Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
It's relevant in the sense that you think that she's a retard when by all possible metrics, she is nothing of the sort, unless you're presuming some sort of insider knowledge of her mental aptitude?
Your defence of her is touching, but I'm entitled to my perception of you and her as equally retarded. You may question that, but it will only exacerbate my standing on it. 
You are such a graceless oaf. You can disagree with her stance all you like but claiming she is retarded is patently ridiculous.
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Tell me something - if May remained a remainder after being elected and said she wouldn't leave, would you want the vote to go to parliament who would undoubtedly vote it through or would you accept May's decision seeing as you want her to have absolute discretion?
here we go, a remain voter wildly speculating and asking stupid irrelevant questions.I've said numerous times it needs to happen now and that going back on it is a stupid idea.
Disastrous said:
You are such a graceless oaf. You can disagree with her stance all you like but claiming she is retarded is patently ridiculous.
My reference to her being retarded has a lot to do with her comments in the article I posted. They made me think of you who I regard in that way - hence the comparison.
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Tell me something - if May remained a remainder after being elected and said she wouldn't leave, would you want the vote to go to parliament who would undoubtedly vote it through or would you accept May's decision seeing as you want her to have absolute discretion?
here we go, a remain voter wildly speculating and asking stupid irrelevant questions.I've said numerous times it needs to happen now and that going back on it is a stupid idea.
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Tell me something - if May remained a remainder after being elected and said she wouldn't leave, would you want the vote to go to parliament who would undoubtedly vote it through or would you accept May's decision seeing as you want her to have absolute discretion?
here we go, a remain voter wildly speculating and asking stupid irrelevant questions.I've said numerous times it needs to happen now and that going back on it is a stupid idea.
It's a simple question for a simple mind.
Lets not dress her up as something she isn't. She didn't win any court case, she was just the name on the tin, it was solicitors and barristers that won the case. Her name (and the other chap who you've forgotten about) were used because there needed to be an individual 'taking' the action because the case couldn't be brought by a business. Gina Miller's name is on there for reasons of self interest, she wants to make a name for herself off the back of the work of others. Note again that the other chap isn't being a d
head about it and claiming some great victory for himself.
I don't particularly object to the principle of the case, but it's hardly right to paint the use of Royal Prerogative as one person doing what they want. Firstly, Royal Prerogative has been used countless times in the past, with no gnashing of teeth or court cases. What's different this time? Only the application, not the principle. How did Gordon Brown bugger off and sign the Lisbon Treaty in the first place?
My objection to the case isn't the legal principle, it's that it was brought vexatiously; it serves no purpose unless the aim is to stop the UK leaving the EU. Anything other purpose is pointless window dressing. So I guess we'll see whether Gina wins or not if she slides into obscurity and the UK continues on it's path to exit unhindered. I actually think the clarification makes the process simpler, squares off any meaningful opposition from Labour and will stop any attempt to argue no-deal = we don't leave, which is the opposite of what the protagonists were aiming for.
One step closer.
head about it and claiming some great victory for himself.I don't particularly object to the principle of the case, but it's hardly right to paint the use of Royal Prerogative as one person doing what they want. Firstly, Royal Prerogative has been used countless times in the past, with no gnashing of teeth or court cases. What's different this time? Only the application, not the principle. How did Gordon Brown bugger off and sign the Lisbon Treaty in the first place?
My objection to the case isn't the legal principle, it's that it was brought vexatiously; it serves no purpose unless the aim is to stop the UK leaving the EU. Anything other purpose is pointless window dressing. So I guess we'll see whether Gina wins or not if she slides into obscurity and the UK continues on it's path to exit unhindered. I actually think the clarification makes the process simpler, squares off any meaningful opposition from Labour and will stop any attempt to argue no-deal = we don't leave, which is the opposite of what the protagonists were aiming for.
One step closer.
p1stonhead said:
How about answer my question in the context of why you are annoyed with the ruling then? It May decided tomorrow to remain, you think that's fine because she should have the power to do what she wants?
It's a simple question for a simple mind.
Annoyed? I'm amused more than anything. I am enjoying how it's all playing out.It's a simple question for a simple mind.
Whoever the PM was going to be was never going to remain, so it's impossible to speculate what might have been. We should really look to the future now rather than wishing things could have been different. I'm sure you would love your scenario in your question to have happened, but it didn't.
Chin up
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
You are such a graceless oaf. You can disagree with her stance all you like but claiming she is retarded is patently ridiculous.
My reference to her being retarded has a lot to do with her comments in the article I posted. They made me think of you who I regard in that way - hence the comparison.
Forget about me-the comparison was but an incidental flattery. I'm far more interested in what makes you qualified to pronounce someone of her calibre a retard based on some newspaper comments.
Does it not occur that perhaps if she were retarded, she might have been unlikely to achieve what she has? It seems an improbable conclusion you've arrived at...
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
How about answer my question in the context of why you are annoyed with the ruling then? It May decided tomorrow to remain, you think that's fine because she should have the power to do what she wants?
It's a simple question for a simple mind.
Annoyed? I'm amused more than anything. I am enjoying how it's all playing out.It's a simple question for a simple mind.
Whoever the PM was going to be was never going to remain, so it's impossible to speculate what might have been. We should really look to the future now rather than wishing things could have been different. I'm sure you would love your scenario in your question to have happened, but it didn't.
Chin up
ks. But I want things done properly not on Mays whim. Calling someone a retard and swearing in a post about it = amused. Yeah right
Disastrous said:
You disagree with her comments and this leads you to qualify her as a retard? Astonishing powers of diagnosis you possess.
