Get rid of Theresa Mayhem

[Robertj21a]

Hosenbugler said:

I'd reckon on Blair for one, or at least somebody being backed by him. Plus of course, No , they should not be anonymous, the elctorate should be made aware of who is trying to overturn a democratic election. In short, who is treating said electorate and its wishes with contempt .

Sorry to say that Clegg has been getting his knickers in a right state over this, he's probably one of them.

[Burwood]

id like to know who's paying for it

[B'stard Child]

Burwood said:

id like to know who's paying for it

As long as it's being funded by the public purse I'm not concerned*

*yes I know defence would be but it keeps a few underpaid lawyers in a job

[civicduty]

B'stard Child said:

I don't think so - just whelmed* by the level of support on here

*overwhelmed is "over used" I'd like to introduce you to my campaign to use whelmed instead

10 Things I Hate About You...

Possibly...

Or a different American teen film.

[immigrant]

B'stard Child said:

immigrant said:

B'stard Child said:

But but but - right now no paperwork is required just up sticks and go where you like

Assume you're being facetious and emulating those emotive types like the original poster, but this is very, very, very rarely the case. Unless you're dossing in Naples and working off the books in a dive bar. Or 'volunteering' for some barely credible charity. That type of thing.

When these people actually try to study or work somewhere in the EU by simply turning up and not being a 'war refugee' or asylum seeker, they might be somewhat shocked

I think you might have cherry picked from my reply and could potentially be due a "parrot" as it was an attempt at humour

We're on the same bus but this was mainly for joebongo of sky falling on head fame.

[civicduty]

Definitely 'Ten Things I hate about you'

"Chastity: I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?

Bianca: I think you can in Europe."

[Hosenbugler]

Robertj21a said:

Hosenbugler said:

I'd reckon on Blair for one, or at least somebody being backed by him. Plus of course, No , they should not be anonymous, the elctorate should be made aware of who is trying to overturn a democratic election. In short, who is treating said electorate and its wishes with contempt .

Sorry to say that Clegg has been getting his knickers in a right state over this, he's probably one of them.

I now place Minor Fart, and the rest of the Not Liberal, Not Democratic clowns in the same idiot bin as the Labour Party . Perhaps I've been naive, I used to think of them as principled people, and , on occasion, when the "least worst" have needed punishing , they have had my vote.

Never again, their actions post referenda has been deplorable, if that word is enough , no respect for the elctorate at all, and yes, Clegg is a prime suspect. Utter s.

[B'stard Child]

civicduty said:

Definitely 'Ten Things I hate about you'

"Chastity: I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?

Bianca: I think you can in Europe."

Brilliant - thanks

We used to have a security officer where I work who would always have a word for the week (I learnt lots of new words all of them would not trouble the swear filtration) - one time it was whelmed and I agreed with him - it should be used more.

[B'stard Child]

immigrant said:

B'stard Child said:

immigrant said:

B'stard Child said:

But but but - right now no paperwork is required just up sticks and go where you like

Assume you're being facetious and emulating those emotive types like the original poster, but this is very, very, very rarely the case. Unless you're dossing in Naples and working off the books in a dive bar. Or 'volunteering' for some barely credible charity. That type of thing.

When these people actually try to study or work somewhere in the EU by simply turning up and not being a 'war refugee' or asylum seeker, they might be somewhat shocked

I think you might have cherry picked from my reply and could potentially be due a "parrot" as it was an attempt at humour

We're on the same bus

Where are we off too

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we?

immigrant said:

but this was mainly for joebongo of sky falling on head fame.

I've got me own damn parrot "Norweigian Blue - lovely plumage"

[Northbloke]

davepoth said:

I was once in a lunch queue with Norman Lamont and he took the last samosa from the buffet. That's all I've got.

Years ago after a heavy night on the town I was woken at 8:30 on Saturday morning by someone leaning on my doorbell. He wasn't going away so bleary eyed I reluctantly dragged myself out of my pit and answered it to find...Norman Lamont stood there. In his best Spitting Image voice he said "Is there anything you want to ask me?" (he was canvassing having been parachuted in to hold a safe Tory seat...he lost).

I eschewed the obvious retort for a simple No and shut the door. I can well understand "the samosa incident" though. Shameful.

[Robertj21a]

Hosenbugler said:

I now place Minor Fart, and the rest of the Not Liberal, Not Democratic clowns in the same idiot bin as the Labour Party . Perhaps I've been naive, I used to think of them as principled people, and , on occasion, when the "least worst" have needed punishing , they have had my vote.

Never again, their actions post referenda has been deplorable, if that word is enough , no respect for the elctorate at all, and yes, Clegg is a prime suspect. Utter s.

