Brexit again...

[Davebrad]

51 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Sorry mate, that’s twice you have not understood what I have written.

so... simply, when I say “the should we split decision” I am talking about the decision on whether Norman Smurthwaite was right for Port Vale or whether we would be better splitting from him. and certainly people got that Horribly horribly wrong... because they said we shouldn’t hound him out. 

So, my rather tongue in cheek comment was that those people should not be trusted to comment on Brexit because they have history in having horribly wrong opinions on things far simpler than brexit.

I have not once said whether splitting from Europe is right or wrong!

again, in the 2nd paragraph you say "All I will say is that it’s hard to trust the judgements of some of the main protagonists on this thread, as they were very supportive of Norman staying on as Owner of the vale. Then follow that with "how can you be judged as reasonable in your views on the UK being part of Europe and al the complexities that involved... when the simplest “should we split” decision you got so terribly terribly terribly wrong.

How that reads and flows, then although you might know what you meant, tongue in the cheek or not, "the should we split decision" followed by "your views on the UK being part of Europe" does seem connected... as using the word "splitting/split" does seem strange in that context. In my opinion of course...

[Iron Curtain]

1 hour ago, Davebrad said:

again, in the 2nd paragraph you say "All I will say is that it’s hard to trust the judgements of some of the main protagonists on this thread, as they were very supportive of Norman staying on as Owner of the vale. Then follow that with "how can you be judged as reasonable in your views on the UK being part of Europe and al the complexities that involved... when the simplest “should we split” decision you got so terribly terribly terribly wrong.

How that reads and flows, then although you might know what you meant, tongue in the cheek or not, "the should we split decision" followed by "your views on the UK being part of Europe" does seem connected... as using the word "splitting/split" does seem strange in that context. In my opinion of course...

You may just be reading too much into it then!

I don’t get the point you are trying to make and having explained mine twice it’s not worth doing so again.

Given how badly you have misunderstood my point, maybe your judgement on the complex process of brexit should be viewed with great caution also [hint... tongue in cheek]

[Regal Beagle]

On 10/10/2019 at 22:30, Jacko51 said:

Beagle has already admitted that the Leave side have their liars.  He's learning.

Yeah Jacko that was about 12 months ago.

 

I've spent the last 12 months naming lie after lie after on the remain side yet not one of you has acknowledged that.

 

When will you learn?

[Regal Beagle]

11 hours ago, Iron Curtain said:

I haven’t spent any time on this thread as I knew where it would end up... as time Minchin once put it... arguing different arguments based on one sided opinion... like two tennis players trying to win points by playing beautiful shots on different tennis courts.

All I will say is that it’s hard to trust the judgements of some of the main protagonists on this thread, as they were very supportive of Norman staying on as Owner of the vale.

how can you be judged as reasonable in your views on the UK being part of Europe and al the complexities that involved... when the simplest “should we split” decision you got so terribly terribly terribly wrong.

”Leave him alone” they said... it’s hard running a club, they said, he isn’t doing anything wrong they said.

He stripped the club of every penny he could and fed the main assets left over pies... it’s was OBVIOUS he was bad for the club.

Now... do lecture everyone on how you know what’s right in the brexit debate again... 

Is any of that true though?

And even if it is true, what on earth has it got to do with brexit?

 

Didn't you vociferously defend the signing of Ryan Lloyd? If so, how can anyone trust your thoughts on climate change?

 

I mean I thought nofinikea had ludicrous logic but this might just top it.

[Regal Beagle]

duplicate post

[Bycarsbill]

18 hours ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

I don't think it's that simple. I think the issue is balancing the wishes of the overwhelmingly remain party membership whilst understanding that vast swathes of the "Labour heartlands" want to leave and accepting that the country is split. Labour's approach is, to me, the only one to try and acknowledge all sides but I guess we're currently living through times where people aren't so interested in grey.

That's the whole point--Labour has been constantly trying to 'ride two horses' throughout the whole debate.  At some point (when and if a deal is struck, a general election or referendum occurs)they will have to come down on one side or the other--and that's when they do have a real problem--with the "labour heartlands" as you put it and Jezza on one side and the vast majority (of their fast-reducing) membership on the other!

[Iron Curtain]

10 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

Is any of that true though?

And even if it is true, what on earth has it got to do with brexit?

 

Didn't you vociferously defend the signing of Ryan Lloyd? If so, how can anyone trust your thoughts on climate change?

 

I mean I thought nofinikea had ludicrous logic but this might just top it.

You are right... I said taking the gamble on Lloyd could be cost efficient, he wouldnt be a starter but could prove to be a good back up. That hasn’t worked out and I was wrong.