Forget about me-the comparison was but an incidental flattery. I'm far more interested in what makes you qualified to pronounce someone of her calibre a retard based on some newspaper comments.
Does it not occur that perhaps if she were retarded, she might have been unlikely to achieve what she has? It seems an improbable conclusion you've arrived at...
Good try, but you've not changed my mind. Someone else has pointed out that she hasn't achieved anything and has described her as a dForget about me-the comparison was but an incidental flattery. I'm far more interested in what makes you qualified to pronounce someone of her calibre a retard based on some newspaper comments.
Does it not occur that perhaps if she were retarded, she might have been unlikely to achieve what she has? It seems an improbable conclusion you've arrived at...
head. Are you going to take offence at that too? You seem rather fixated on my opinion of her. As I said before, your words aren't going to change it - may as well give it up.
Disastrous said:
bmw535i said:
Gina, you're as retarded as disastrous. Nobody is in la la land - if we aren't able to negotiate a deal, we will walk away. The PM has been quite clear on this.
Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964
Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.
I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved fk all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.
A woman who built an impressive career and several businesses as well as a philanthropic foundation, who has just BEATEN the government at the high court and you think she is a retard.Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964
Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.
I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved f
k all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.Im happy to be considered equally retarded frankly!
Gina Miller and Dier Dos Santos were just the respectable faces presented as bringing the action.
Dos Santos has disappeared from the public eye, Gina Miller will eventually disappear once she tires of the both the public adulation and hatred which comes her way in equal measure.
The SC action and the eventual outcome became an irrelevance when May gave her speech on the 17th Jan.
bmw535i said:
Good try, but you've not changed my mind. Someone else has pointed out that she hasn't achieved anything and has described her as a dhead. Are you going to take offence at that too?
You seem rather fixated on my opinion of her. As I said before, your words aren't going to change it - may as well give it up.
I don't think anyone else compared me to her.head. Are you going to take offence at that too? You seem rather fixated on my opinion of her. As I said before, your words aren't going to change it - may as well give it up.
Also, you mistake scorn for offence. I'm not trying to change your opinion of her and neither am I offended. I'm simply highlighting how stupid and uninformed your comments were - she clearly is not retarded - but your stubborn insistence that she is merely serves to reinforce how foolish you make yourself look.
don'tbesilly said:
What really happened was the lawyers at Mishcon De Reya/Blackstone Chambers won the action on behalf of the big corporates and extremely rich individuals who were the real force behind the action.
Gina Miller and Dier Dos Santos were just the respectable faces presented as bringing the action.
Dos Santos has disappeared from the public eye, Gina Miller will eventually disappear once she tires of the both the public adulation and hatred which comes her way in equal measure.
The SC action and the eventual outcome became an irrelevance when May gave her speech on the 17th Jan.
I agree with most of that. I'm sure you agree none of it points at her being a 'retard' though?Gina Miller and Dier Dos Santos were just the respectable faces presented as bringing the action.
Dos Santos has disappeared from the public eye, Gina Miller will eventually disappear once she tires of the both the public adulation and hatred which comes her way in equal measure.
The SC action and the eventual outcome became an irrelevance when May gave her speech on the 17th Jan.
Disastrous said:
I don't think anyone else compared me to her.
Also, you mistake scorn for offence. I'm not trying to change your opinion of her and neither am I offended. I'm simply highlighting how stupid and uninformed your comments were - she clearly is not retarded - but your stubborn insistence that she is merely serves to reinforce how foolish you make yourself look.
I didn't say they had Also, you mistake scorn for offence. I'm not trying to change your opinion of her and neither am I offended. I'm simply highlighting how stupid and uninformed your comments were - she clearly is not retarded - but your stubborn insistence that she is merely serves to reinforce how foolish you make yourself look.
You think I'm foolish, I think you're a retard.
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
I don't think anyone else compared me to her.
Also, you mistake scorn for offence. I'm not trying to change your opinion of her and neither am I offended. I'm simply highlighting how stupid and uninformed your comments were - she clearly is not retarded - but your stubborn insistence that she is merely serves to reinforce how foolish you make yourself look.
I didn't say they had Also, you mistake scorn for offence. I'm not trying to change your opinion of her and neither am I offended. I'm simply highlighting how stupid and uninformed your comments were - she clearly is not retarded - but your stubborn insistence that she is merely serves to reinforce how foolish you make yourself look.
You think I'm foolish, I think you're a retard.
Not retarded are you?
don'tbesilly said:
Disastrous said:
bmw535i said:
Gina, you're as retarded as disastrous. Nobody is in la la land - if we aren't able to negotiate a deal, we will walk away. The PM has been quite clear on this.
Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964
Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.
I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved fk all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.
A woman who built an impressive career and several businesses as well as a philanthropic foundation, who has just BEATEN the government at the high court and you think she is a retard.Brexit ruling: Gina Miller attacks 'despicable' politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964
Also, please don't try and make out talking about Brexit should be encouraged and is patriotic - just this thread has shown us that talking about it attracts repeated accusations of racism.
I'm glad her utterly pointless court case has been won - its achieved f
k all and when she realises that she's going to be even more hysterical.Im happy to be considered equally retarded frankly!
Gina Miller and Dier Dos Santos were just the respectable faces presented as bringing the action.
Dos Santos has disappeared from the public eye, Gina Miller will eventually disappear once she tires of the both the public adulation and hatred which comes her way in equal measure.
The SC action and the eventual outcome became an irrelevance when May gave her speech on the 17th Jan.
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
You asked if I was going to take 'offence' at their post. I explained why I didn't respond to it.
Not retarded are you?
No I'm "foolish", you and Gina are retarded Not retarded are you?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff