What a disaster the Tories are.

[anonymous-user]

PM is a National embarrassment really, putting on a well hard front around Europe, claiming that they can defeat the legal ruling. Mental.

[mondeoman]

JawKnee said:

don4l said:

JawKnee said:

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of over 60 million.

It is if you understand how referendums work.

Basic comprehension is not really your strong point is it? Don4l said "the majority of people". Are those not registered to vote not people?

So I'm sorry, but 17 million is still not a majority of 60 million.

Are we Remaining, or are we Leaving?

I'm afraid that, in a referndum, 17 million is indeed a majority of 60 million.

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

Ha ha ha thick as pig-sh!t.

[Tryke3]

Jimboka said:

PM is a National embarrassment really, putting on a well hard front around Europe, claiming that they can defeat the legal ruling. Mental.

Why would she even think its a good idea to appeal it, how stupid is she ?

[davepoth]

Tryke3 said:

Why would she even think its a good idea to appeal it, how stupid is she ?

Because if there's any chance at all of it resulting in "yes you can" then it's a billion times better for her than the alternative.

[johnxjsc1985]

Tryke3 said:

Why would she even think its a good idea to appeal it, how stupid is she ?

17 million reasons.

[B'stard Child]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Tryke3 said:

Why would she even think its a good idea to appeal it, how stupid is she ?

17 million reasons.

And the opportunity to push the declaration date of Art.50 back

She got a standing start on preparing for the exit negotiations - I'd want as much time to prepare as I could get - she told the EU March 17 latest

We if a protracted appeal process means we can't do it till June 17 the EU can get pissy but it can't interfere with the "UK constitutional issues"

I'd take any opportunity to slide the date a little further back - not because I don't want to leave but because I think the longer the tts who are charged with exit get the better

[fluffnik]

The Don of Croy said:

Probably because a Death Penalty is incompatible with EU membership.

...or civilization.

[don4l]

JawKnee said:

don4l said:

JawKnee said:

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of over 60 million.

It is if you understand how referendums work.

Basic comprehension is not really your strong point is it? Don4l said "the majority of people". Are those not registered to vote not people?

So I'm sorry, but 17 million is still not a majority of 60 million.

Are we Remaining, or are we Leaving?

I'm afraid that, in a referndum, 17 million is indeed a majority of 60 million.

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

You clearly are not very good at maths.

17 million out of 60 million voted to Leave.

Only 16 million out of 60 million voted to Remain.

So... 17 million is clearly a majority.

You might like to tell us that 16 million was a majority, but we will just mock your idiocy a little bit more than usual.

[jonnyb]

fluffnik said:

The Don of Croy said:

Probably because a Death Penalty is incompatible with EU membership.

...or civilization.

It's actually in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

And we're not pulling out of that, even after Brexit.

[JawKnee]

NRS said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

You've yet again ignored quite a few questions. No party has since 1930 got over 50% of the vote, and so therefore any laws since then should be repealed I guess? Or is it only valid if it helps your viewpoint? Corbyn only has 0.5% of the vote - should he be where he is, and should it be said he won with a majority?

You've yet again completely misunderstood the original point and have spun it into some tirade about voter turnout and elections.

Here's a question, on a daily basis does don4l only interact with people who are registered voters? I highly doubt it.

[FN2TypeR]

mondeoman said:

JawKnee said:

don4l said:

JawKnee said:

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of over 60 million.

It is if you understand how referendums work.

Basic comprehension is not really your strong point is it? Don4l said "the majority of people". Are those not registered to vote not people?

So I'm sorry, but 17 million is still not a majority of 60 million.

Are we Remaining, or are we Leaving?

I'm afraid that, in a referndum, 17 million is indeed a majority of 60 million.

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

Ha ha ha thick as pig-sh!t.

Pig st is pretty sloppy and not that thick at all TBH.

[B'stard Child]

don4l said:

JawKnee said:

don4l said:

JawKnee said:

technodup said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of over 60 million.

It is if you understand how referendums work.

