Well there are the definitions as per the dictionary, and then there is how the words are used by the so called "progressive left".
Fascist - Anyone who does not enthusiastically embrace the ideology of the PL
Xenophobic - One of the many labels given to attack anyone who holds views different to your own with the intention of silencing said person.
I mean if that's the definitions you wish to run with sure. In that case, Jen's use of those words fit perfectly.
"Crash out" was almost exclusively used in the context of leaving without a WA and trading under WTO terms. I cant ever recall the term being used without an economic reference but if you have any examples to the contrary I would be happy to see them.
So you agree with me then. Using the term "crash out" in the context of the UK leaving the EU without a deal was an incorrect use of the term.
If you want to go by strict dictionary definitions, then sure, but at that point you end up saying that you're upset with remainers because the dictionary definition they used was about an entirely different thing. It's like getting mad at someone for saying that the UK flag is yellow. It clearly isn't, but at that point does it really matter to the point of calling it 'remoaner bs'?
How exactly is it even shorthand when the term obviously doesnt fit with the situation being referenced, that being the UK leaving the EU without a WA?
Because that's how we're both accustomed to seeing it? I mean a b**** is a female dog, but we all associate it with something else entirely, regardless of its pure dictionary definition.
Really? Promising the people (and your party) that you will act in a certain way on the biggest issue of the day only to do the exact opposite isnt that serious? Wow. We have VERY different expectations of our pollies. More importantly the UK public didnt share your views re their actions. Hence why these rebel MPs werent re-elected.
Accountability isn't about trust. In fact, accountability works best when there is a healthy amount of distrust. Hence why MY suggestions were designed to force accountability for all parties involved. You should never, NEVER, trust your politicians to do as they say and certainly, certainly not as you
interpret their words to mean. I think this little exercise has shown that very well.
You vote for your representatives because their views match yours, not the other way around. And they certainly aren't mind-readers. May's deal, with no viable options on the table gets voted down and leavers rejoice. Boris gets the same treatment and leavers vote them out. The politicians don't know what the people will accept, they only know what they will accept. Clearly there was a disagreement between the two.
If that's the way you wish to go with this. I was under the impression that you didn't like the term 'crash out' because it unfairly characterized what leaving on WTO terms would mean. Apparently however, you object because it is definitionally incorrect. Seems like a nonsensical reason to dislike something but you do you I guess.
Simple. Brexit will be a success if the government fulfill the promises they made to the people re Brexit in the lead up to last years election. So if the government dont sell out the UK's fisheries, if they don't accept any ECJ jurisdiction in the UK, if they take the country out of the customs union and out of the single market etc then it will be a success.
Ah, so even if no new or better trade deals materialize, the average UK citizen does not become richer, or if there's increased illegal border crossings and smuggling between NI and ROI, it can still be considered a success as long as fisheries (which the UK government voluntarily sold the rights to in the first place) are restored, you're out of the single market and customs union, and your not under the ECJ?
Interesting. I mean if all that is worth the risk then more power to you.
Which is what i have said all along! So if you acknowledge that then why did you use the phrase in the first place? It's hardly shorthand.
It is? So when you said it was 'remoaner emotive BS', you were just THAT passionate about the fact that the actual definition refereed to being drop dead tired? I didn't realize you were that passionate about dictionary definitions.
As for why I used it as shorthand, I did it because it worked. Clearly we both knew what the context of it was or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
I have provided examples and references in the past. Only you either ignore them or try to re-interpret them (eg 2017 Tory manifesto).
I'm sorry that the thing you said was in the manifesto wasn't actually in the manifesto. As a stickler for definitions I thought you might appreciate that a bit but sure. Blame me for 'trying to re-interpret' their words when what you said was in there wasn't actually in there.
Taking Emily Thornberry as just one example. At the Labour party's conference last year she gave a speech where she said she would campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. On BBCQT a short while later she said that Labour (if elected) would firstly negotiate their own deal (and she most likely would be one of the UK's chief negotiators) and then put that deal to the people vs remain. When asked she said she would campaign to remain. As in campaign against her own deal! On LBC she specifically said Labour would never allow another referendum where 'no deal' was an option and that she would campaign for remain.
You do remember that whole discussion about the rift in the Labour Party we had right?
Also as a reminder, we (or at least I) were talking specifically about the rebel conservatives here. Labour has it's own issues and the part of Labour that said they would respect the vote and then go back on it is quite clearly them going against what they said, but the rebel conservatives are a different matter entirely. Of course even then, Labour as a whole got shellacked at the polls, not just the parts of Labour that wanted to vote for remain.
I know that the few rebel conservatives I saw who gave statements I could remember said something to the effect of 'they will not stop fighting for a deal'. If you really want me to, I can go look for them again but it might take a while to find.
Simply interested in debate.
I don't really see how arguing over how many MP's were traitors and how many were maligned by association is a productive use of time nor do I see how it's relevant to the wider discussion, but if that's what you really want to do...
Nope. Our situation is nothing like that btw Jen and I. She is all about emotion and will not tolerate any dissenting views. If you dont agree with her its because you're a far right extremist, a fascist, sexist, racist etc etc etc. In my case it's mainly because I am a white, heterosexual male who apparently hates women and poms!
So there may be nothing that you and I will ever agree on and that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on anything. All i expect is discussion that is based on more than simple feelings, and a discussion where the person's views are attacked rather than the person themselves. Again, watch Terry Christian on GMB and you will understand why it's pointless my trying to have a discussion with Jen.
You're fine as far as Jen is concerned as you pretty much always disagree with me and so she is happy to endorse your views. Were your views to be similar to mine then you would be subject to the same treatment.
No actually, it's because I acknowledge the basis of her position, even if I don't agree with it. You on the other hand, don't even acknowledge that her basic position, at it's very core without all the baiting back and forth you BOTH do, is even worthy of being considered valid.
Hint hint, if you want to have a serious discussion with someone, don't say that everything they say and post is globalist propaganda. it's probably not going to make them very receptive to your own views when you completely dismiss theirs.
At the time in question yes. But no deal at this stage was merely hypothetical. When it became a genuine possibility under BJ all bar the 21 rebels supported 'no deal' as an option...consistent with what they had promised the people.
How was it hypothetical? At the time, the date of exit was less than 20 days away from their votes? Also, why should it being hypothetical excuse the way they voted?