Although its a slightly minor point in the catastrophe that would be 'No Deal' major car manufacturers like Porsche & Volvo are saying they will pass on a up to 10% tariff charge to customers after March 29th
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
In a flash for trade although we too are quite fond of a bit of racist dogwhistling.
I think Paul the Wolf should post more in here, 400 posts a day hardly seems like much!
Personally think this new centrist party is an idle threat but even on those grounds it doesn't add up, the People's Vote campaign who these same MPs are involved with accepted parlaiment doesnt have the numbers even with Labour whipped.
Therefore i can only conclude it's just them trying to keep a second referendum talked about until crunch time.
Therefore i can only conclude it's just them trying to keep a second referendum talked about until crunch time.
Also spot on. Paul & Jpr understand the ins and outs of the eu and trade but have no clue how the common man thinks. That is their let down in this entire thread.
I suspect that is Paul's point - people didn't have the required understanding to make a decision based on trade.
Which is why referendums are often such lotteries.
I'm pretty sure that I'm a commoner and I have to admit that I don't know how other commoners think. I didn't even know that the common people were following a single line of thought.
Last edited:
Sounds terrifying. Programmed by Facebook?
My cardiologist and my internist know my health history, know how my medication works and interacts and what risks the different treatments have.
But they have no idea what Paul and John (plumber and a banker) from the corner pub think how my treatment should be done.....
Ist that really the level of discourse you aspire?
I read that in the Guardian this afternoon
Paul is doing fine. He's patiently putting points across on subjects he understands, in the face of those making twice as many posts, with less than half the understanding. I admire his restraint to be honest.
Stanley Road, man of the people. Knows what the common man thinks from across the sea.That's me, i also know how they think when i go back home. We do keep in touch you know.
He doesn't understand how the uk got to this point, until he does, his technical knowledge is a waste of time. Same with jpr.
Yes ignoring people with technical knowledge is definitely the way to go. It'll be grand, gerronwithit.
The UK doesn't understand how it got to this point.
Idiots being upset at being mistreated by other idiots, have decided to put their fate in the hands of yet bigger idiots. But they get upset when you call them idiots. It's a sorry state of affairs.
I agree with your point about his technical knowledge being useless in this context though. It's about as productive as explaining the theory of relativity to a room full of pigs.
Brexiteers got to be the most arrogant people since the Romans. They are the sole people capable of understanding the UK, they are the only ones who know what "the common man" wants, they know how trade works and how everyone will react. They are competent to judge international organisations without having to acquire any information about them. They know everyone's intentions. They are so excellent that the only thing that stands in their path to wealth is being able to trade freely with 27 Nations. They want to be protected from the freedom of movement yet are certain they'll remain free to move.
Yet somehow they can't handle criticism.
Fixed it for you
No clue if Nelson or Cook would have been brexiteers but i'm sure if they would have been they at least would've plotted a course.
I can imagine a few delusional Brexiteer politicians who have pictures of themselves in their minds standing side by side with them.
Actually, fecking millions of us average people understood the implications of Brexit. You're the one belittling British people's intelligence here. Don't want to see leavers trying to weasel their way out of personal responsibility by claiming they never understood it, the picture was painted as clear as day the entire run up. It's laughable that you say Paul is an expert and so knows what he's talking about, when the entire emphasis of leavers was to actively not listen to experts because they didn't trust them. Every expert was telling you day in, day out that it was a bad idea, and all the reasons why, but the leavers listened to them and then said 'nope, I don't believe you.' That is one of the main reasons why they're called idiots, precisely because those who lacked the knowledge required, were provided it by the people who had the knowledge, and they said they didn't believe or trust them. That is absolutely moronic at its core.
You have missed the point completely.
The post related to MP's cheering about the vote to take no deal off the table.
Spot on.
Mate. With all due respect, the last 30 pages have been filled with you pretty much consistently missing the point. You need to take a step back and quit condescending people who understand the situation better than you do.
Referendums are only lotteries when those calling them have not defined the terms of acceptance, e.g. a 2:1 outcome, or over 65 % result etc. beforehand. The reason for not bothering to define such terms in advance is the arrogant belief of those calling the referendum, that nobody could possibly vote against their opinion!
Referendums are valid when they are part of a written constitution, and when such a constitution defines how the results are to be accepted, beforehand. In this case the UK had neither.
Many of those voting to Leave are accused of looking backwards, but effectively the whole of a our law-making and at least part of our political system is built on looking back...at precedents already set. Its the way things are done, and learning from your mistakes is not an unreasonable position to take, i.e. those who learn nothing from mistakes, are condemned to repeating them, but not sure the Remain voters would agree!
So if there is a second Scottish independence referendum anything under 65% for leaving the UK shouldn't count?
No, that figure was quoted as an example. My point was that if the UK had a written constitution it would ensure that for any referendum held a defined figure for acceptance of the outcome should be made beforehand, it could be a 4% difference, as with the last one, but the point is it should be specified before the event.
The Scottish Nationalists who called the referendum specified anything over 50% including by even 1 vote before the event. Cameron specified the same target before the Brexit referendum.
I'm not following your thinking.
Also its not arrogant belief that you couldn't lose a 50% referendum which informed the decision, its the understanding of what happens if you get a majority but not a large enough of one to carry an arbitrary higher threshold. A very real concern not as easy to dismiss as people favouring the continuation of the status quo would like to suggest.
Mate.
I am absolutely delighted that you have been keeping a track of my posts over the last 30 pages.
I am sure that you have learned a great deal from them.
I on the other hand deliberately skip over posts that are clearly written by those who know nothing.
These include yours.
Good bye.
I reckon if you were made of chocolate you'd eat yourself.
Christ.
I can see that!
I'm talking about having a UK written constitution which lays down these things in advance, not some 'winning' margin dreamed up by whoever calls the referendum. The Scots Nationalists called for the referendum in Scotland, not the Unionists, Cameron called for the Brexit referendum in the UK because of promises he made to parts of his party, and he thought Remain would win... both initiators set their own winning post margins.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not Christ.
I am sure he is watching over you so keep praying.
Ok, but the written constitution would have to pick a threshold for constitutional change. What figure should that be?
You are not one of these its written down a long time ago in a constitution so its sacrosanct types are you? I mean, how do you say to the SNP next time you want a referendum you have to get over 65% otherwise you can't have independence and how do you think that would play out if they got 51%? My guess is badly and the idea is ill thought out wisdom of the ages bullshit.
Which is why only the fact that a qualified majority is required will be specified. The actual threshold is determined by parliaments which makes sense since you generally need a parliamentary act if you want to call for a referendum.
Fancy writing that and thinking to yourself 'ah yeah, I've got a killer line here, I really showed them'
This thread reminds me that British politicians are amongst the least skilled and worst in the world.
No, the written constitution would present the guidelines for holding a referendum on major change. Any Government wishing to initiate a referendum would have to meet that criteria, including specifying the winning margins, it could be by just one vote, providing the referendum is held in accordance with the relevant part of the constitution.
The decision to hold a referendum would always be in the lap of the Government of the day, that wouldn't change. We don't have a written constitution just now, the nearest thing is the Magna Carte, so the only thing that's sacrosanct is precedent.
My original point was that Referendums do not have to be the lotteries they tend to be at the moment. Learning from history is never bullshit!