Basic comprehension is not really your strong point is it? Don4l said "the majority of people". Are those not registered to vote not people?

So I'm sorry, but 17 million is still not a majority of 60 million.

Are we Remaining, or are we Leaving?

I'm afraid that, in a referndum, 17 million is indeed a majority of 60 million.

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

You clearly are not very good at maths.

17 million out of 60 million voted to Leave.

Only 16 million out of 60 million voted to Remain.

So... 17 million is clearly a majority.

You might like to tell us that 16 million was a majority, but we will just mock your idiocy a little bit more than usual.

Good darts - pointless but still good darts

• wishes I'd thought of that!!!

[gizlaroc]

JawKnee said:

You've yet again completely misunderstood the original point and have spun it into some tirade about voter turnout and elections.

Here's a question, on a daily basis does don4l only interact with people who are registered voters? I highly doubt it.

All the ones I knew that didn't vote would have voted leave, they didn't do because they said they felt guilty doing so, or "I don't know enough about it all and not bothered about immigration or £350m a week, so maybe it is not a vote for me, if I had to vote I would have voted out."

So bringing in those that didn't vote into is is completely pointless as I think you might be surprised at how many of those would have also voted leave. Maybe not in your London bubble, but if everyone was forced to vote the gap would have probably been bigger.

The problem is, if you are surrounded by a certain voter you start to believe that is what the majority think, for me it was unconceivable that the vote would have ever been remain. We are in Norfolk, no immigration, lots of farmers with EU subsidies, yet out of 100s of people I discussed it with only 2 said they were voting remain, one lives in Spain for 6 moths of the year and the other works in London every day.


Don't get caught up in your own bubble. A lot of people in London tend to be the most well travelled and worldly people in the UK, however, the vast majority tend to be the most insular and blinkered thinking people in the UK too.
Let's not forget that even in London, the ONLY region in England that had more remain votes than leave, 41% still wanted to leave. And I know for a fact that many of my daughters friends didn't vote (Greenwich) as they wanted to vote leave but the vilification from their peers who were voting remain was so strong and so nasty that many didn't even bother voting and just kept quiet about their views. Speaking to them again they have said that now they realise that most of the country voted out they would vote too. They were caught in that London bubble, where it is OK to say you are left wing, or OK to say you are a remainer, and if you are anything else you keep your mouth shut.


The problem with you and so many remainers and lefties, is you are all very vocal, you think you are a bit smarter than the rest, you all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful you are, but what you don't realise is that most of the time rest are just laughing at you.

[NRS]

JawKnee said:

NRS said:

JawKnee said:

17 million is not a majority of 60 million. Or is this some obscure imperial measuring system Brexiters want to take us back to?

You've yet again ignored quite a few questions. No party has since 1930 got over 50% of the vote, and so therefore any laws since then should be repealed I guess? Or is it only valid if it helps your viewpoint? Corbyn only has 0.5% of the vote - should he be where he is, and should it be said he won with a majority?

You've yet again completely misunderstood the original point and have spun it into some tirade about voter turnout and elections.

Here's a question, on a daily basis does don4l only interact with people who are registered voters? I highly doubt it.

Not really - you were picking up on the exact wording missing out "of the people who could vote" when he mentioned majority. However firstly you knew what he meant, and secondly you are the one who said Corbyn won the vote of the public in the second leadership election - which far more badly worded/ trying to bend the truth. So you're obviously actually that interested in actually debating the point but just trying to score some cheap point based on grammar when you do the same yourself.

I'd say it's much better to debate the government trying to push Brexit through without Parliament. Whichever way you voted it is a very stupid thing to do when you read the rules of the country as it cannot happen that (at least what I have seen - certainly no expert on the small details). So either it is the Tory party being stupid, there is some kind of complex wording/ laws that are perhaps clear I don't know about, or that it is a play for more time. It's actually something more worthwhile to debate rather than the exact wording of something you know what he means anyway.

