melthebell Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 They are more likely to be remainers who can't think for themselves, Why are conmen usually younger than their victims? ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 16:06 ---------- If you hadn't bought a jumper you could have afforded a decent coat. touche....... ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 16:48 ---------- Yes, we know. hahahaha i almost said that too jokingly of course joker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) Your memory does you no credit. Oh I dunno, it remembered where it'd seen your fishy quote, didn't it If you were watching carefully (I watched it recently) there actually WAS a proposal to EU law would refer to bangers as High-Fat Emulsified Offal Tubes. A 6 percenter, or are you going the full 15? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/1262214/eu-debate-leaves-15-of-brits-believing-brussels-has-banned-bent-bananas-to-busty-barmaids/ It just shows how much time, money and resources the EU wasted even back in the 80's. Ooo la la! Over here.... I've got a bridge to sell ya, going cheap!! Edited December 1, 2017 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Except, the UK wouldn't, because if the UK was going to put its position within the EU on the line every 5 years, it wouldn't be let in in the first place. This is pretty much why De Gaulle kept the UK out of it for so long. He could clearly see that the Brits were only interested in it for self-advantage and nothing else. Based on your "5 year renewal interval" hypothesis, the UK would be Turkey, basically. Bespoke CU for bringing it a bit closer to the EU for limited mutual trading benefits, but at arm's lengths at all other times. Which is where the UK is heading (back) now...Not a problem, is it? Gosh, you just summed up the EU and its accountability, glad you have changed side and are batting for leaving. ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 20:42 ---------- depends, do they go Dublins / EUs way, or they go DUPs way? who knows Maybe the DUP way they do have leverage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Gosh, you just summed up the EU and its accountability, glad you have changed side and are batting for leaving. I don't think you understood my post, only what you wanted to read into it. And I don't bat for either side, just for rationality (in case you missed it in earlier posts, I'm leaving the place in a couple months, so it's not as if I have any vested interest, either. Safety first and all that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42199262 The leading authority on world trade has told the BBC that there are likely to be costs attached to a "hard Brexit". Roberto Azevedo, director general of the World Trade Organisation, said that negotiations between the UK and the European Union would be difficult and "extremely unpredictable" and guess what, when / if we do leave we have the WTO to battle after Oo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Not my hypothesis, Cyclone's. I'm just exposing idiocy. Do you even know what hypothesis means? I certainly didn't make one. The point that I made, which I thought was a fairly obvious and clear one, is that a stay decision could be revisited easily in the future and reversed easily. A leave decision cannot be revisited and to reverse it will be hugely difficult and costly. It should never have been decided on a simple majority. ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:01 ---------- The problem with this thread, as I see it, is that leave voters are in a venn diagram where stupidity, gullibility, self interest, willful ignorance, self delusion and xenophobia are the options. To which extent they demonstrate the various characteristics varies, but they're all in there somewhere. So rational argument and the very reality of what is happening is irrelevant to them, they won't or can't or actually still believe that they aren't wrong. It's basically an impossible discussion to have, because we need some common ground to start the discussion, but they start from a position of fantasy and delusion and then proceed with misinformation and lies from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Do you even know what hypothesis means? I certainly didn't make one. The point that I made, which I thought was a fairly obvious and clear one, is that a stay decision could be revisited easily in the future and reversed easily. A leave decision cannot be revisited and to reverse it will be hugely difficult and costly. It should never have been decided on a simple majority. ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:01 ---------- The problem with this thread, as I see it, is that leave voters are in a venn diagram where stupidity, gullibility, self interest, willful ignorance, self delusion and xenophobia are the options. To which extent they demonstrate the various characteristics varies, but they're all in there somewhere. So rational argument and the very reality of what is happening is irrelevant to them, they won't or can't or actually still believe that they aren't wrong. It's basically an impossible discussion to have, because we need some common ground to start the discussion, but they start from a position of fantasy and delusion and then proceed with misinformation and lies from there. the head nail on hit the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Do you even know what hypothesis means? I certainly didn't make one. The point that I made, which I thought was a fairly obvious and clear one, is that a stay decision could be revisited easily in the future and reversed easily. A leave decision cannot be revisited and to reverse it will be hugely difficult and costly. It should never have been decided on a simple majority. ---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:01 ---------- The problem with this thread, as I see it, is that leave voters are in a venn diagram where stupidity, gullibility, self interest, willful ignorance, self delusion and xenophobia are the options. To which extent they demonstrate the various characteristics varies, but they're all in there somewhere. So rational argument and the very reality of what is happening is irrelevant to them, they won't or can't or actually still believe that they aren't wrong. It's basically an impossible discussion to have, because we need some common ground to start the discussion, but they start from a position of fantasy and delusion and then proceed with misinformation and lies from there. on what should it have been decided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 Some kind of super majority should be required for fundamental constitutional changes, whether that be in parliament or in advisory public referendums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 The nine levels of Brexiter expectations http://inktank.fi/revealed-the-9-levels-of-leaver-expectations-about-brexit/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts