Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Jakubclaret]

All the above may be true, (though I think most people would say that giving 70,000 as a broad figure for 73,000 is not unreasonable), but it isn't relevant at all to the charge you made against me, (i.e. not trustworthy over figures) when - in fact - I corrected Andrew's figure and quoted the official sources for both sets of figures.

None of the official figures on record hold any merit in my view as their don't include any illegal people, I view them as a rough guideline. I was only jesting earlier, but in accountancy you do need to be really accurate as a note of consideration that's all I'll say.

[taio]

You're obviously correct.
But it's listed as 73,000 so I don't think that it's a massive error or deliberately misleading for Andrew to round it down. (Clearly within the margins of error, but only IMO of course.

It's amusing you felt the need to pick out my one liner on the issue and then start googling away for population estimates. I can assure you statutory bodies don't use 70,000 or 73,000 as figures for Burnley's population. Why the hell should someone living in say Worsthorne not be counted as a Burnley resident when they pay their council tax to Burnley Council, are on the Burnley electoral register and, well you know, they live in Burnley.

[nil_desperandum]

It's amusing you felt the need to pick out my one liner on the issue and then start googling away for population estimates. I can assure you statutory bodies don't use 70,000 or 73,000 as figures for Burnley's population. Why the hell should someone living in say Worsthorne not be counted as a Burnley resident when they pay their council tax to Burnley Council, are on the Burnley electoral register and, well you know, they live in Burnley.

The figure of 73,000 is perfectly legitimate, (and is what is recorded in the 2011 census), and in fact I always use it when boasting about Burnley being a PL club.

"Population of less than 75,000 you know"

etc. etc.
I certainly didn't need to google to know Burnley population figures, and could give you figures for all the key years recording how it grew from around 10,000 in 1800 to around 140,000 at the outbreak of WW1.
There are 2 sets of figures though for most places and you always have to check which figures are being used
London is the most extreme example. Population less than 10,000, number of workers greater than 500,000, population of Greater London - approaching 9 million, (but again there are different figures for this depending on whether you include Parliamentary constituencies etc etc.)

[taio]

The figure of 73,000 is perfectly legitimate, (and is what is recorded in the 2011 census), and in fact I always use it when boasting about Burnley being a PL club. etc. etc.
I certainly didn't need to google to know Burnley population figures, and could give you figures for all the key years recording how it grew from around 10,000 in 1800 to around 140,000 at the outbreak of WW1.
There are 2 sets of figures though for most places and you always have to check which figures are being used
London is the most extreme example. Population less than 10,000, number of workers greater than 500,000, population of Greater London - approaching 9 million, (but again there are different figures for this depending on whether you include Parliamentary constituencies etc etc.)

70,000 isn't perfectly legitimate for two reasons. First it's incorrect. Second it doesn't include many people who live in Burnley. I'm sure public sector organisations don't plan public services based on Burnley having a population of 70,000 - I bet the two councils refer to a population of c87k and plan on that basis. But I'll leave it there because it's boring.

[nil_desperandum]

70,000 isn't perfectly legitimate for two reasons. First it's incorrect. Second it doesn't include many people who live in Burnley. I'm sure public sector organisations don't plan public services based on Burnley having a population of 70,000 - I bet the two councils refer to a population of c87k and plan on that basis. But I'll leave it there because it's boring.

Just to be clear. I never said 70,000 was. It says 73,000 in the 2011 census.
And I do agree with you on all the other points about Burnley BOROUGH Council etc.
(Incidentally there are many in Briercliffe, Cliviger, etc. who try to distance themselves from Burnley and who would never use Burnley in their address, [but that's a different point altogether] and has no impact on the official figures).

[martin_p]

As I said, keep believing, you have not stated any facts what so ever, but knock yourself out, you'll be right one day, the odds are on your side.

