Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Pickman's model]

Others accuse me of sneering, but I would suggest this post is a good example of sneering in itself.

 

[philosophical]

i ask again: how did you get from your 'i assumed' to your invitation to 'make manifest your threats'? please describe the evolution of your belief threats had been made, in the light of my constant declaration that no threats had been made. and try to keep it honest, not a repetition of this mealy-mouthed lying like your post quoted.

No I am not indulging in lying. I repeat you said to me other whacks are available not the other way round.
I have explained to you frequently that I consider it a threat of violence from you towards me.
Understood, or do you want to go round again?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I do have that intention, even through the melee of cunting off I have been subject to.

Have you tried being less wrong?

 

[Pickman's model]

No I am not indulging in lying.

oh but you are

I repeat you said to me other whacks are available not the other way round.
I have explained to you frequently that I consider it a threat of violence from you towards me.

 

[Pickman's model]

No I am not indulging in lying. I repeat you said to me other whacks are available not the other way round.
I have explained to you frequently that I consider it a threat of violence from you towards me.
Understood, or do you want to go round again?

reread my post 5416.

 

[Rob Ray]

I have explained to you frequently that I consider it a threat of violence from you towards me.

Please just stop with this, you've not got him on the ropes it just looks like a transparent, cringeworthy attempt to stick one on an opponent. No-one here is reading your posts thinking "goodness that PM is a thug," he has no history of making threats on this forum and has repeatedly explained to you that he is not and was not threatening violence.

 

[Pickman's model]

No I am not indulging in lying.

do you recognise this post?

Rejoice in your victory. The UK is yours. Have a party with your mate Boris.

 

[not-bono-ever]

./ no more boxing references

 

[butchersapron]

This might be the right time and place to re-post this:

The ex-IRA men: ‘United Ireland? It’s all guff’


But these four veterans of the Provisional IRA’s armed campaign, who are all now critics of Sinn Féin policy, do not think that Brexit will derail the peace process. They see that threat as little more than a scare tactic to force the future of the 499km Border to the centre of the two-year Brexit negotiations.

“I think a lot of the concerns are exaggerated,” says Tommy McKearney, an IRA volunteer originally from Moy, in Co Tyrone, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing a part-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldier in 1976.

“Certainly, I think we can rule out the idea of a hard Border with British troops on the Border. That was not to do with economics. That was a security situation. I don’t think we are going to see that again.”

...

Lynagh adds, “There is a vested interest in hyping up the political impact and the scare tactics that it is going to open a hornet’s nest of dissident activity against British rule. I don’t see that.”

...

He believes that Brexit will instead encourage various shades of dissenting republicans to engage politically and that there is a chance of a postsectarian debate among unionists, republicans and nationalists, north and south, about what is in the best economic and sovereign interests for both parts of the island.

...

“The European Union is as much of an imperial power as – if not more than – Britain at the moment,” Lynagh says. “We are faced with the possibility of two foreign powers implementing the partition of Ireland, and where is the demand in Ireland to say, ‘What gives you the power to do this?’ ”

 

[butchersapron]

This, if you pretend the fields endorsement at the top doesn't exist, is very good - and it has the E.P Thompson anti-EEC line that i was groping for during the campaign and just couldn't find:

“For when an altruistic glint gets into the bourgeois eye one can be sure that someone is about to catch it"

The Lexit ‘mythbuster’ that never was

‘Busting the Lexit myths’, the new paper from Open Britain (OB), contains some pertinent and accurate analysis, but sadly a fair few straw men and sleights of hand. Overall, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin - those ‘myths’ are still standing.

Busting the ‘Lexit myths’ entails demonstrating the following: EU democracy is in fine health, the EU’s treatment of Greece was fair and reasonable, TTIP was a great idea, the single currency is a sound economic project which has not devastated the lives of millions across southern Europe, the EU has not enforced austerity across the periphery, we don’t actually make much contribution at all to EU budgets, and the EU in no way imposes privatisation and market liberalisation. For all its gloss, research and considerable resources, the OB paper doesn’t achieve this, nor does it come close.

The OB paper is broken down into sections, ‘myths’, so we’ll respond in kind.

 

[Supine]

It's like the bloke who walks into the pub and joins in a conversation uninvited half way through and tries to take it over.

 

[teuchter]

If a border with customs checks isn't something that most people in Ireland (either side of the border) would have a problem with, and if the necessary changes to the GFA are ones that most people in Ireland would agree to, then I'd change my view and say that it's not a big issue, and not one that should be used to stall Brexit.

