Verbal

Calm down Mr Army. You might accidentally issue a fatwa. So where do you stand on abusing black and brown people? Good thing?

Well let's do a bit of totting up. The same group of Yaxley-Lennonites, wearing their yellow vests, have: - refused to allow an ambulance pass over Westminster Bridge, despite its being on an emergency and running blue lights - racially abused an Asian journalist reporting for Sky News - harassed and threatened Anna Soubry - racially abused a remain campaigner, Femi Oluwole, for the offence of being black and wearing a yellow vest If you're proud to be associated with these scumbags, as your avatar suggests you are, that's your choice. But we're then free to conclude that your general argument applies to the racist abuse in particular: that black and brown people should just suck it up when they're abused and threatened. Which would make you just as much a racist thug.

Yet you represent exactly the stale pale constituency I'm talking about. And, by the way, to claim you're not racist, while doubling down on anti-semitic tropes and labelling 'the Arabs' as dislikable, is a stretch. Try this thought experiment. Imagine a re-run referendum split into two. In the first one, only white males over the age of 65 may vote. In the second one, only the under-65s and all women may vote. What do you think the respective results would be? No, it's clear to me, at least, that specifically your objection is in order the banish immigrants. Your warblings about trade show no understanding or inclination to understand what you're talking about. Its a cover for a peevish, age-related 'dislike' of immigrants and foreigners generally.

This is spot on, Jeffrey. Brexit has never been about getting rid of the EU. It's been about getting rid of immigrants. And to do that, an overwhelmingly old, white, male constituency has said it is quite prepared to make other people poorer. (So long as it's just other people, mind.) Their fantasies on the general theme of Unicorn++++++++++ are merely cover, as they plainly known nothing about nor show any interest in actual trade. Witness the stale pale Brexit loons on here.

I didn't ask whether you could throw a hissy fit. We know the answer to that. I asked whether you agreed with Bogdanor's core point and conclusion. To say that 'there are many who are anti-democratic and want a losers' referendum' is to say the exact opposite of Bogdanor's point - yet you produced his article as if it gave your 'position' a ringing endorsement. Once again, here's Bogdanor's conclusion: "Today, similarly, our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people. The notion of finality is quite alien to the spirit of democratic politics. For it must always remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict." Do you, or do you not, agree that it 'must remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict'?

Bognanor's conclusion in that article is: "Today, similarly, our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people. The notion of finality is quite alien to the spirit of democratic politics. For it must always remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict." Which I presume means you'll now support a second referendum. Or did you not read that bit - you know, the actual point of the article?

Yes, because democracy should never involve voting. That's just something you've made up. No one knew a damned thing about WTO (and the damage that it would cause) at the time of the vote. They didn't even know about Article 50 - I'm not aware of a single debate pre-referendum about how and when it should be triggered. Equally, no one has remotely claimed that Norway is 'in' the EU. Nor Switzerland. And Canada+++ is a pure invention (each plus equal to a virgin).

Objectively, the least damaging way out is to have a People's Vote in which the outcome is to remain in the EU. Even that is not damage-free, because so much harm has already been done. Any other option is unsupported in Parliament (and parliament is sovereign, no matter how much Jihadists mewl and puke about any option that isn't carpet-bombing the economy).

Shylock has much more of an inside track on how this contract came to be (I don't have access to his Rothschild channels), but the obvious explanation is that Failing Grayling's incompetence exceeds any known uselessness found anywhere in the universe. Another could well be that the government knows privately and perfectly well that the whole 'crashing out with no deal' business is a complete and utter sham, played out for fools, so why bother wasting competent civil servants' time on vetting contractors who will never be get their hands on the lolly?

Saint si is right. While the BBC's commitment to impartiality is not easily maintained, especially in a febrile political atmosphere, it is not obvious why 'crashing out of the EU' without a deal is a partial way of expressing it. Nor have you made a case for its being partial. You've just assumed it to be so, because of your Jihadist mindset. Both Remainers and Brexiters have spoken repeatedly about how no deal is a terrible outcome for the British economy. Both sides have referred to this as 'crashing out'. Therefore the BBC may reasonably call it crashing out. Your feeble-minded attempt to exert some sort of language-control, with green-inked whinges to the BBC, won't work.

Don't take it personally, Al. The actual jihadists I met in South Asia last year were just as insulted as you when I called them 'Wes Tenders'.

A classic Jihadist's response. You're simply unprepared to countenance the damage your pet idea might cause. Which means for you the goal trumps all else. So it's not just **** business. It's **** everyone. KABOOM!