I've already told you what are facts,you just don't want to accept them and make your own narrative to suit your opinion, which of course you are allowed, the fact you're wrong is irrelevant. You'll also be saying we have not done Brexit next, along with some of your other, I'm in denial colleagues

So the fact that the withdrawal agreement allows for two one year extensions isn’t a fact then? The fact that Brexit wasn’t only delayed for ten months isn’t a fact then? The fact that Johnson has said he won’t extend the transition period isn’t a fact then? The fact that the May deal was voted against by many prominent remain MPs, including the current PM, isn’t a fact then?

Please enlighten me as to why.

[aggi]

You wouldn't be employing nil desperandum in a job that deals with figures in any rush, accountancy ect.

Didn't you spend half a dozen posts yesterday claiming that official figures were wrong?

[Jakubclaret]

Didn't you spend half a dozen posts yesterday claiming that official figures were wrong?

I've always maintained the official figures don't include illegal immigration, so on that basis it's guesswork any additions to the quoted figures, you & a few other posters seem to post, I also edited my post yesterday conceding the rise in non EU increases to be fair.

[Spijed]

This is utterly childish by the government!

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/ ... m8MikUyCf8

[Jakubclaret]

The museum should be content enough with the 40 million they receive in funding, should soften the blow she's considered to be unsuitable as a trustee.

[RingoMcCartney]

And this is what someone looks like when they confuse subjects being too complex to put to the electorate with the right to vote.

I asked you what opportunity does a general election give to the People of Burnley?

You said-

It allows them to choose someone whose job it will be to understand the complex and economical global issues and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for the people of Burnley.

I previously asked you if , you felt, they were informed enough to "choose one the various candidates, best placed to represent their interests?" To which you replied-

I suspect for the majority the answer is yes

So you clearly believe that the act of choosing an MP is not "too complex to put to the electorate"


When , in your opinion, did they make the right choice of choosing the candidate that would do the best job. Of "understanding the complex and economical global issues and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for the people of Burnley?"

2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019?

When did they get it right?

Hows about a deal!?

If you name the year(s) you feel they got it right. I'll do the same!

Deal!?

(Martin seems to be unable to type 4 numbers. Wonder if his number keys are playing up or something!?)

[RingoMcCartney]

"Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country..." You reckon?

Londoners have experienced levels of immigration far higher than places like Burnley. If immigration is a bad thing, as told to us by the rightwing media, why did London consistently vote against parties opposing immigration throughout the last thirty years?

Strange isn't it. You able to chip in a conversation I'm having with another poster easy enough. However, when I ask you a supplementary question you disappear!

I'll try again, with a subtley different question.

I previously asked you - "when did the people of Burnley demonstrate that they know what's best for the people of Burnley.?" Or when "did they vote in their best self interest?"


Now, I'm asking a less nuanced question.


In recent years , when did the people of Burnley elect an MP that in your opinion that would act in their best interests?

2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, or 2019?

When did they get it right?

Hows about a deal!?

If you name the year(s) you feel they got it right. I'll do the same!

Deal!?

[AndrewJB]

Strange isn't it. You able to chip in a conversation I'm having with another poster easy enough. However, when I ask you a supplementary question you disappear!

I'll try again, with a subtley different question.

I previously asked you - "when did the people of Burnley demonstrate that they know what's best for the people of Burnley.?" Or when "did they vote in their best self interest?"


Now, I'm asking a less nuanced question.


In recent years , when did the people of Burnley elect an MP that in your opinion that would act in their best interests?

2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, or 2019?

When did they get it right?

Hows about a deal!?

If you name the year(s) you feel they got it right. I'll do the same!

Deal!?

Londoners have experienced levels of immigration far higher than places like Burnley. If immigration is a bad thing, as told to us by the rightwing media, why did London consistently vote against parties opposing immigration throughout the last thirty years?

[aggi]

This seems kind of relevant at the moment

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -pandemic/

Good to see that the Government is prioritising the Brexit they want over the health of its citizens.

[martin_p]

I asked you what opportunity does a general election give to the People of Burnley?