 

[Wilf]

This, if you pretend the fields endorsement at the top doesn't exist, is very good - and it has the E.P Thompson anti-EEC line that i was groping for during the campaign and just couldn't find:

“For when an altruistic glint gets into the bourgeois eye one can be sure that someone is about to catch it"

The Lexit ‘mythbuster’ that never was

‘Busting the Lexit myths’, the new paper from Open Britain (OB), contains some pertinent and accurate analysis, but sadly a fair few straw men and sleights of hand. Overall, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin - those ‘myths’ are still standing.

Busting the ‘Lexit myths’ entails demonstrating the following: EU democracy is in fine health, the EU’s treatment of Greece was fair and reasonable, TTIP was a great idea, the single currency is a sound economic project which has not devastated the lives of millions across southern Europe, the EU has not enforced austerity across the periphery, we don’t actually make much contribution at all to EU budgets, and the EU in no way imposes privatisation and market liberalisation. For all its gloss, research and considerable resources, the OB paper doesn’t achieve this, nor does it come close.

The OB paper is broken down into sections, ‘myths’, so we’ll respond in kind.

philosophical , any thoughts?

 

[pocketscience]

This, if you pretend the fields endorsement at the top doesn't exist, is very good - and it has the E.P Thompson anti-EEC line that i was groping for during the campaign and just couldn't find:

“For when an altruistic glint gets into the bourgeois eye one can be sure that someone is about to catch it"

The Lexit ‘mythbuster’ that never was

‘Busting the Lexit myths’, the new paper from Open Britain (OB), contains some pertinent and accurate analysis, but sadly a fair few straw men and sleights of hand. Overall, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin - those ‘myths’ are still standing.

Busting the ‘Lexit myths’ entails demonstrating the following: EU democracy is in fine health, the EU’s treatment of Greece was fair and reasonable, TTIP was a great idea, the single currency is a sound economic project which has not devastated the lives of millions across southern Europe, the EU has not enforced austerity across the periphery, we don’t actually make much contribution at all to EU budgets, and the EU in no way imposes privatisation and market liberalisation. For all its gloss, research and considerable resources, the OB paper doesn’t achieve this, nor does it come close.

The OB paper is broken down into sections, ‘myths’, so we’ll respond in kind.

Thanks for this, as it confirms how I read it at the time. I had to re-read Tarrent's nationalisation myth-busting piece a couple of times to understand the idiocy of his proposal.
i.e: The UKs nationalised companies could flourish in the internal free market tendering process by the government favourably weighting their proposals so they win the contracts, or if a selected private company happened to win the tendering (or a foreign state owned company) then the UK could forcibly nationalise that company if they see fit (good luck nationalising a Deutsche Bahn or SNCF UK subsidiary). Basically his myth-busting amounted to going to all that effort just to appease the regulations put in place by the EU to facilitate the neo-liberal model of breaking up nationalised industries

Completely absurd. Why spend a fortune on the tendering and selection processes in the fist place?

 

[Pickman's model]

It's like the bloke who walks into the pub and joins in a conversation uninvited half way through and tries to take it over.

it's like the bloke who speaks only esperanto who walks into the pub...

 

[philosophical]

yeh. this would be a return to the post which you admit above you assumed contained a threat of violence. you have moved from this assumption to a solid belief that there was a threat of violence. if i had threatened violence, as i've said, i would have done so in no uncertain terms. i did not threaten violence towards you, any belief i did is solely in your own mind.

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms.'

yeh. this would be a return to the post which you admit above you assumed contained a threat of violence. you have moved from this assumption to a solid belief that there was a threat of violence. if i had threatened violence, as i've said, i would have done so in no uncertain terms. i did not threaten violence towards you, any belief i did is solely in your own mind.

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms'.
What does that mean, your threat would have been clearer, or you would have carried out your threat?
Made your threat manifest.

 

[Pickman's model]

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms.'

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms'.
What does that mean, your threat would have been clearer, or you would have carried out your threat?
Made your threat manifest.

it means that had i threatened you the threat would have been explicit. in the exchange you persist in discussing there was no threat.

 

[Pickman's model]

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms.'

'I would have done so in no uncertain terms'.
What does that mean, your threat would have been clearer, or you would have carried out your threat?
Made your threat manifest.

moving on to your claim never to lie, perhaps you could apologise for lying about me.

 

[not-bono-ever]

can someone in the pride of lewisham's corner throw in the towel please ?

 

[stethoscope]

Please can you stop this ridiculous diversion @philosophical, and if anything, engage with the posts/links that Butchers has presented.

 

[philosophical]

Your first post was the problem, you can argue out of this all you want now you're trying to put on a brave face, but that started it.