Will you tell us the answer to a question I've asked that you've ignored. How many jobs lost would make you change your mind about Brexit? 10,000...100,000...1,000,000? More? A true Jihadist can't respond, or put a number on it, because their deontological fundamentalism leads them to think that any number of people's livelihoods can be sacrificed for the goal.

Just as shooting someone dead is allowing them to live on different terms. Jihadists trying to control the use of the English language to prevent the plain truth of their economic suicide mission is hilariously futile.

No doubt. The whining is beyond predictable now. If it's not having a full-on snowflake freak-out about the entirely justifiable phrase 'crashing out', then it's what counts or does not count as Christmas. Christ, the Brexit cultists are weird. But I think remoaners should own Project Fear. In the fairly normal course of my work I do a lot of project fear, aka risk assessments. It's what you do to try to avoid the worst outcome. And it's why the predictions about risk often don't come to fruition - because your awareness of them has shown ways of mitigating the worst effects. Brexit cultists, however, do the opposite of what's rational. They refuse even to look at projections of bad outcomes. They sneer at experts. The consequences are that bad outcomes aren't mitigated, and the Brexit cultists are digging their own - and others' graves even deeper than would be necessary if they only just, for once, listened. It's why, objectively, they are so execrable.

So here's something else for Jihadist f u cknuts to kvetch about. The Guardian has spoken to sectoral experts and come up with an overall picture of the huge amount of damage that will be done by crashing out of the EU with no deal. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/30/food-prices-to-finance-what-a-no-deal-brexit-could-mean-for-britain This is far from a complete list. The impact on universities, scientific and technological research and climate change are absent, for example - as are the impacts on cultural activities (remember that the culture industries in the UK are the second largest sector behind finance). Even so, it's going to be a real memory-lane experience for the majority of Brexiters who remember post-war rationing. And it's a lovely illustration of how EU states are cherry-picking some of the best bits of our economy, as British firms move large lumps of their operations across the border. What's not to like?

You sure about that? Damn the Rothschild-funded MSM... No finished history of Farage can be written until all of the criminal and civil investigations, both here and in the US, are over. It's hard to believe that he will emerge unscathed, and among those with a modicum of honesty who've supported him I expect some mea culpas (don't worry, you're exempted, even though you disingenuously claim to have never voted UKIP). No one - unless you can persuade David Irving to write his official biography - will write approvingly of Farage, whose poisonous politics have infected those, like you, who have been susceptible to dog-whistle racist messages. I know how much it will have meant to you that Farage proudly unveiled that swamp-of-brown-faces ad on the day that Jo Cox was murdered. I know you'll have some pathetic excuse for why Farage repeatedly failed to win a parliamentary seat. And why his party lurches ever more towards making its vile racism explicit where he had tried to kept it under the carpet. Ashdown, on the other hand, did some good in the world. His four years in Bosnia alone will stand him in good stead among historians. But as a human being he's likely to be judged a thousand miles ahead of the little scumbag you've hitched your wagon to. Mazel tov, Al.

Not sure it's you who gets to decide. Besides, the degree to which your view of the world is pathologically warped is that you think Farage - a poundshop Oswald Mosley - is worth mentioning in the same breath as Ashdown.

Or to summarise: JIIIIIHHHHAAAAAAADDDDD!!!!!

He had a pretty distinguished career after going into politics too, with his four years as high representative in Bosnia. His achievements there, in the face of paralytic 'realism' from the international community, were exceptional. So we can comfortably ignore our two wizened kippers raging against the dying of the light.

So who is it this time that's led you up the garden path?

Could Jeremy Corbyn and Corbynist ultra, Fiona Onasanya, please hurry up and agree on which one of them is Jesus?

His true colours have been known about for some while - you only have to look at interviews where he is seriously challenged. He has a habit of losing his rag particularly on C4 News. His temper tantrums are all the result of an inability to process opposition to his worldview. He's also a manipulative and serial liar. Part of his 'defence' for his comment was that it was being blown up out of all proportion by the same media who simply ignored the death of a homeless man outside parliament. This was in fact a story reported by The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mirror, Huff Post, The Evening Standard, The Daily Mail and many others in the online and local media.

Following one of his half-witted calls with Erdogan, Trump is moving US troops away from large tracts of Kurdish-held territory. This leaves the Kurds open to attacks from Turkey and the Iran-backed regime. You obviously don't know that the Kurds WERE the ones placing themselves in harm's way, and doing a vast amount of the fighting against ISIS. You obviously also don't know what punishments ISIS meted out to captured Kurdish fighters. I suggest you google to find out, but you'll have to remove any parental controls to see the actual pictorial evidence.

That's twice this week that May - the worst Tory PM in modern history - has absolutely schooled Jezza, and both times as a result of his own dumbassery. If only Labour had a halfway competent leader.