse than our current membership.

So then we move towards a position of looking at the softest possible Brexit. Single market access, freedom of movement, customs union, ECJ oversight etc.

And the question then quickly becomes: 'What's the point in leaving?'

And the answer is, there isn't one. There never was any point.

Strip away all the politics and emotion and full EU membership has always been the best thing for the UK by a country mile.

Which begs the question - why are Labour pushing their deal as a serious option when to quote the great Stan, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that it's better to be an EEA member inside the EU than an EEA member outside the EU.

There's plenty of people here giving reasons for leaving the EU so I can understand parties pushing for Brexit but can anyone give me a reason to stay in the EEA but leave the EU? It just seems like a big con job from Labour for delivering Brexit but surely Brexit means leaving the EEA?

*Edited to replace EEC with EEA

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you lied. Again. As usual.

So Labour are saying that there will be a referendum between Brexit with a deal, and remain. That's not rigged. You're upset because it won't include a No Deal option, but that's just tough ****. If you extremists wanted a No Deal option then you shouldn't have campaigned 3 years ago for Brexit with a deal, you should have campaigned for a hard, no deal brexit instead of lying about your intentions.

Maybe if this all comes to pass and we choose to Remain you should campaign for a new referendum, and maybe that time you'll not lie to us about the kind of Brexit you're trying to achieve.

I think perhaps the dictionary definition of "lie" should be redefined as "does not agree with imploding turtle's opinion". My opinion is that Labour's suggested referendum is rigged. You disagree. But I don't say "turtle is a liar because he disagrees with my opinion", because I'm not you.

I haven't even called you a liar for all your massively stupid bilge about statistics on the election thread. You say yourself that you don't understand percentages, and then you play fast and loose with the mathematical rules of percentages and stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I'm right, I'm right" when someone who does understand percentages (ie. me) tells you what's wrong. That's not lying. It's stupidity, but not lying. You aren't a liar just because you disagree with someone. try reverting to the dictionary definition of lying instead of your Humpty-Dumpty definition.

SingaporeClarets wrote:Which begs the question - why are Labour pushing their deal as a serious option when to quote the great Stan, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that it's better to be an EEC member inside the EU than an EEC member outside the EU.

There's plenty of people here giving reasons for leaving the EU so I can understand parties pushing for Brexit but can anyone give me a reason to stay in the EEC but leave the EU? It just seems like a big con job from Labour for delivering Brexit but surely Brexit means leaving the EEC?

Do you mean EEA or EFTA? The EEC hasn't been a thing for many years.

Anyone voting, with only leaving Europe in mind, is not considering the future wellbeing of the masses.

I'm sure Ian you meant to include, but forgot , those voters who will vote with the only intention of remaining in the EU. That would be right?

Charlie Briggs is going to stand. Seriously good proposition.

AndrewJB wrote:Good thing for Burnley that Peter Pike - a Londoner - wasn't told to push off because he wasn't local.

Back to Julie Cooper (as Burnley born and with relatives still there, I have an interest). what in her voting record do you disagree with?

I reckon that the subsequent responses to the above post, despite your sad , but, nevertheless , desperate sounding "I got out of Burnley yonks ago but I'm still clinging on to portraying myself as actually giving a toss about the place" garbage.

Tells you all you need to know about how you've been rumbled.

TVC15 wrote:Hardly required for you though eh Wrongo ?
We just sit here and watch you make a tit of yourself trying to spell difficult words like “fair”.

(Emoji of me laughing at my own jokes)

At 1.24 am in the morning that's as good as I'd expect from you.

However, its still a fail from me!

dsr wrote:I think perhaps the dictionary definition of "lie" should be redefined as "does not agree with imploding turtle's opinion". My opinion is that Labour's suggested referendum is rigged. You disagree. But I don't say "turtle is a liar because he disagrees with my opinion", because I'm not you.

I haven't even called you a liar for all your massively stupid bilge about statistics on the election thread. You say yourself that you don't understand percentages, and then you play fast and loose with the mathematical rules of percentages and stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I'm right, I'm right" when someone who does understand percentages (ie. me) tells you what's wrong. That's not lying. It's stupidity, but not lying. You aren't a liar just because you disagree with someone. try reverting to the dictionary definition of lying instead of your Humpty-Dumpty definition.

You misrepresented the facts. The only part that's opinion is whether you did it deliberately, and knowing how much you do this **** i'm of the opinion it was intended.

Just look at how you've accused me of saying that i don't understand percentages. This **** happens so much with you that it can't be accidental.