You said-



I previously asked you if , you felt, they were informed enough to "choose one the various candidates, best placed to represent their interests?" To which you replied-



So you clearly believe that the act of choosing an MP is not "too complex to put to the electorate"


When , in your opinion, did they make the right choice of choosing the candidate that would do the best job. Of "understanding the complex and economical global issues and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for the people of Burnley?"

2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019?

When did they get it right?

Hows about a deal!?

If you name the year(s) you feel they got it right. I'll do the same!

Deal!?

(Martin seems to be unable to type 4 numbers. Wonder if his number keys are playing up or something!?)

I don’t know and I don’t really care. And if you think everyone is voting based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family you don’t really understand people.

[RingoMcCartney]

Londoners have experienced levels of immigration far higher than places like Burnley. If immigration is a bad thing, as told to us by the rightwing media, why did London consistently vote against parties opposing immigration throughout the last thirty years?

Did the people of london vote in their best interests?

Yes or no?

[RingoMcCartney]

I don’t know and I don’t really care. And if you think everyone is voting based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family you don’t really understand people.

I'm starting to think you either, dont understand democracy or you genuinely believe people are too thick to be allowed to vote!

You've already said an election

allows them to choose someone whose job it will be to understand the complex and economical global issues and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for the people of Burnley.

I asked you if they were informed enough to vote?

I suspect for the majority the answer is yes

So we agree, the People of Burnley arent thick, and are indeed, informed and knowledgeable enough to be able to to delegate the job of addressing "complex economical and global issues " on their behalf, to someone else , when they elect an MP. So that's good!

But now you're saying people arent actually voting "based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family " . You appear to believe that youknow more about why they're voting than they do!

So, given the people have recently chosen an MP from 3 different parties. When do you think they actually voted "based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family ?"

In 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 or 2019?

When did they get it right? They must have got it right at least once! Surely!?

When?

The deals still on! You name the year(s), and so will I .

[RingoMcCartney]

QUESTION - is there a higher prevalence of numerophobia in the left wing Rejoiner community than in the general population at large?

[martin_p]

I'm starting to think you either, dont understand democracy or you genuinely believe people are too thick to be allowed to vote!

You've already said an election



I asked you if they were informed enough to vote?



So we agree, the People of Burnley arent thick, and are indeed, informed and knowledgeable enough to be able to to delegate the job of addressing "complex economical and global issues " on their behalf, to someone else , when they elect an MP. So that's good!

But now you're saying people arent actually voting "based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family " . You appear to believe that youknow more about why they're voting than they do!

So, given the people have recently chosen an MP from 3 different parties. When do you think they actually voted "based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family ?"

In 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 or 2019?

When did they get it right? They must have got it right at least once! Surely!?

When?

The deals still on! You name the year(s), and so will I .

I’ve answered your question, if you don’t like the answer that’s your problem not mine. As for the reason people voted how they did, several posters on here admitted they voted on what they think is best for their family. There’s dozens of reasons people vote how they do. Traditional allegiance, class, what’s best for their family, what’s best for their constituency, what’s best for the country, etc. Can’t you grasp that simple fact (google it if you want some research to back it up). None of that means they aren’t informed.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’ve answered your question, if you don’t like the answer that’s your problem not mine. As for the reason people voted how they did, several posters on here admitted they voted on what they think is best for their family. There’s dozens of reasons people vote how they do. Traditional allegiance, class, what’s best for their family, what’s best for their constituency, what’s best for the country, etc. Can’t you grasp that simple fact (google it if you want some research to back it up). None of that means they aren’t informed.

You havent answered my straight forward question.

If you have , simply cut and paste or requote the post where you name a year or years

Why so reticent? Why are you finding it so, so problematic to simply name a year. When did the people of Burnley, who have recently chosen an MP from 3 different parties. When do you think they actually voted "based on what’s best for their constituency rather than what’s best for them and their family ?"

You appear to think that youve grasped "that simple fact". So when do you feel you found yourself thinking "I can see why they voted that way, this time"?

