Wes Tender

It is; he's trying to parody CEC.

Was it immigration, perhaps, Nick? Shatlock believes that the electorate weren't as intelligent as he thinks he is, and were fooled into believing that we would have control over the numbers of immigrants coming into the country if we left the EU. When the Brexit campaign got across its message to the electorate so effectively that leaving the EU meant taking back control of our affairs, immigration was one of the major items covered by that slogan and as you say, it was a strong enough message among others to gain the victory Fry on the other hand, belittles immigration as a major reason for the Conservative election victory, although it was a main policy of UKIP, without whose rise to prominence, there would probably have been no Conservative manifesto promise to hold the referendum. It remains to be seen whether the government do actually reduce the immigration numbers, but as Orange correctly pointed out, at least we will not be obliged to accept uncontrolled immigration as part of the EU single market rules of freedom of movement of peoples. As he says, if the government do not address the immigration issue to the satisfaction of the electorate, then the day of reckoning is the next General Election. However, the chief recipients of any antagonism towards the Government would normally be Her Majesty's opposition, but calling them that is a bit of a misnomer at the moment, as they are pretty well unelectable with Corbyn leading them.

She does a lot more than that, Shatlock, me old mucker.

Juncker is right, we can't have a cut price deal by virtue of realising the value of the assets of the EU that we are entitled to a share of?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-eu-referendum-former-head-of-civil-service-lord-butler-gus-odonnell-a7592066.html Old duffer and former head of the Civil Service Lord Butler, reckons that we ought to have another referendum on whether to leave the EU. This must be the sort of scenario that Timmy hangs his forlorn hopes on, that we might not leave after all. Ironic really that Butler presided as Head of the Civil Service during the period when the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam were signed and I very much doubt at that time that he will have been pressing the Governments in power during his tenure that a referendum should have been held in order that the electorate could pass judgement on the substantial changes from what was the Common Market towards a Federal EU.

Just as Adrian Lord has called you out for getting the wrong end of the stick Like him, I also quoted Juncker. So you agree then that Juncker was wrong and that we can after all have a cut price exit once our share of the EU assets has been deducted from our obligational liabilities?

http://www.cityam.com/259550/jean-claude-juncker-re-emphasises-britain-faces-hefty I realise that you take the line that only articles and opinions in your favoured rags are acceptable to you, but that is because you are blinkered against opinion that paints a positive picture of the implications of our decision to leave your beloved EU. Juncker has insisted that the UK would not be able to negotiate a cut-price or zero cost exit, but this is complete and utter nonsense. Both of the commentators argue that we would be entitled to a share of the assets of the EU which we contributed towards, so that constitutes a cut-price exit to anybody with any intelligence. And as Isaby points out, Juncker's bluster is just hot air, an opening gambit before negotiations have even began. I admire the stubborn but forlorn hope that you cling to, that there is still a remote possibility that we might not leave the EU after all. It's the hope that kills you, isn't it?

Seems to be several good pubs at Harrow on the Hill

I wonder whether it has penetrated his thick skull that his one year old kid will in all probability never in his life time see the skates play in the Premier League again.

Talking about one-offs, I do believe that this must be one of the very few, if not the only post from you that I can remember that doesn't contain some insult, or puerile name calling. There's hope for you yet.

Your naivety regarding opinion polls is rather touching, especially following the inability of them to predict the results of the two major political events of the past year with any accuracy. By all means try and justify that confidence in them by assurances that they are prepared on a scientific basis, just as economic forecasting is, and that is never wrong either, is it? I reiterate, it is a nothing poll. As for all the froth about what will be acceptable to the 52% who voted to Leave the EU, I suggest that we wait and see what deal we get with the EU regarding trade and accept that the other aspects of control of immigration, return of sovereignty and the supremacy of our law courts over the EU's are things that most Brexiteers wanted. I ask for responses to my two questions for a fourth time. If you don't want to, or can't respond, then just say so.

Always difficult to keep up with responding to your posts when you edit them shortly afterwards. But thanks for the further insults, obfuscation and refusal to answer questions. I can't help seeing a picture of Rene in Allo, Allo every time you label me as stupid; you know, when he is caught by his wife with his pants down and his immediate response to defend himself is to call her a stupid woman. In that Guardian article, Johnson and Farage are described by them as leaders of the Brexit campaign and their remarks immediately follow May's statement about no deal being better than a bad deal, so true to form, as observed astutely by Weston SS and others, you are too dismissive of any source if it disagrees with your position. I'm afraid that it makes you appear rather blinkered, me old mucker. I asked you to name any other prominent Brexiteer who took a different position to those two, but typically you cannot. And for a third time, you refuse to answer the two questions I asked; you're as slippery as an eel when it comes to evasion. You're not a politician by any chance? I'll gladly answer your question; a "bad" deal as far as I'm concerned, would be one that didn't do away with the four freedoms that are conditions of membership of the single market. As I have to repeat continuously to you, it isn't just about trade, but also immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of our own legal system. As for your opinion poll, it is time that I refreshed your memory on the following apposite little snip from Yes, Minister. As to the response to that two month old poll asking what financial price people would be prepared to pay in terms of falling income as a result of Brexit, you would have to be incredibly naive to expect any other response than unhappiness at the prospect. But it's a nothing poll, because as you have acknowledged, we haven't even begun the Brexit process yet, so it's all a bit pie in the sky, isn't it?

Right. So you aren't going to respond to the questions I asked, but will only wriggle, squirm and bluster instead. Par for the course from you.