You said we should leave Norman alone as owning a football club was hard and although no doing a great job wasn’t doing anything wrong. Care to admit you were wrong... like you want the politicians to do? 

I’m also not lecturing people on Climate change 👍

 

[Howjy04]

18 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

That's the whole point--Labour has been constantly trying to 'ride two horses' throughout the whole debate.  At some point (when and if a deal is struck, a general election or referendum occurs)they will have to come down on one side or the other--and that's when they do have a real problem--with the "labour heartlands" as you put it and Jezza on one side and the vast majority (of their fast-reducing) membership on the other!

I don’t think it will matter if and when there is a GE,BB.Corbyn,McDonnell,Momentum and McCluskey have destroyed a party which had a semblance  of a chance of winning a GE.They have made their core voters to look like idiots.Johnson will get a deal,Corbyn will be replaced when the Tories win by a landslide in a GE.I will be amazed if there is another referendum.I can’t see Labour getting much more than 200 seats in the next GE if Corbyn is leader.

[colin]

50 minutes ago, Howjy04 said:

I don’t think it will matter if and when there is a GE,BB.Corbyn,McDonnell,Momentum and McCluskey have destroyed a party which had a semblance  of a chance of winning a GE.They have made their core voters to look like idiots.Johnson will get a deal,Corbyn will be replaced when the Tories win by a landslide in a GE.I will be amazed if there is another referendum.I can’t see Labour getting much more than 200 seats in the next GE if Corbyn is leader.

What happened in 2017? Corbyn was 20 points behind in the polls. He was being run down like this (as he still is by the rich press) and not expected to last. When in fact he got 40 percent of the vote share, 30 more seats than the previous election and the largest increase in vote share as a Labour leader since 1945. 

[Jacko51]

Every time I see a quoted post from the Beagle he is muttering about lies, lies and more lies from the Remain side.  I posted this at the beginning of the week which lists a huge number of blatant untruths and which had reportedly originated from the Brexit Central website:

https://m.facebook.com/LBC/posts/10156995473506558

Beagle's only response was " There's lots of lies going round on social media, on both sides. "  Yet despite claiming lies from the Remain side in post after post, he now admits that the Leavers tell porkies as well.  Rob, have you got the option of changing a word in particular posts so that when Beagle types "lie" in changes into something like "cake"?  I like cake.

[Jacko51]

9 minutes ago, colin said:

What happened in 2017? Corbyn was 20 points behind in the polls. He was being run down like this (as he still is by the rich press) and not expected to last. When in fact he got 40 percent of the vote share, 30 more seats than the previous election and the largest increase in vote share as a Labour leader since 1945. 

With the state of the Tory Party at the moment any self-respecting Labour Party should be 30 points ahead in the polls.  It is a sad reflection on Corbyn and his mates that they aren't.

[colin]

12 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

With the state of the Tory Party at the moment any self-respecting Labour Party should be 30 points ahead in the polls.  It is a sad reflection on Corbyn and his mates that they aren't.

I think the country has become so polarised that it will be difficult for any party to find a majority. There is certainly a lack of middle ground and compromise.

[geosname]

3 minutes ago, colin said:

I think the country has become so polarised that it will be difficult for any party to find a majority. There is certainly a lack of middle ground and compromise.

The question in the referendum didn't allow for compromise mate, in or out, there is no middle ground.

The problem really started when parliamentary parties split...... Tories split over a deal or no deal..... Labour split over in or out..... and both fought from  a party political standpoint.... the only thing they agreed on was to enact article 50..? Which if you want to remain is madness.

[geosname]

40 minutes ago, colin said:

What happened in 2017? Corbyn was 20 points behind in the polls. He was being run down like this (as he still is by the rich press) and not expected to last. When in fact he got 40 percent of the vote share, 30 more seats than the previous election and the largest increase in vote share as a Labour leader since 1945. 

He vowed to honour the result of the referendum in the manifesto.... he hasn't...  would he have increased the vote share if he had taken his present stance?.... or if the liberals had taken their present stance?

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Howjy04 said:

I don’t think it will matter if and when there is a GE,BB.Corbyn,McDonnell,Momentum and McCluskey have destroyed a party which had a semblance  of a chance of winning a GE.They have made their core voters to look like idiots.Johnson will get a deal,Corbyn will be replaced when the Tories win by a landslide in a GE.I will be amazed if there is another referendum.I can’t see Labour getting much more than 200 seats in the next GE if Corbyn is leader.

You could be right but I don't think the Tories will landslide.

I think the problem is so polarizing they will lose leave votes because they don't want to leave and votes from remainers because they won't say they want to remain...... getting a better deal then campaigning against it doesn't make sense  to Joe pubic.