In 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 or 2019?

When did they get it right? They must have got it right at least once! Surely!?

When?

[martin_p]

I’ll repeat, I don’t know and I really don’t care.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’ll repeat, I don’t know and I really don’t care.

Youre good at repeating.

Now, if you could just repeat the post where you name the year you felt the people of Burnley actually knew what they were doing when they were informed enough to vote for the MP that best represented their own best interests please.

You did make that post didn't you!?

Or were you fibbing when you claimed you did?

[martin_p]

Youre good at repeating.

Now, if you could just repeat the post where you name the year you felt the people of Burnley actually knew what they were doing when they were informed enough to vote for the MP that best represented their own best interests please.

You did make that post didn't you!?

Or were you fibbing when you claimed you did?

Ok, as I’m bored I’ll take the time to keep this simple enough for you to understand.

You asked a question.

I gave an answer to that question, I.e. ‘I don’t know’.

You see if I don’t have the information to come up with a sensible answer I’ll admit it and not just make stuff up. If you want me to know the answer then I’d have to do some research and the second part of my answer (I.e. ‘I really don’t care’) should give you a clue as to the likelihood of that happening.

Now if you want to waste your time constantly asking me a question I’ve said I don’t know the answer to then that’s your prerogative. Don’t expect a different response though.

Edit - nice lack of self awareness on the ‘repeating’ comment by the way.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ok, as I’m bored I’ll take the time to keep this simple enough for you to understand.

You asked a question.

I gave an answer to that question, I.e. ‘I don’t know’.

You see if I don’t have the information to come up with a sensible answer I’ll admit it and not just make stuff up. If you want me to know the answer then I’d have to do some research and the second part of my answer (I.e. ‘I really don’t care’) should give you a clue as to the likelihood of that happening.

Now if you want to waste your time constantly asking me a question I’ve said I don’t know the answer to then that’s your prerogative. Don’t expect a different response though.

Edit - nice lack of self awareness on the ‘repeating’ comment by the way.

For somebody with an obvious interest in politics, you seem , for once , not to have an opinion on a very very simple point!

I would have thought that thered be no need what so ever, for you to do any research. On whether you felt that the people of Burnley had voted in their best interests , and you agreed with their choice!!! I've clearly credited you with far more intelligence than was due!!

Plus , you're numerophobia is clearly inhibiting your ability to type four numbers into a post.

So I'll ask you a nice broad question. A question that doesn't involve those nasty, scary numbers or" research"

Is their a town or a city where you can point to, say in the last 15 years, where you feel the constituents voted , at a general election, in their own best interests?

If you cant, it begs the question- "What's the point of democracy?"

(Talk about making it easy for someone!)

[TVC15]

Is there a medical term for being on the troll spectrum ?

[Zlatan]

Is there a medical term for being on the troll spectrum ?

Ringomentia

[RingoMcCartney]

Is there a medical term for being on the troll spectrum ?

No idea.

However, given I'm just asking 3 other posters when they feel the good folk of Burnley voted in their best self interests. I'm yet to get a straight forward answer, from people who aren't normally backward at coming forward with answers. I'm wondering if there's been an outbreak of doxophobia

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringomentia

I said I’m down south, not London. I agree that those in the cesspit of the big smoke are also very insular (generally)

I don’t think I’m qualified enough to answer your questions, but I will say that on balance democracy is the least bad option for running a country.

I didn't say you were from london. You said that Burnley folk were "insular". I simply said that in my opinion, Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country. Anyway.

"Democracy is the least bad option for running the country"

Given you said -

The dwellers of East Lancs are generally very insular and I would agree that to a large extent the people of Burnley don’t know what’s actually best for them."

It would seem that, given you feel they dont know what's best for themselves when they vote. There doesn't seem much point to democracy then?

Fair enough......

[TVC15]

There are many phobias, mentias, isms etc that could be used for you but doxophobia is definitely not one of them !