Here's a little snippet from an article in your favourite rag, the Guardian, saying that prominent leaders such as Johnson and Farage were happy with May's statement that no deal was better than a bad deal. Feel free to quote any others from the Brexiteers' campaign who hold an opposing view. I ask again, what is this price we Brexiteers will be paying?

*Yawn* Another day, another incident of your arrogance and puerile name-calling. I accept that this is your usual MO when you are called out on the drivel you spout, but it is becoming tedious. What was this price that we Brexiteers would be paying? You seem to have skimmed over answering that. Is this something that can't be disproven at this time, as it is a future event? Regarding the comment on BBC bias, they are not going to show anything Trump says or does in a favourable light, any more than they will on the subject of Brexit. As you say, this is a debate about Brexit and I ask you again, do you believe that the BBC has covered the referendum and the events following it without bias towards the Remainian cause?

So do you think that the BBC is not biased against Brexit?

Of course he didn't say that the electorate was too thick in those words, Shatlock, it was all implied, as you yourself attempted to assert:- You're tying yourself in knots, old fruit. And it is after the event of the referendum, which he and you and other Remoaners can't accept, 8 months after, and you're still banging on about it, like the sore, sad losers that you are. What is the price we Brexiteers will be paying, Shatlock? I'm sure that most Brexiteers are content that we will have left the EU and accept that if the EU wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Of course, trade isn't the only reason why there was a majority decision to leave the EU, something that you constantly fail to consider, little snowflake.

Timmy misunderstood your original post, went off the deep end, was made to look a bit of a mug as a result and has not defended his post since. Ignore him. He got his knickers in a twist.

We've already had the debate before the referendum and voted to leave. Frankly, you look pathetic trying to score points so long after the event, attempting to support this political has-been's arrogant claims that the electorate were duped, because they weren't bright enough to understand what leaving the EU meant, despite being bombarded with the dire forecasts of the consequences by the Remoaners. Only a small proportion of the electorate will have seen this programme anyway (even you did not watch it until you were forced to, in order to comment on it) and most of them will have entrenched views on the position they took in the referendum. More pertinent is not the actual finer points of the debate, but that accusation made by Mandelson that the electorate was too thick to understand the implications of leaving. It is a fantastic gift to the Brexiteers, as will be the likes of him trying to delay the passage of the Bill in the Lords. If they do, it will be like turkeys voting for Christmas, stoking the debate on abolishing this unelected body, which is way past its sell by date, a complete anachronism.

Both LD and me are having a good belly laugh at you, trying to add credence to the intervention of the likes of Mandelson and Blair into the debate at the 11th hour. Two failed politicians, both disgraced in their political careers, but subsequently given the opportunity to put their snouts deep into the EU trough. But I admire your chutzpah in attempting to label us as touchy to cover up the discomfort that you must be feeling, trying to defend the likes of Mandelson. Now that the passage of the Brexit Bill is to go to the Lords today, I do hope that their Lordships like Mandelson who receive substantial sums of monies for the EU will be asked to declare an interest in the debate before speaking. That's the aspect of questioning that Marr should have pursued, had he not been such a toady.

I suggest that you watch it first, before posting drivel about it and aligning it with your sweeping final sentence. Try to be more careful next time But LD is spot on, Mandelson did do a great service to the Brexit cause. There's nothing like a failed politician on the EU gravy train attempting to patronise the electorate to raise their hackles, especially one who had to resign twice in disgrace. Mandelson wouldn't know a home truth if it bit him on the arse. But if you imply that Brexiteers will be a bit touchy by his intervention, then you add weight to the suggestion that he has helped the Brexit cause, do you not? And yes, Marr was a pretty toothless interviewer and avoided asking the sort of questions that could have had him squirming. Marr is a bit of a lightweight compared to Andrew Neil, I'm afraid.

Joey Barton, what a complete and utter w*nker. He's an absolute disgrace, feigning injury when there was hardly any contact at all. I hope that he was suitably embarrassed when he saw it played back, but I doubt it. Dyche seems an honest bloke, so with luck he will have had a quite word in Barton's ear and told him to cut that sort of cheating out.

I didn't endorse it, as you put it. I used it as an example of BBC bias. The weasel was Evan Davis, although of course naturally you won't accept that, for the reason that Weston SS astutely observes. If you wish to have an example of BBC bias, then you don't have to look much further than Newsnight when he's presenting it. BBC bias was evident in most of their coverage of the referendum and subsequently on Brexit. It ought to be evident even to you that the Beeb have a tendency to report anything they can rake up that puts a negative slant on Brexit, whilst failing to report the favourable news. Naturally there are complaints from the Remoaners that the BBC is biased towards the Brexit position. That is their ruse to pretend that they are hard done by and therefore the BBC must be balanced in its coverage, but of course, it plainly isn't.

I try and take a more balanced view, Shatlock. That is accepting that a spokesman for Trump will naturally defend his policies and utterances. Do you deny though that the BBC has a biased agenda based on a pro-Remain stance?

And your response to Portugalsaint's post shows your total failure to comprehend what he wrote, making you the thicky. I read it that had we voted to remain in the EU, this thread "Post EU - the way forward" would not have existed. I don't see anything that he wrote that suggests that the situation under those circumstances would not have been the status quo, i.e. business as usual. Feel free to highlight which words or what nuance you applied to his short sentence which led you to interpret it the way you did. Regarding the many good, powerful arguments Brexiteers could be making, I suggest that there were plenty of them during the referendum campaign, but you must have chosen to ignore them. I accept that it is human nature though for those who have lost to be in denial, lashing out at the victors, trying to justify their position by claiming that everything was unfair, their case was misunderstood or not heard and that their opponents weren't intelligent enough to understand the rules. It's basic playground stuff, as is the puerile name-calling.