1 hour ago, Genie said:

I think legalising drugs is a lazy way of tackling the real problem.

I would have said it was an essential first step in beginning to tackle the real problem.

Why do I get the feeling a request for a pig’s head isn’t far away?

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

My current working assumption is that no amendment proposing an alternative 'deal' will get a majority. This is based on no current view commanding majority support:

(NOTE: I don't necessarily agree with the analysis in this tweet, but the data shows how far from a majority any of the positions is)

However, of course we are all guessing here. It will be a grimly interesting few weeks. 

Kudos to the 150 MP's who don't want a hard Brexit, don't want a soft Brexit, don't want May's deal, don't want a peoples vote and don't want to abstain. 

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

 

The best thing about this clown talking about 'owing his constituents' is he represents a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to leave (61%) and on the opinion poll map that @bickster posted a few pages back, is one of only a handful in the country that back a no deal! 

8 hours ago, Xann said:

Metro

Another lawyer crowdfunding half a million quid to pay himself, really?

I wish him all the best with his ‘moral’ crusade.

16 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It's a bit like saying that it's conjecture to say that Neil Taylor is a rubbish left-back, because none of us know for certain that he doesn't play like Paolo Maldini in training.

Well it is a bit like a group of amateur middle age men calling a £30k a week, 40+ cap international footballer a load of sh*t and really believe it, yeah, I agree! 

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yeah yeah, yadda yadda Daily Heil and "expert" I gave up at that point

 

Thing is, she was objecting to the use of the word nebulous ffs To be honest Junkers 88 is right, it is ill-defined that's part of its problem. If she's going to be complaining about the use of the word nebulous she's in the wrong job. Private School nursery teacher is about her standard if she doesn't like big words

Unless in private conversation she had been crystal clear about what she wanted/expected and he’d gone blabbing to the press in a deliberate attempt to undermine her, then she would be right to call him out right?

Just conjecture of course, but isn’t it all?

30 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I'm physically shaking....it's just so....robust 

In her defence I see Juncker was employing the old 'keep hand on upper arm to exert control' move, straight from the Trump Art of Persuasion ABC Handbook. It's just a good job the camera went out before he moved on to the full p*ssy grab!

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think you’re right, but I’m not sure they’re trying to claim that, or that it’s the point. The UK said “we want to leave the club”. They’ve said “OK, that’s a shame. If you still want some of the benefits of the club, then as has always been the case, these are the rules applying to those club benefits”. It’s really (to me) that simple. “If you want to play football then there’s an offside law and a handball law...etc”. If you want to go away and leave the league, then fine, do whatever you like, but if you want to play with us, these are the laws. Friendly games, sure, we can relax the rules on substitutes, but it must be 11 a side, picking up the ball isn’t allowed and you have to pay your pitch fees.

The UK has completely failed to recognise that there are 27 other teams in the league and that no, our delusions of we’re Man Utd, so we can do what we want are utter flights of fantasy.

we haven’t proposed anything credible, bluntly. It’s up to the UK to say what we want within the bounds of reality and we just haven’t. Realistically the EU has always held most of the cards, but the Brexit nutters can’t or won’t see that

Don't you find the whole 'we are not prepared to talk about the nature of our future relationship/the UK won't say it wants in the future' narrative somewhat at odds with itself?

@peterms , @blandy interesting to hear your takes. Whilst in agreement that the EU have been firm and clear in their approach, I'm not so sure flexibility or fluidity are attributes that they can lay claim to. It is my view that they are playing a very dangerous game in their very public announcements of refusing to engage in any renegotiating of a deal that has proven unacceptable to almost half of the governing party and ALL opposition parties in the UK parliament. I'm assuming (based on previous comments from Tusk) that their preferred option is the UK staying in the EU, an outcome which is only realistically achievable after a second referendum. My concern (if I wanted to remain) would be that if there is a second referendum, and that referendum is perceived to have been forced by the EU and not from within the UK, for the first time today, I think their is a very real chance that they may lose it.

That said I look forward to reading the EU's document on a No Deal scenario released on the 19th and of course their plans for the border on the island of Ireland.

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's not a creative way of working, and on a spectrum of fluid vs rigid, it's pretty rigid.

Where do you see the EU’s position on the same scale?

33 minutes ago, Xela said:

I've got a fair bit tied up in UK equities and it has been up and down over the last 12 months but the quarterly dividends keep me ticking over and I'm in it for the long run.

Wish i'd sold some particular shares in Jan as those ones are about £9k down at present in my portfolio! Oh well! Its a cyclical game. 