[Zlatan]

I didn't say you were from london. You said that Burnley folk were "insular". I simply said that in my opinion, Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country. Anyway.

"Democracy is the least bad option for running the country"

Given you said -



It would seem that, given you feel they dont know what's best for themselves when they vote. There doesn't seem much point to democracy then?

Fair enough......

been there, done that, now f off

[RingoMcCartney]

been there, done that, now f off

Route one personal abuse!

Classy.

[Zlatan]

Route one personal abuse!

Classy.

indeed - typical troll quotes the same post at least twice in a thread to garner a response - you did that, I replied to the troll

[RingoMcCartney]

indeed - typical troll quotes the same post at least twice in a thread to garner a response - you did that, I replied to the troll

Nobody put a gun to your head to make you post. Similarly, I'm not obliged to reply to you with anything new to say to you, when I dont feel you've got anything original to say to me!

Your attempt to take the moral high ground is always going to be a stretch. Given you joined in, with a sad , unimaginative single word that isn't actually a word, then personal abuse, using barely concealed foul language!.

[martin_p]

I'm not obliged to reply to you with anything new to say to you, when I dont feel you've got anything original to say to me!

I’m glad you understand this.

[ClaretAndJew]

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit- ... ssion=true

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m glad you understand this.

I do.

Martin " I only feel the people of Burnley, and the electorate as a whole, has ever ONLY voted for what's in their best interest. WHEN they vote in a way that I agree with. But I cannot and will not admit it!! I'll go round the houses, duck and dive, deflect, go off on silly tangents, claim an answer is "too complex," claim an answer needs "research". I'll say I'm bored. I'll claim I've already answered! But , because I know that an honest answer will paint me into a corner. Which makes it easy to highlight why my arrogant and sneering viewpoint, was one of the main reasons brexit came about in the first place . Why my side got battered at the general election. And why on the 31st of January, my side finally lost the arguement!! I will not answer!!!! "_p

No need to reply. As you know it's the truth, as do I......

[martin_p]

I do.

Martin " I only feel the people of Burnley, and the electorate as a whole, has ever ONLY voted for what's in their best interest. WHEN they vote in a way that I agree with. But I cannot and will not admit it!! I'll go round the houses, duck and dive, deflect, go off on silly tangents, claim an answer is "too complex," claim an answer needs "research". I'll say I'm bored. I'll claim I've already answered! But , because I know that an honest answer will paint me into a corner. Which makes it easy to highlight why my arrogant and sneering viewpoint, was one of the main reasons brexit came about in the first place . Why my side got battered at the general election. And why on the 31st of January, my side finally lost the arguement!! I will not answer!!!! "_p

No need to reply. As you know it's the truth, as do I......

Ah, now we get to the bottom of what you wanted me to say!

You seem to think they people should f Burnley’ are a single homogenous mass. They aren’t. They’ll all have their own reasons for voting, most of them nothing to do with what’s best for Burnley (they’re national elections after all) and there’ll be many different views amongst the people of Burnley as to what’s best for the town.

I always vote in general elections on what I consider best for the country based on my view of what I want the country to be. I don’t have a view on specifics around Burnley because as you know I don’t live there and haven’t done for a long time.

In your typical fashion to want to boil everything down to a simplistic question to make a simplistic point from your simplistic mind.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, now we get to the bottom of what you wanted me to say!

You seem to think they people should f Burnley’ are a single homogenous mass. They aren’t. They’ll all have their own reasons for voting, most of them nothing to do with what’s best for Burnley (they’re national elections after all) and there’ll be many different views amongst the people of Burnley as to what’s best for the town.

I always vote in general elections on what I consider best for the country based on my view of what I want the country to be. I don’t have a view on specifics around Burnley because as you know I don’t live there and haven’t done for a long time.

In your typical fashion to want to boil everything down to a simplistic question to make a simplistic point from your simplistic mind.

Yet you couldn't lower yourself to provide a simplistic 4 digit number!