[Trabi601]

gizlaroc said:

The problem with you and so many remainers and lefties, is you are all very vocal, you think you are a bit smarter than the rest, you all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful you are, but what you don't realise is that most of the time rest are just laughing at you.

That was going quite well until you fell into the usual PH line of insulting 'lefties'. Because, the right never post anything self-congratulatory and definitely wouldn't have voted to remain (despite this being Tory policy right up until it became a vote of political survival)

[MarshPhantom]

Smiler. said:

MarshPhantom said:

Hartley Brewer taking a beating on PM.

I expect she'd find your lacklustre performance on here equally amusing.

[NRS]

Trabi601 said:

gizlaroc said:

The problem with you and so many remainers and lefties, is you are all very vocal, you think you are a bit smarter than the rest, you all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful you are, but what you don't realise is that most of the time rest are just laughing at you.

That was going quite well until you fell into the usual PH line of insulting 'lefties'. Because, the right never post anything self-congratulatory and definitely wouldn't have voted to remain (despite this being Tory policy right up until it became a vote of political survival)

Yeap, would have to agree. That said, from the debating of a couple of the lefties on here I can partly understand why. It's a pity they didn't actually try and debate more properly - it now seems to be a lot of "I only like democracy if it agrees with me" - which was never an issue when it was looking like remain would win. If anyone had been posting about it being a bad idea/ wrong to listen to the referendum before then I could respect them, even if potentially disagree with them. Now it's just being a sore loser (and yes, obviously a lot of Brexiters would have been the same if it was the other way round).

[JawKnee]

NRS said:

Not really - you were picking up on the exact wording missing out "of the people who could vote" when he mentioned majority. However firstly you knew what he meant, and secondly you are the one who said Corbyn won the vote of the public in the second leadership election - which far more badly worded/ trying to bend the truth. So you're obviously actually that interested in actually debating the point but just trying to score some cheap point based on grammar when you do the same yourself.

I'd say it's much better to debate the government trying to push Brexit through without Parliament. Whichever way you voted it is a very stupid thing to do when you read the rules of the country as it cannot happen that (at least what I have seen - certainly no expert on the small details). So either it is the Tory party being stupid, there is some kind of complex wording/ laws that are perhaps clear I don't know about, or that it is a play for more time. It's actually something more worthwhile to debate rather than the exact wording of something you know what he means anyway.

I picked up on the exact wording because they were the exact words. Don4l was trying to extrapolate a referendum result into being representetive of the majority of people in this country, which is quite a leap of faith. The truth is a bit different. It represents a proportion of people who were registered to vote, a proportion of which who decided to vote.

Yes, I understand that's how referenda work and it was the largest turnout in however many years but let's not pretend that by virtue it means the majority of people in this country think that way.

[Tankrizzo]

MarshPhantom said:

The reaction of PH when they see another trolly clickbait thread started by MarshPhantom.

[NRS]

JawKnee said:

I picked up on the exact wording because they were the exact words. Don4l was trying to extrapolate a referendum result into being representetive of the majority of people in this country, which is quite a leap of faith. The truth is a bit different. It represents a proportion of people who were registered to vote, a proportion of which who decided to vote.

Yes, I understand that's how referenda work and it was the largest turnout in however many years but let's not pretend that by virtue it means the majority of people in this country think that way.

It would be ok if you were consistent with that, but for example you tried to justify that the public voted for Corbyn, when it a small club of people that did - of which some people who had joined the club weren't allowed to vote. Therefore the correct wording is some of the public (0.5% of them) voted for him. You weren't being picky about exact words then. It's also strange how it was ok to listen to a tiny percentage of the public then (and not the MPs who tried to get rid of him) yet now the MPs MUST be involved (I actually agree they should - but that is a separate issue). It's the lack of any consistency that makes it somewhat pointless to listen to you. Your quote:

[quote]Any member of the public is entitled to join the party and vote for the leader. Therefore, the public are voting for Corbyn. His party's vote share increased in England at the last local elections. His popularity is only increasing.