Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 20,398
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
This is an excellent point. Shame no one made it 3 years ago - oh well, nevermind. Too late now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Ha ha - your inability to assess stuff you post and how the content is often actually positive and supportive of the UK leaving the EU is fast becoming something to look forward to - a source of daily amusement.It will be so easy they promised
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...ritain-as-australia-rejects-trade-deal/07/01/
You do realise that this article absolutely validates reasons for the UK leaving the EU don't you? - I am guessing not.
I am going for b)He won an Irish award, a leftist one in the name of an ex IRA chief, in 2017, alongside two other people.
The UK doesn’t even recognise it.
You made it sound like he’d been given THE globally recognised award, everyone has heard of.
Really poor way of either a) misleading people or b) not knowing the facts, take your pick.
So simple to understand isn't itMeeting the IRA to achieve peace is very different to showing years of sympathy and accommodation to the armed struggle against the very people you supposedly represent.....
Mcdonnell himself has said that IRA bullets and bombs were necessary and neither he nor Corbyn has ever approved of the British right to defend its territory.
Neither can ever be allowed near power and thankfully they never will be.
Yep - I have read this morning and had a good laugh - same with the article on the Australian TA - proper out of his depthHaha that's my day started off with a fucking smile and good laugh.
Ardwick Green Blue
Well-Known Member
why do you think WTO is such a good idea? Many foreign investor companies like car makers have said we go down that line and they are off and people who make a living predicting what a good idea it would be say it would a disaster - the threat of it has put the £ back to sq 1 too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50821583
My preference is for a deal and I genuinely think that Johnson does too. My point is that you have to have a line(s) in the sand which you cannot go beyond. That applies to both sides by the way.
I'm the sole UK employee of a large German chemicals company and all the products I sell are all produced in Germany so WTO would be a ball ache for us but there is no way they would pull out of a highly profitable market. They sell all over the world so WTO terms are no impossible barrier for them.
Indeed - it is easier to manage negotiations from an upright position supported by backboneJohnson setting out our negotiating position:
No alignment
No ECJ oversight
UK to control immigration
UK to control fishing within territorial waters
Canada style free trade agreement
I've had enough of Remainers telling us what the EU will or won't accept. Let's negotiate with firm objectives and if at the end there is enough for both parties to accept there will be a deal. If it doesn't suit one or both parties then WTO terms it is.
Really good to hear - and certainly noises coming out of the EU at the moment reflects their concern and disappointment that the UK is rising from the supine position the EU's proxies at Westminster had placed the nation in.
You and @Ifwecouldjust....... have a similar style - posting things that you think are bad news for Brexit because you have either not read the content or are unable to understand what is going on behind the words
Last edited:
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 22,576
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
"She said if the deadline was not extended it was not a case of "all or nothing", but of priorities.You are @Ifwecouldjust....... have a similar style - posting things that you think are bad news for Brexit because you have either not read the content or are unable to understand what is going on behind the words
Boris Johnson has insisted a deal is possible by December 2020.
After their meeting in No 10, a Downing Street spokesman said talks had been "positive", but the PM had been "clear" the process of negotiation would not be extended.
After its 31 January exit, the UK will enter into an 11-month transition period in which it will largely follow EU rules but will not have any representation in the bloc's institutions. This period will come to an end on 31 December.
Only when the UK leaves the EU can the two sides begin talks on their future economic relationship."
He's seen a headline, taken it to mean a negative, hasn't read the content of the article which shows the exact opposite, is actually a statement of the reality that the UK has told the EU it will not extend negotiations longer than they need to. Why do they never read the articles they link to first?
Strange - you quote a post by @Ardwick Green Blue and then rather than address the point(s) in his post just make an entirely separate point.why do you think WTO is such a good idea? Many foreign investor companies like car makers have said we go down that line and they are off and people who make a living predicting what a good idea it would be say it would a disaster - the threat of it has put the £ back to sq 1 too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50821583
Why bother quoting him?
You do come across as very confused.Positive thought and statements are all well and good - its deeds that count and make things happen. Brexit supporters are about to enter a steep learning curve that will show that. If we have virtually no ships to protect our waters whats to stop anyone from anywhere popping in and stealing fish? You are confusing negativity with real issues. Remember the Cod Wars? Well the last ones at any rate.
Most people would agree with that initial statement in your post - yet you are emphatic is that all that needs to be done is 'nothing'. We should just leave everything to the EU.
Some of what you have said over the years has made some sense in the context of you wanting Brexit stopped - but in this new world where the resistance of people like you has been utterly washed away - you try to make the same arguments.
Just comes across as 'foot-stomping'
And he does not understand how negotiations work."She said if the deadline was not extended it was not a case of "all or nothing", but of priorities.
Boris Johnson has insisted a deal is possible by December 2020.
After their meeting in No 10, a Downing Street spokesman said talks had been "positive", but the PM had been "clear" the process of negotiation would not be extended.