Agreed, Clegg seems to have sunk the LibDem party extremely effectively, most people have forgotten about them already (and ignore Labour too). Even so, there does need to be an effective opposition - no idea where it's going to come from.

[SKP555]

FiF said:

It's definitely a big "up yours" to those of us who campaigned and argued that the way to exit is via an initial holding position of membership of EFTA allowing access to EEA.

Fair enough, but unlike some not going to cry and moan into the Special K, it dilutes the milk. Accepting the Govt decisions and moving on to do whatever is best for me, mine and the nation in general.

We'd have had a lot less acrimony and arseache if a few million others had followed this route.

Now to take it off topic, sort of, who do we reckon these four people are who are starting another court case to stop Brexit,but have got the court to agree they can be anonymous. Do we agree that they should be allowed to withhold their names?

Although that approach seems more sensible in general terms I think the current circumstances make a clean and swift out more attractive.

Most importantly we have now gone to the front of the queue for a trade deal with the US under Trump. We should move on this straight away on the assumption that we will be outside the EU completely. Trump's term will go very quickly in trade negotiation terms and the next President may well not be as sympathetic.

The other factor is the elections in Europe this year. Especially in France and Germany. Brexit probably won't be a huge issue but if they get into tough talking about their negotiating stance then that will make things difficult. If we are already committed to full withdrawal from the single market then they don't have their ace card and it simply becomes a trade deal.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Now to take it off topic, sort of, who do we reckon these four people are who are starting another court case to stop Brexit,but have got the court to agree they can be anonymous. Do we agree that they should be allowed to withhold their names?

On the last point, generally speaking, no. Though I genuinely doubt that they are "somebodies"; they've been put up by a group that will be funding them to make a point.

However, when (according to the Mail) there is a £5000 "bounty" on Gina Miller's head via social media for anyone who can run her over, I can't really object to these four wanting, or getting, secrecy.

[anonymous-user]

Greg66 said:

On the last point, generally speaking, no. Though I genuinely doubt that they are "somebodies"; they've been put up by a group that will be funding them to make a point.

However, when (according to the Mail) there is a £5000 "bounty" on Gina Miller's head via social media for anyone who can run her over, I can't really object to these four wanting, or getting, secrecy.

I hope their challenge fails but I agree, especially if they are just 'members of the public'. I'm less sympathetic if they are politicians or otherwise prominent individuals though, which I appreciate is a bit inconsistent.

[Jasandjules]

I love how lefties are all for democracy and voting etc unless it goes against them. Then they want another go.....

[anonymous-user]

Tankrizzo said:

Moan moan moan

We're leaving, get over it

It's not over yet, still some hope
Here is your gods view, if the result went the other way :-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...

[FiF]

fblm said:

Greg66 said:

On the last point, generally speaking, no. Though I genuinely doubt that they are "somebodies"; they've been put up by a group that will be funding them to make a point.

However, when (according to the Mail) there is a £5000 "bounty" on Gina Miller's head via social media for anyone who can run her over, I can't really object to these four wanting, or getting, secrecy.

I hope their challenge fails but I agree, especially if they are just 'members of the public'. I'm less sympathetic if they are politicians or otherwise prominent individuals though, which I appreciate is a bit inconsistent.

I'm reasonably happy to believe that the court has heard the arguments for and against the publication of names and has decided on the balance of the argument. That's how it should work isn't it?

It's a shame and leaves a nasty taste for all sorts of reasons on both sides, but there it is. It will come out in due course I reckon, the 4 names and backers.

[Tankrizzo]

Jimboka said:

It's not over yet, still some hope
Here is your gods view, if the result went the other way :-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...

So you think because I disagree with childish moaning petitions then I'm automatically a Farage supporter?

[Pesty]

Tankrizzo said:

So you think because I disagree with childish moaning petitions then I'm automatically a Farage supporter?

Astonishing isn't it

[Sylvaforever]

FiF said:

fblm said:

Greg66 said:

On the last point, generally speaking, no. Though I genuinely doubt that they are "somebodies"; they've been put up by a group that will be funding them to make a point.

However, when (according to the Mail) there is a £5000 "bounty" on Gina Miller's head via social media for anyone who can run her over, I can't really object to these four wanting, or getting, secrecy.

I hope their challenge fails but I agree, especially if they are just 'members of the public'. I'm less sympathetic if they are politicians or otherwise prominent individuals though, which I appreciate is a bit inconsistent.

I'm reasonably happy to believe that the court has heard the arguments for and against the publication of names and has decided on the balance of the argument. That's how it should work isn't it?

It's a shame and leaves a nasty taste for all sorts of reasons on both sides, but there it is. It will come out in due course I reckon, the 4 names and backers.

remind us just what "court" this might be?