Time to buy again and price average down! Bargains to be had if you can afford to wait out this political sh*tstorm.

1 hour ago, lapal_fan said:

I'm pumping 97% of my income into Angel Delight, because it's been 40 years since it was popular and it's due a comeback. 

In the red at the minute, but I'm absolutely sure the graph will resemble bitcoin soon enough. 

Could definitely be some value in pumping the remaining 3% in too! 

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

Irish PM didn't waste any time - Irish Backstop changes - not possible!

Varadkar is never going to miss a chance to get his face on the TV,  a poor man's 'Call me Dave'! 

10 minutes ago, BOF said:

I take it you don't like chanje.

It literally makes my blood boil!

Had to visit here after reading some threads in OT and seeing Tammy Abraham described as 

Quote

blatantly too good for this league.

Now in my head I'm thinking that surely he is 'patently too good'. It's a mix up I always consider to be wrong although patently 'blatantly' also has meaning in this context.

A quick google seems to confirm that language has moved on and I haven't! 

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

What a strange comparison

Maybe, but it makes sense in my own head. Look, I agree with many of the points that @Dave-R made above, with the one condition that winning is important. If that can be done with fringe players, great! But I find the whole ‘the cup is a distraction’, ‘concentrate on the league’ stuff a load of old donkey balls. 

If I went into my office and told people ‘Look, I know you’re working on that big contract for our biggest client but I want a couple of the trainees to cobble together something for this new smaller client. Doesn’t really matter if they f it up so long as we get that big contract right’. What would that say about me as a manager? What would it say about the company?

All that...plus I haven’t forgotten what a rip roaring success concentrating on the league was after the MON’s Mission to Moscow! 

6 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

The FA Cup is I'm afraid a distraction as far as I'm concerned, we won't win it so I don't much care if we go out in the 3rd, 4th or whatever round.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather we didn't have the games and could focus on the league.

Sad but true.

We won’t win the Premier League either so why bother trying to get there?

When/if we’re in the Premier League we won’t win the Champions League so why bother trying to get top 4?

Oh, we’ll get more money for those. A sad indictment on the attitudes to modern sport if ever there was. 

41 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

A second referendum looms. But what will the question be? If it's "Theresa's deal OR no deal", then most of us may as well not vote - it's like being asked how you'd like to be executed. 

The alternative is a three way choice: 

(a) No deal

(b) Theresa's deal

(c) On reflection, it was a stupid idea, FFS call it off now

But that would cause outrage among the brexiteers, because even if they had an overall majority same as last time, their vote would inevitably be split between (a) and (b), and (c) would stroll it. 

 

How about this but with a Single Transferable Vote, that should at least spice it up a little! 

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

EDIT: Which particular State acts for Soros?

FTFY 

15 minutes ago, Xann said:

 That would be f***ing retarded.

Anti-Semite and retard in the space of two pages. Hang on, let me go and get my dinner jacket. I see things have gone high-brow. 

Just now, bickster said:

I'm not sure I ever saw a post where anyone said Soros should be allowed to fund anything olitical in this country

However, "Russian Buisnessman" is a euphemism for Russian State, that again separates Soros and your rebuttal

There's no such thing as a Russian businessman that isn't also a state actor as to be that succesful in Russia you must be on the right side of Putin

But Soros does fund things political in this country right?

Your argument seems to be that it is ok for a foreign individual to act in their own interest but not a foreign state? 

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It's almost as if two members of parliament profiting from the failure of the country that they purport to represent, having campaigned and legislated for that failure to happen is worse than an unrelated, overseas businessman doing so.

What terrible double standards.

Just so I’m clear on the standards. Overseas money and intervention in the debate is fine? What if it comes from a Russian businessman funding the leave campaign?

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

No its internet speak for F*** me, he resorted to an anti-semtic fascist dogwhistle

The racism card. I think that's a little bit snide in all fairness. Over the last couple of pages Rees-Mogg has been accused of profiteering from Brexit, fair game. John Redwood has been accused of profiteering from Brexit, fair game. I've mentioned Soros and I'm anti-Semitic? In your honest opinion, should the UK economy or currency tank post Brexit, which of those three do you think will profit most?

Or is it that you feel he has no involvement in the Brexit debate? If that's the case, here is a story from the Guardian earlier in the year that would suggest criticism is fair game. Happy to hear arguments as to why I can't mention him.

Quote

Soros-backed campaign to push for new Brexit vote within a year

Money seems to talk, on more level than one.

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

And now we're at Soros 

I'm assuming  is internet speak for 'beyond political reproach'.