My first post started with a question.
Clearly.
Others have said I was being disingenuous and directly accusing brexit voters of racism and ignorance.
The irony is that those who have taken my clear opening question, and extrapolated from that, are also those who want me to forensically examine the detail of what they themselves say.
I was jumped on within moments of posting here, and when the jumping was in abusive terms I defended myself in kind.
I have not initiated any abuse to any individual here, but stood up for myself when it has come my way.
Although the flood of abuse directed towards me has been hard to keep up with admittedly.
I have been accused of not being prepared to engage, yet I have posted thoughts regarding the border, and that I believe brexiters opened the door to the Tories and worse, I have mentioned reasons as to why in my view the UK version of 'democracy' is worse than the EU one, I have tried to explain why I think a brexit vote was anti Irish for what I believe to be racist reasons.
I have been invited to read this whole thread from the start in order to somehow qualify to engage, but there is too much of it going back nearly two years to do that. However I fully admit to not having read this thread from the start. I came here because (despite me asking elsewhere long before the referendum) the Irish border question is current.
For those who say I am simply a troll, and want to dismiss me with abuse and suggestions that I am a 'paedo' perhaps you would like to think again. My efforts to engage have not matched the frankly pathetic efforts to respond.

 

[Pickman's model]

I have not initiated any abuse to any individual here

that's a lie. and it contradicts what you've already said.

 

[philosophical]

i cannot understand how you see that as a threat of violence to you. i didn't introduce the concept of people getting whacked in the head into this thread, you did. you said it was unlikely you'd get a horse kick: but other whacks in the head ARE available, for example bumping your head on a door. i see you can't explain to me how you got from assuming to knowing it was a threat of violence. you're too embarrassed to show the paucity of your thought process. but you might like to contemplate it yourself.

I didn't, it was another poster here who asked if I had been kicked in the head by a horse.

 

[philosophical]

who'd have thought one man could contain so much urine.

Well remove it as you will. Your postings make one wonder how one man can contain so much bile.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well remove it as you will. Your postings make one wonder how one man can contain so much bile.

i've been barely bilious to you, despite your repeated lying about what i've said.

 

[Wilf]

My first post started with a question.
Clearly.
Others have said I was being disingenuous and directly accusing brexit voters of racism and ignorance.
The irony is that those who have taken my clear opening question, and extrapolated from that, are also those who want me to forensically examine the detail of what they themselves say.
I was jumped on within moments of posting here, and when the jumping was in abusive terms I defended myself in kind.
I have not initiated any abuse to any individual here, but stood up for myself when it has come my way.
Although the flood of abuse directed towards me has been hard to keep up with admittedly.
I have been accused of not being prepared to engage, yet I have posted thoughts regarding the border, and that I believe brexiters opened the door to the Tories and worse, I have mentioned reasons as to why in my view the UK version of 'democracy' is worse than the EU one, I have tried to explain why I think a brexit vote was anti Irish for what I believe to be racist reasons.
I have been invited to read this whole thread from the start in order to somehow qualify to engage, but there is too much of it going back nearly two years to do that. However I fully admit to not having read this thread from the start. I came here because (despite me asking elsewhere long before the referendum) the Irish border question is current.
For those who say I am simply a troll, and want to dismiss me with abuse and suggestions that I am a 'paedo' perhaps you would like to think again. My efforts to engage have not matched the frankly pathetic efforts to respond.

Right, you've said all that, you've emerged from your liberal safehouse - very bravely facing up to the vicious death threats you've been facing, real and present danger.... right, done all that, what about post 5647?

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't, it was another poster here who asked if I had been kicked in the head by a horse.

nonetheless i did not introduce the suggestion of blunt force trauma.

 

[philosophical]

It's interesting that you classify my post as a diversion. The real diversion here is your post, beginning as it does with 'So...'. The 'So' being a rather inelegant way of signalling that you are about to ignore the post or deal with the issues raised. You are still stuck with characterising leave voters as thick racists - still no engagement as to why millions interpreted their experiences in a particular way and voted as they did.

I didn't vote for brexit, didn't vote actually. In the absence of a lexit I felt unable to translate my contempt of EU neo-liberalism into a vote. But that doesn't stop me thinking about this as the culmination of 40 years of neo-liberalism, 40 years of contempt. I don't see any signs at all that you are willing to get beyond your visceral contempt for those voters.

I accept your complaint regarding my inelegance. You want to discuss years of neo-liberalism which is fair enough, I prefer to now concentrate on the practical realities brought about as a consequence of the vote. Realities that are happening now. What you want to engage with is of course valid, as is what I want to engage with.
If we are not on the same page on this it is nobody's fault.

 

[sealion]

My first post started with a question.

Then got all shouty with this crap below.

I will personally hate and despise anybody I know who voted brexit until my dying day (which isn't far off), brexit won, it is your country now and I hold brexit voters in utter contempt.

 

[philosophical]

Have you tried being less wrong?

You are entitled to your opinion.
have you tried writing something more interesting?