You seem to think they people of Burnley’ are a single homogenous mass.

Wrong as wrong could be!!! I absolutely do not.

The fact they've voted for 3 different parties at in recent general elections. 4 if you include the EU parliamentary election last year. Proves they are informed, knowledgeable and more than capable of deciding who is best placed to represent their best interests in parliament.

They are not "a single homogeneous mass" blindly voting , sheep like , for the same party year in, year out. They, ( we) are far more politically savvy than the likes of you and the london centric political class are ever prepared to credit us for.

Finally,

I always vote in general elections on what I consider best for the country based on my view of what I want the country to be

And so do the people Burnley and loads of other towns in the North. It's not something that you and you alone do!!!

But when they have the audacity to vote in a way that enrages the left, europhiles, the political class and the London centric media, cos they didn't vote how they were expectedto. They "dont know what they were voting for" " they fell for lies," "they believe what the right wing media tells them"

You end up with the likes of you , Andrew JB, zlatan and Devils Advocate coming out with lofty sneering , pontificating, pronouncements like -

I would suggest that at a complex political and economically global level the people of Burnley really aren't the people who know whats best for Burnley.

As someone who has lived in various places across the UK I can categorically state that dwellers of East Lancs are generally very insular and I would agree that to al large extent the people of Burnley don’t know what’s actually best for themBurnley.[/b]

Well guess what!? They do!

And whether you like it or not, they like me, were on the winning side of the whole brexit debate.

The people of Burnley do know what's best for the people of Burnley

We've left. Get over it

[martin_p]

Yet you couldn't lower yourself to provide a simplistic 4 digit number!



Wrong as wrong could be!!! I absolutely do not.

The fact they've voted for 3 different parties at in recent general elections. 4 if you include the EU parliamentary election last year. Proves they are informed, knowledgeable and more than capable of deciding who is best placed to represent their best interests in parliament.

They are not "a single homogeneous mass" blindly voting , sheep like , for the same party year in, year out. They, ( we) are far more politically savvy than the likes of you and the london centric political class are ever prepared to credit us for.

Finally,



And so do the people Burnley and loads of other towns in the North. But when they have the audacity to vote in a way that engages the left, europhiles, the political class and the London centric media. They "dont know what they were voting for"

You end up with the likes of you , Andrew JB, zlatan and Devils Advocate coming out with lofty sneering , pontificating, pronouncements like -



Well guess what!? They do!

And whether you like it or not, they like me, were on the winning side of the whole brexit debate.

We've left. Get over it

I’d look up what ‘homogeneous mass’ means before you reply again. Sheep are more than capable of changing direction!

By the way, all I’ve said is that the electorate at large (that’s everyone not just Burnley just to simplify it for you) are generally informed enough to elect MPs but not generally informed enough to make complex political decisions (again, that’s everyone, not just in Burnley). It’s you that’s singled out this mythical homogeneous mass ‘the people of Burnley’.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’d look up what ‘homogeneous mass’ means before you reply again. Sheep are more than capable of changing direction!

By the way, all I’ve said is that the electorate at large (that’s everyone not just Burnley just to simplify it for you) are generally informed enough to elect MPs but not generally informed enough to make complex political decisions (again, that’s everyone, not just in Burnley). It’s you that’s singled out this mythical homogeneous mass ‘the people of Burnley’.

Stop rewriting history. I used the people of Burnley as an example of many of the towns across the north whose electorate did actually know what was best for them. You give the game away by claiming I see them as "homogeneous " You did read my last post didn't you!? I couldn't have made it more clear that I dont see them as homogeneous!

Where as, you let the mask slip with a sly dig at the people of Burnley with your " Sheep are more than capable of changing direction!". But theyre still "sheep" are they Martin!!!??

Old habits die hard dont they my lofty, holier than thou, more of a thinker, friend!!

Oh dear! Oh dear ! Oh dear!!

No wonder you wouldn't name a year! I winkled That Attitude out of you in the end though!