After its 31 January exit, the UK will enter into an 11-month transition period in which it will largely follow EU rules but will not have any representation in the bloc's institutions. This period will come to an end on 31 December.
Only when the UK leaves the EU can the two sides begin talks on their future economic relationship."
He's seen a headline, taken it to mean a negative, hasn't read the content of the article which shows the exact opposite, is actually a statement of the reality that the UK has told the EU it will not extend negotiations longer than they need to. Why do they never read the articles they link to first?
Remainers need a new tune. The old one is broken.You do come across as very confused.
Most people would agree with that initial statement in your post - yet you are emphatic is that all that needs to be done is 'nothing'. We should just leave everything to the EU.
Some of what you have said over the years has made some sense in the context of you wanting Brexit stopped - but in this new world where the resistance of people like you has been utterly washed away - you try to make the same arguments.
Just comes across as 'foot-stomping'
How long are you going to persist in howling at the moon?Its that thing about facts and Brexiters again mate. They have bought into a load of bullshit and daren't lose face by admitting it so they will argue black is white and bang on about British fishermen when the truth is those that still remain rely on the EU to sell their product.
How's it working for you?
What is being achieved? - you know - statements are all well and good - its deeds that count and make things happen.
Don't let them drive you away mate - it is something that some key Remainers have tried to do for over 3 years - and now just about all they have left to try and 'win'.I said my piece now I am going out of the thread instead of running around is circles bud.
Your points have been rational and balanced - they unfortunately make some Remainers have to face inconvenient truths
AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
The discussion is about Corbyn, he who did exactly that.
Which member of government, at the time, requested that this apparently, key player in the GFA, bring the IRA into parliament?
When was Corbyn sanctioned by government, and congratulated for his efforts in placating the IRA?
Was he lauded for his minutes silence for the IRA, this Kissinger like character?
As Corbyn, according to you, was key in the discussions, what were the positive contributions he made?
Saying Corbyn had some sort of benign influence most certainly is.
As this is now irrelevant to this particular thread, start one on Corbyn's achievements,
that should raise a few chuckles.
mate, you can crack on an misunderstand my posts. replies and your own questions....
You said that I supported the 'RA being invited to parliament, when in fact i stated the opposite...a couple of times....i am completely against the idea of any terrorist being invited there. I have also repeatedly stated my dislike for Corbyn. Why are you asking unanswerable questions? I have no fucking idea if/when he was sanctioned by government...and you know fine rightly i dont know, or if ANYONE actually knows....but its known he had some involvement (and a small one, as i repeatedly said).
I have never suggested he was a Kissinger like character, if anything i have repeatedly said i dislike the man...would never vote for him and god forbid he ever became PM....and i certainly didnt not suggest he was KEY in discussion. Yet again, you are just conflating things to try and win an argument....that isnt even happening.
The conversation started, by ME posting an article about your government meeting active, known, murdering terrorists...i wanted to hear peoples onpions on that, specifically those who lambast Corbyn for his "membership of the IRA". This was not a conversation about Corbyn....it was to enquire/question the thoughts around this current government discussing Brexit over lunch with murderers.
I dont give a fuck about Corbyn...what i do care about is pointing out hypocrisies of those who close their eyes to certain facts because it doesnt suit their agenda.
Having read the exchanges whilst catching up you appear to be only seeing hypocrisies because you are making the effort.mate, you can crack on an misunderstand my posts. replies and your own questions....
You said that I supported the 'RA being invited to parliament, when in fact i stated the opposite...a couple of times....i am completely against the idea of any terrorist being invited there. I have also repeatedly stated my dislike for Corbyn. Why are you asking unanswerable questions? I have no fucking idea if/when he was sanctioned by government...and you know fine rightly i dont know, or if ANYONE actually knows....but its known he had some involvement (and a small one, as i repeatedly said).
I have never suggested he was a Kissinger like character, if anything i have repeatedly said i dislike the man...would never vote for him and god forbid he ever became PM....and i certainly didnt not suggest he was KEY in discussion. Yet again, you are just conflating things to try and win an argument....that isnt even happening.
The conversation started, by ME posting an article about your government meeting active, known, murdering terrorists...i wanted to hear peoples onpions on that, specifically those who lambast Corbyn for his "membership of the IRA". This was not a conversation about Corbyn....it was to enquire/question the thoughts around this current government discussing Brexit over lunch with murderers.
I dont give a fuck about Corbyn...what i do care about is pointing out hypocrisies of those who close their eyes to certain facts because it doesnt suit their agenda.
You seem to be very angrily seeking to prove a point which is in fact just your opinion and does not necessarily trump anyone's else opinion.
The case for people seeing Corbyn as a sympathiser of terrorist organisations seems pretty clear and well established and I am afraid not something that your 'opinion' can refute.
