WhatAboutTheFinish

7 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Better a sex pest than a socialist.

That’s the title of my third studio album.

Trying to play like he’s the next Franz Beckenbauer, he’s not! Needs to focus on what he does best, no nonsense defending. 

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t get why someone who is homosexual would also want to choose to be religious, given that those religions (any of them) have persecuted homosexual people since day dot.

And just for the record, I actually have zero issues with homosexuality, it’s just a contradiction I’ve always found odd.

Well think of all the action you’d be missing out on if you weren’t a member of the church! 

5 minutes ago, Xela said:

Not in the bathroom I hope...

Anything for a free holographic line! 

4 hours ago, zab6359 said:

Just needed Jota to square it to Davis for a tap in!!

FTFY! 

20 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think he's conflating anything.

I don't think 'globalism' is solely economic.

I think one can be a globalist (i.e.. being of the opinion that you're a citizen of the world and having regard and hope for international organisations and the collective efforts of nations, regions and groupings coming together across the globe to address problems that are obviously not parochial ones and for which global solutions are needed) and be worried about economic globalism (i.e. the freedom with which capital and multinational business can move around and exploit people in particular areas of the globe - for which, perhaps, some sort of global rather than parochial national response might be best) and the effects it may have in various areas.

I don't really care too much about how or whether people self-declare as 'patriots'.

So we require some sort of New World Order, if you will? You are Henry Kissinger and I claim my £5! 

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

Isn't he conflating a political outlook (patriotism) with an economic one (globalism)? How many of the people on recent anti-globalist marches would identify as patriots?

11 minutes ago, Xann said:

Well, no obviously. You'd need a time machine. Those statutes were set years ago.

It's the same for Germany, France and everyone else.

We're not the rulers of Europe.

To leave hands power to big money, that give even less of a shit about you than the EU and won't give you a veto.

So we're not the rulers of Europe. Germany, France, everyone else and big money aren't ruling Europe.

So just WHO is setting the agenda of the EU right now?

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

Yeah - can't have cake before 3pm. 

1:30pm on bank holidays, Dec 25th etc.

Cake is a morning staple! Even if you guys have never been, surely you are in touch with your feminine sides enough to have at least heard of a Coffee Morning? What you think people are eating there, dry crackers?

It may be because I'm a greedy f*** but I've certainly never been to Gregg's in the morning to buy a Manchester Tart and managed to save it until the end of the street, let alone until the afternoon!

57 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

It's the idiots that voted for said politicians that need turning over.

So disenfranchise the poor or the poorly educated? Seems like pretty progressive stuff! 

27 minutes ago, useless said:

One day people will be able to have these holograms in their homes to perform concerts.

Well I for one look forward to the day Whitney will be 'performing' in my home!

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Elevenses obviously

I’ve always understood Elevenses to be tea and cake, a little like afternoon tea but in the morning, as opposed to an actual meal? 

Can Boris resign as Prime Minister but not as Tory leader in order to force an election?

A lead is like Kryptonite to Villa.

10 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

That isn't a fact though.

For me it's:

1. No, but only because I'd prefer our own control over currency as opposed to giving a shit what our currency is called or any emotional attachment to sterling.
2. Really couldn't care less as long as the money is spent sensibly. The only real difference of this would be the point at which are contributions were made anyway.
3. I'd be ecstatic if this meant our overall military spending dropped. I simply don't buy that every country in the world needs a huge standing army to protect them. To me it's largely about defence anyway and if the evil EU paymasters wanted to invade a country and we disagreed would we not have a power of veto?
4. By this do you mean more countries joining? I don't see an issue with this as long as rash decisions aren't being made. The normal bogeyman in this argument, Turkey, applying to join in 1987 suggests to me this isn't that much of a risk if members don't want to accept a country.
5. Yes.

I'm sure the list does go on, but I think you'll find your list is what you (and others) don't want, not "we".

That is a fair point. I did generalise, I didn't really have the time to set out the individual wants of every single voter in the country.

Do you think there is a reason why even the most ardent remainers aren't talking about any of the issues listed as reasons why the UK should stay in the EU though?

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

This is the crux of where the misunderstanding on the EU happens. 

Many people in the UK see the EU as a separate entity, ruling over the UK, and feel affronted by that idea. 

The realty is that the EU is the UK. In your scenario the UK is the parent (one of 27) and is part of the decision making in the household. 

Brexit is a divorce, not a child leaving the family house. 

Unfortunately it is a loveless marriage. The UK feels like their partner just doesn't listen anymore. "When was the last time we did what I (the UK) actually want?"

The fact is we just don't want the same things anymore. Single currency? No. Federal Taxation? No. EU Army? No. Further expansion whilst retaining freedom of movement? No. Closer integration? No. The list goes on.

As hard as it is, probably best to go our separate ways and wish each other all the best before things turn really sour. I mean sure, I know you've always been the major breadwinner and things are going to be tough at first...but it will be better for both of us in the long run.

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Article 50 though, doesn't at all say that "if you can't agree a deal you leave without one". What it says is

A little selective with your quoting. From your own link;

Quote

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Hang on. If you are the one teaching, how come it knows when you've got it wrong? 

34 minutes ago, villa89 said:

The siddle one at fine leg was a dolly as well.

Unfortunately I wasn't listening to TMS at the time but having seen it, if Geoffrey didn't say that his aunt could have caught it in her pinny, I'd be very disappointed.

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

I'm pro-freedom of movement, so would see nothing between the two in this example.  Wouldn't matter to me if the person is European or otherwise.

Do you think that unfettered freedom of movement from anywhere in the globe to the UK is sustainable? 

Not that I'm a great promoter of 'inter-generational guilt' but I would certainly think there is a strong moral argument for the UK to focus its immigration policy on the former colonies.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument from the pro-EU'ers as to why an unskilled labourer from Bulgaria should have the right to to bring his family here to improve their lot, but an unskilled worker from Zimbabwe (for example) shouldn't. Is it solely they they believe the former carries greater economic advantages to the latter?

23 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

 

Not sure how true the figures are.... but it's interesting reading if true. Not that anyone will be surprised by it. 

The figures seem pretty accurate but used with some slippery wording. There are no such things as WTO tariffs, these are EU tariffs that would apply to the UK under WTO rules. Similarly, they are import tariffs that would apply to British exporters, export tariffs would be a completely different kettle of fish.

I do love a free trade argument paired with protectionist stats though.

4 hours ago, BOF said:

 

The Greek goddess Athena stopped things getting worse after the Roman god Hercules killed his children?  

2 hours ago, PaulC said:

Long tail, down to these two now. Not a chance in hell!

What?! I came here looking for a bit of your optimism and can do spirit of previous tests.

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 I get what you are trying to say  , but  i think that's a kind of frivolous argument , how big did you want the ballot paper to be  ?

Probably the most generous phraseology I've read all week.