[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

Amusing to read a self-identified 'Class warrior' lecturing about the pitfalls of entrenched grievance

It's not a grievance - it's just I know that I'm not English, public school, Oxbridge, Tory, from inherited wealth from the subjugation of others, with a sense of inherent superiority and delusions of grandeur, or being in awe of people who are. Therefore I'm able to life a stigma free life all-in-all, apart from the embarrassing affliction of coming from the same place as people like you.

Next time you're in sub-Saharan Africa though, tell them you great you, England and The British Empire was and hope your travel insurance can cover it. There's nothing the rest of the world loves more than a smug little Englishman, especially if they're from southern England, telling them how brilliant they are and how things should be. Trust me.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

The Remain campaign undoubtedly could have been better run, but against a well orchestrated campaign of lies specifically aimed at the naive, it was always going to be a tall order. Don't forget that half the electorate are more stupid than the average person.

In the 3.5 years since, it has become abundantly and factually clear that there isn't and never was a 'good deal' and that was an outright lie. 'They need us more than we need them', 'The easiest deal in history' etc etc

It has also become factually clear that a 'no deal' Brexit in 48 days time will be significantly closer to 'project fear' than any ''smooth and orderly' Exit that the leave campaign claimed.

Given that all the abundant and clear information that has come out over the last 3.5 years hasn't persuaded yourself, [MENTION=11191]Pretty pink fairy[/MENTION], [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION], [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION], [MENTION=17469]melias shoes[/MENTION], [MENTION=451]BensGrandad[/MENTION] and the rest of your 'On our Way' brigade, I can't really see a 'more positive' remain campaign would have done it

*edit*

There are times when I actually think f*** it, let's go 'no deal' as it's the only way to make it clear to you and your friends what would actually happen. For myself and my family not being able to get fresh veg will be a bit of a pain, but we'd survive with little impact. However there are far too many innocent people who aren't lucky enough to be in my position, who didn't vote for this clusterf*** and who would suffer badly, for the thought to last long.

Besides, you would all be on here blaming the Remainer Lorry Drivers, the Remainer Shelf stackers, the Remainer Medicinal suppliers, the Remainer Customs officers etc, etc, etc

Why, why, why, do you all just call everyone stupid, thick, moronic and any other word you can think off within that spectrum?

Isn't it really just because they don't agree with you, do you feel that will win over the brexiteers or drive more division between Leave and Remain

Incidentally, have you had an IQ test to know you are considerably more intelligent than most

 

[WATFORD zero]

Why, why, why, do you all just call everyone stupid, thick, moronic and any other word you can think off within that spectrum?

Isn't it really just because they don't agree with you, do you feel that will win over the brexiteers or drive more division between Leave and Remain

Incidentally, have you had an IQ test to know you are considerably more intelligent than most

Congratulations ! I was just waiting for the first idiot to pick up on that and interpret it as some sort of insult.

Don't forget that half the electorate are more stupid than the average person.

Now I know you don't do facts, but it's a simple statistical fact

(In case you're still struggling, the other half are more intelligent than the average person )

 

[ManOfSussex]

That's got me wondering if the Leaver mentality would lead them to being more readily hypnotised, as in more prone to believing in the power of suggestion?

I think that's perfectly possible. I've also long thought if you were to send them an email pretending to be a grieving Princess Ayesha from The Niger Delta, who wants your bank details so she can receive her inheritance from her late Father and the dead King paid into a UK bank account, you're more likely to get a response than, say, a remain voter in Tunbridge Wells. It's all about believe and the perceived plausibility of a situation.

(Apropos of interesting polls above as mentioned by JC Footy Numbnuts, my own extensive, anecdotal and ongoing polling of leave voters currently shows a figure of 75.4578% for people with criminal convictions who voted in 2016, that voted leave. Of all the demographic and societal breakdowns of the referendum vote, this is one that has been overlooked by seemingly all mainstream polling companies. My margin of error is 2% and to go all Sir John Curtice, the picayune of this figure can be explained by white collar crime, such as possession of, rather than possession of with intent to supply, creating the surprising remain 24.5422% figure.)

 

[birthofanorange]

Why, why, why, do you all just call everyone stupid, thick, moronic and any other word you can think off within that spectrum?

Equally, Why, why, why do a LOT of Leavers dismiss all the logical likelihood of the severe problems ahead, as purported by experts in every field, as 'Project Fear'?

It does come across as a bit 'stupid', 'thick' and 'moronic', does it not?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

So you don't know that's fine
Regards
DF

Just giving you the definition you asked for. Hope it helps.

 

[BensGrandad]

What is the general opinion of how the Supreme Court will find on Tuesday? A constitutional expert can't remember her name, on Question Time on Thursday said she thought they would decide it was a political issue and nothing to do with the courts as per the English courts decision, and over rule the Scottish one.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

What is the general opinion of how the Supreme Court will find on Tuesday? A constitutional expert cant remember he name, on Question Time on Thursday said she thought they would decide it was a political issue and nothing to do with the courts as per the English courts decision and over rule the Scottish one.