Of course for as long as there has been conflict(s) in the world there has been contact between the 'warring factions', either directly or indirectly. This of course is done through representation on behalf of 'accountable people' by either direct representatives of one of the parties involved or people sanctioned to act as intermediaries.
That is the differentiating factor.
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have never considered Corbyn to have been an official representative or a duly sanctioned intermediary - certainly not of the UK government.
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have considered Corbyn to have acted on his own agenda and be supportive of people directly intending harm to various states/governments - including the UK
Simple fact - you can berate and post as angrily as you like and seek to draw comparisons which you feel substantiate your view - but, put simply, it/they are not persuasive.
Genuinely just trying to help.
Last edited:
I
I
inbetween
Guest
mate, you can crack on an misunderstand my posts. replies and your own questions....
You said that I supported the 'RA being invited to parliament, when in fact i stated the opposite...a couple of times....i am completely against the idea of any terrorist being invited there. I have also repeatedly stated my dislike for Corbyn. Why are you asking unanswerable questions? I have no fucking idea if/when he was sanctioned by government...and you know fine rightly i dont know, or if ANYONE actually knows....but its known he had some involvement (and a small one, as i repeatedly said).
I have never suggested he was a Kissinger like character, if anything i have repeatedly said i dislike the man...would never vote for him and god forbid he ever became PM....and i certainly didnt not suggest he was KEY in discussion. Yet again, you are just conflating things to try and win an argument....that isnt even happening.
The conversation started, by ME posting an article about your government meeting active, known, murdering terrorists...i wanted to hear peoples onpions on that, specifically those who lambast Corbyn for his "membership of the IRA". This was not a conversation about Corbyn....it was to enquire/question the thoughts around this current government discussing Brexit over lunch with murderers.
I dont give a fuck about Corbyn...what i do care about is pointing out hypocrisies of those who close their eyes to certain facts because it doesnt suit their agenda.
You seem to be making a 'if they can do it then why can't Corbyn' argument though.
If our government is meeting terrorists who have killed British citizens or would do them harm then we need to seriously look at the context of those meetings.
Meeting them in the context of trying to stop them killing people makes sense compared to meeting them and supporting their cause which is what Corbyn did....
That is the argument people are making.
AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
Having read the exchanges whilst catching up you appear to be only seeing hypocrisies because you are making the effort.
You seem to be very angrily seeking to prove a point which is fact just your opinion and does not trump anyone's else opinion.
The case for people seeing Corbyn as a sympathiser of terrorist organisations seems pretty clear and well established and I am afraid not something that your 'opinion' can refute.
Of course for as long as there has been conflict(s) in the world there has been representation between 'accountable people' that are either direct representatives of one of the parties involved of sanctioned to act as intermediaries.
That is the differentiating factor.
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have never considered Corbyn to have been an official representative or a duly sanctioned intermediary
Simple fact is that the vast majority of people have considered Corbyn to have acted on his own agenda and be supportive of people directly intending harm to various states/ governments - including the UK
Simple fact - you can berate and post as angrily as you like and seek to draw comparisons which you feel substantiate your view - but, put simply, it/they are not persuasive.
Genuinely just trying to help.
er, no.
The focus or point of the conversation was not about Corbyns relationships with terrorists...it was about this current government now doing the same thing....not whether Corbyn did or didnt or why he did....thats beside the point...it happened and everyone is very vocal and clear that hey abhor the fact it happened.
I am not refuting the fact he is/was/will be a terrorist sympathiser...how many times do i have to criticise the man?
AGAIN, why is it now acceptable to those who berate him for it? Why arent you calling out your government for meeting murderers just a few weeks ago?
This is down to your opinion that he wasnt worthy enough to be involved in those negotiations...surely anyone involved in securing peace was worthy of involvement?
Please forget about Corbyn....the orgiinal point is/asks...are you happy that your government are meeting active murdering terrorists to discuss Brexit? Does Brexit warrant such involvement and consideration? Is it comparable to the negotiations of the GFA? Yes, hugely significant episodes in UK history but i would argue that the considerations and pandering to terrorists is not a requirement for Brexit....as many, probably you, were so keen to emphasise that we wont be held to ransom by them.
Corbyn was just one person out of many who negotiated and conceded with terrorists.....if you disagree with that, then you must disagree with whats happening now?
AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
You seem to be making a 'if they can do it then why can't Corbyn' argument though.
If our government is meeting terrorists who have killed British citizens or would do them harm then we need to seriously look at the context of those meetings.
Meeting them in the context of trying to stop them killing people makes sense compared to meeting them and supporting their cause which is what Corbyn did....
That is the argument people are making.
Im not making that argument at all....because i dont think it should be happening!! Im pointing out that people seem ambivalent to what is happening, in the last few weeks, yet use this against Corbyn very single day. Fuck Corbyn, ive no interest in him....if you are so against him liaising with terrorists...why are you letting it happen now??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.