I shouldn't mock. That's the attitude that helped lead to the referendum result, the 2019 eu parliamentary election and general election result and us ultimately leaving the EU!




( I bet they weren't labelled "sheep" when they voted labour!!!!!)

[martin_p]

Stop rewriting history. I used the people of Burnley as an example of many of the towns across the north whose electorate did actually know what was best for them. You give the game away by claiming I see them as "homogeneous " You did read my last post didn't you!? I couldn't have made it more clear that I dont see them as homogeneous!

Where as, you let the mask slip with a sly dig at the people of Burnley with your " Sheep are more than capable of changing direction!". But theyre still "sheep" are they Martin!!!??

Old habits die hard dont they my lofty, holier than thou, more of a thinker, friend!!

Oh dear! Oh dear ! Oh dear!!

No wonder you wouldn't name a year! I winkled That Attitude out of you in the end though!

I shouldn't mock. That's the attitude that helped lead to the referendum result, the 2019 eu parliamentary election and general election result and us ultimately leaving the EU!




( I bet they weren't labelled "sheep" when they voted labour!!!!!)

You didn’t look up the definition of homogeneous then. Ah well I tried.

[aggi]

Some classic Ringo here. Complaining because someone won't play his pointless, reductionist game (whilst simultaneously refusing to answer the questions that are asked of him), not understanding a response and then getting all faux angry about someone repeating the concept that Ringo introduced into the discussion.

[RingoMcCartney]

You didn’t look up the definition of homogeneous then.

No need

Ah well I tried.

You did indeed. You tried to cover up what you truly think of people, like those in Burnley, and all over the north. Ended up comparing them to sheep! Their sin? For which they have to be looked down upon? Voting in their best interests!

[RingoMcCartney]

Some classic Ringo here. Complaining because someone won't play his pointless, reductionist game (whilst simultaneously refusing to answer the questions that are asked of him), not understanding a response and then getting all faux angry about someone repeating the concept that Ringo introduced into the discussion.

I did offer to name the years I thought the people ( that's "sheep" for you Martin!) of Burnley voted in a way that I felt showed they (we) knew what was best for the people of Burnley. But come on, given I asked the question first , and didn't get a single date from the 3 I asked. It's only fair that I dont show my hand unnecessarily is it?

Faux angry!! I cant help but smile while posters squirm and avoid answers that reveal what we already knew!!

Comedy gold!

[Spijed]

The government would rather put everyone's health at risk than be seen to be weak on Brexit. Absolutely pathetic!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -pandemic/

[martin_p]

The government would rather put everyone's health at risk than be seen to be weak on Brexit. Absolutely pathetic!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -pandemic/

Nothing should stand in the way of Brexit purity! Besides, I’ve heard the Coronavirus only infects remoaners, they’re the ones that like all that stuff from abroad.

[dsr]

The government would rather put everyone's health at risk than be seen to be weak on Brexit. Absolutely pathetic!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -pandemic/

No reason why this should be anything to do with a trade deal. Why don't we just join the EWRS, and many other European and EU institutions (eg. Interpol), on their own merits? It's not trade related.

[KateR]

So the fact that the withdrawal agreement allows for two one year extensions isn’t a fact then? The fact that Brexit wasn’t only delayed for ten months isn’t a fact then? The fact that Johnson has said he won’t extend the transition period isn’t a fact then? The fact that the May deal was voted against by many prominent remain MPs, including the current PM, isn’t a fact then?

Please enlighten me as to why.

Martin,
I made a statement you don't agree with and that is your prerogative, everything you have said are facts and no one has denied that except I would say the current PM is not or was note when he voted against the May deal a remain MP so that is not a fact. Yet I believe I understand what you are trying to say here.

I said that BJ and the Gov. or individuals in power to make these decisions did not, have not, say they will not however you wish to phrase it extend beyond the current deadline in to 2021. At the same time I have said IMO there will be an extension eventually, however I can't tell you it's a fact yet, just an opinion based on actual years of experience in leading negotiations over many years for numerous very large sums, all of them being in Billions. All of them took years of negotiating, all of them had extensions, the majority involved some form of intimidation from the opposite side.