My general opinion is that whatever will be will be and that whatever the ruling everyone knows that Johnson lies a lot.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

A constitutional expert cant

I know leavers don't do experts but

 

[beorhthelm]

Boris leading in the polls isn't new but the ... 'Almost a fifth (19%) of Labour leave voters are now intending to vote Conservative, suggesting views on Brexit are determining voters’ choice more than traditional party loyalties.' is new to me. Labour leave voters finally realising Labour lied to them at the last GE?

thats been known for a while, though i've not seen a number put on it. the theory goes that many voters in Labour by default wards have understood you can vote for someone else. its expected to break up the voting patterns across a lot of seats in the midlands and suburban north.

 

[lawros left foot]

What is the general opinion of how the Supreme Court will find on Tuesday? A constitutional expert can't remember her name, on Question Time on Thursday said she thought they would decide it was a political issue and nothing to do with the courts as per the English courts decision, and over rule the Scottish one.

Was it Fiona Bruce?

 

[ManOfSussex]

What is the general opinion of how the Supreme Court will find on Tuesday? A constitutional expert can't remember her name, on Question Time on Thursday said she thought they would decide it was a political issue and nothing to do with the courts as per the English courts decision, and over rule the Scottish one.

That reminds me of an employment tribunal at the company I was working at 15 years back. This bloke in IT got sacked for basically just being a **** (It was some internal IT department issue and none of them were in the drinking gang or normal, so nobody missed him) but he took our company to a tribunal afterwards. General opinion amongst everyone was that we would lose it though. Our company was represented at the tribunal by an external 'expert' in HR who said he would lose it as it was a 'cut and dry case and he doesn't have a leg to stand on'. The bloke from IT however was represented by a QC specialising in Employment Law and he took our company to the cleaners as he won his case handsomely...................

The moral of the story - don't listen to general opinion and experts BG. Listen to the facts as they emerge - as the Father of NSC you should know this.

 

[BensGrandad]

Was it Fiona Bruce?

No she was in the chair, this was a lady from Cambridge Uni, I think that it was.

 

[ManOfSussex]

No she was in the chair, this was a lady from Cambridge Uni, I think that it was.

Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union and Employment Law at Cambridge University.

 

[BensGrandad]

Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union and Employment Law at Cambridge University.

That was the lady, thank you.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union and Employment Law at Cambridge University.

So NOT an expert in British constitutional law?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

What is the general opinion of how the Supreme Court will find on Tuesday? A constitutional expert can't remember her name, on Question Time on Thursday said she thought they would decide it was a political issue and nothing to do with the courts as per the English courts decision, and over rule the Scottish one.

It's worth just emphasising your implication that the English and N Irish courts didn't clear Boris of lying to the Queen about the reasons for proroguing - they merely said that it was nothing to do with them. Given the welter of evidence about Number 10's real reasons for suspending Parliament one of two things must be true. Either Boris and Rees-Mogg continue the 'leave the truth at home' when they speak to the Queen or, alternatively, the Queen is a party to the plot to silence parliament.

It has to be one of the two. I know which I think the more likely. I suspect that you agree with me that it's the former. The difference between us is that you don't think it matters very much.

I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will disagree with the Scottish court. If it doesn't it's judges will come under sustained personal attack from the Sun, Mail, Express and other beacons of the Brexit cult.

 

[melias shoes]

Given that all the abundant and clear information that has come out over the last 3.5 years hasn't persuaded yourself, [MENTION=11191]Pretty pink fairy[/MENTION], [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION], [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION], [MENTION=17469]melias shoes[/MENTION], [MENTION=451]BensGrandad[/MENTION] and the rest of your 'On our Way' brigade, I can't really see a 'more positive' remain campaign would have done it

As clear as mud. Still stalking Watford you sad man?

 

[Bodian]

It's worth just emphasising your implication that the English and N Irish courts didn't clear Boris of lying to the Queen about the reasons for proroguing - they merely said that it was nothing to do with them. Given the welter of evidence about Number 10's real reasons for suspending Parliament one of two things must be true. Either Boris and Rees-Mogg continue the 'leave the truth at home' when they speak to the Queen or, alternatively, the Queen is a party to the plot to silence parliament.

It has to be one of the two. I know which I think the more likely. I suspect that you agree with me that it's the former. The difference between us is that you don't think it matters very much.

I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will disagree with the Scottish court. If it doesn't it's judges will come under sustained personal attack from the Sun, Mail, Express and other beacons of the Brexit cult.

The Supreme Court could possibly do both. They could conclude obiter dicta that the Scottish reasoning was correct (ie: Johnson was doing it for the wrong reasons and telling porkies about it), but that it is a political matter to resolve not a legal matter.

 

[BensGrandad]

The Supreme Court could possibly do both. They could conclude obiter dicta that the Scottish reasoning was correct (ie: Johnson was doing it for the wrong reasons and telling porkies about it), but that it is a political matter to resolve not a legal matter.

That is how I think it will go , which is what the English Courts virtually said. As has been said it suited the objectors plans to go to the Scottish Courts rather than the English Courts disregarding any time elements.