However in these negotiations there was one well known (indeed they all were) company that threatened and because I told them that a particular clause was not and never would be acceptable they decided to cancel negotiations and went a different route, yet approx two years later approached me and requested to start talking again due to multiple reasons having gone wrong.

I mention the above only to try and put some context around why I believe what I do, as I feel I might actually know a little more than you do in this regard, negotiations that is.

What I did state, and what you took exception to, had absolutely nothing to do with the facts you state in your post, they are historical facts that I don't believe anyone is denying.

What I said is that the route cause of the stance that no extension will be given is due to all the delays by the HoC, I never mentioned which party I don't think because it was a collection of them including as you point out BJ at one point and many other Tory remainers. Said remainers are notably absent. The delays eventually caused further delays, as we needed a GE to try and sort out the HoC once and for all, consequently allowing the UK/EU to move to the second phase after completing Brexit. The years of MP's who agreed Article 50 at the beginning was the route cause of the delay, this in turn has compound the amount of time in between the Referendum and the start of Phase two and is a major factor in the present stance of no extension, walking away in June is negotiation tactic 101 and on the first page of the negotiation manual. You are in denial over this,that's fine, I get it, quote as many facts as you want around this, they are irrelevant, as is your belief as to why and what, I think what are facts we both agree on is where we are today.

[Jakubclaret]

Martin,
I made a statement you don't agree with and that is your prerogative, everything you have said are facts and no one has denied that except I would say the current PM is not or was note when he voted against the May deal a remain MP so that is not a fact. Yet I believe I understand what you are trying to say here.

I said that BJ and the Gov. or individuals in power to make these decisions did not, have not, say they will not however you wish to phrase it extend beyond the current deadline in to 2021. At the same time I have said IMO there will be an extension eventually, however I can't tell you it's a fact yet, just an opinion based on actual years of experience in leading negotiations over many years for numerous very large sums, all of them being in Billions. All of them took years of negotiating, all of them had extensions, the majority involved some form of intimidation from the opposite side.

However in these negotiations there was one well known (indeed they all were) company that threatened and because I told them that a particular clause was not and never would be acceptable they decided to cancel negotiations and went a different route, yet approx two years later approached me and requested to start talking again due to multiple reasons having gone wrong.

I mention the above only to try and put some context around why I believe what I do, as I feel I might actually know a little more than you do in this regard, negotiations that is.

What I did state, and what you took exception to, had absolutely nothing to do with the facts you state in your post, they are historical facts that I don't believe anyone is denying.

What I said is that the route cause of the stance that no extension will be given is due to all the delays by the HoC, I never mentioned which party I don't think because it was a collection of them including as you point out BJ at one point and many other Tory remainers. Said remainers are notably absent. The delays eventually caused further delays, as we needed a GE to try and sort out the HoC once and for all, consequently allowing the UK/EU to move to the second phase after completing Brexit. The years of MP's who agreed Article 50 at the beginning was the route cause of the delay, this in turn has compound the amount of time in between the Referendum and the start of Phase two and is a major factor in the present stance of no extension, walking away in June is negotiation tactic 101 and on the first page of the negotiation manual. You are in denial over this,that's fine, I get it, quote as many facts as you want around this, they are irrelevant, as is your belief as to why and what, I think what are facts we both agree on is where we are today.

It's a constant rerun of the events which have taken place since 23/6/16 & the culmination, it's almost like a leave of absence has taken place since that date with some posters & periodic reminders of what's been & gone needs to be repeated.

[Cryssys]

Seems that the benefits of a trade deal with the US will be minimal and far outweigh the losses resulting from leaving the EU single market:

"The British economy would be at most 0.16% larger by the middle of the next decade under a comprehensive trade deal with the US, the government has admitted"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... with-trump