Brexit Thread 3 - Project Reality

[Gemini73]

Think I might have to defend myself here.

I understood Moggy wasn't directly calling me a 'gammon', but understood why he said it's like Uncle Gammon escaped Facebook. I actually chuckled at that.

Karl is correct. I wasn't saying only tax payers should have a say. To repeat what I posted earlier it was a retort to Mommy's thinking that we should all be dragged kicking and screaming to the voting booth and forced to place that X.

I'm not a racist, sexist, homophobe or any such thing. I'm at the forefront of squashing such nastiness in my current workplace as I find it abhorrent so it's quite upsetting to me that anyone could think of me as such. However, I did once have a stupid, drunken swipe at Photek being Irish and felt both awful and ashamed for doing so and deeply apologized both to Photek and the forum.

I can be a dumb ass and let things get on top of me, but I am trying my upmost to avoid these situations.

I'm currently very depressed, disillusioned and angry at the current state of our politics which is why it's for the best I don't engage in these threads.

Just to confirm again, I don’t think you are racist, sexist or homophobic and I didn’t mean to imply it.

I’m glad you took “Uncle Gammon” in the jokey way it was intended.

I don't think you implied I was racist etc, but as it came up over the last page I thought I best quash any notion that I am quickly.

Dumb ass. Yes. Racist. No.

[Photek]

Pretty sure nobody here is racist but I was just replying to Jawa’s interpretation of posts, it’s something he gets wrong on far to many occasions.

[Blue Eyes]

Pretty sure nobody here is racist but I was just replying to Jawa’s interpretation of posts, it’s something he gets wrong on far to many occasions.

There probably aren't many racists here, if any, but there are certainly people who are happy to overlook overtly racist policies that their parties of choice like to implement.

[Squinty]

Cheers Staydead.

I am so confused by this twitter thread. It's full of crazy people.

twitter.com/politicalpig/status/1185556712503365632

Sorry to bring this account up again, but his crazy plan has been revealed, and it's basically statements copied and pasted from google

This is the new Robin Tilbrook moment.

[Cuttooth]

twitter.com/the3million/status/1185216743943364608

What's this about then? Tomorrow's session in parliament to include a debate on "the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals to own and manage companies or to provide services in the UK on the same basis as UK nationals."?

https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/ ... -briefing/

That would be utterly outrageous if that's what the government has in mind. You'd almost certainly see the same happen in UK citizens within the EU.

[jawafour]

It’s like angry Uncle Gammon has escaped Facebook.

I'm intrigued that the phrase "Uncle Gammon" and similar are used. I wonder if that naming could be considered ageist and/or racist? I believe the phrase is predominantly used as a reference to the colour of a person's skin and their age; and presumably implies that these features mean that "they think the same". Perhaps it is meant in a humorous way but, even so, it strikes me as being the kind of wording that many would - quite correctly, in my humble view - normally be furious about should derogatory terms by used for people of other skin tones or ages.

Looking into the background of the word, it seems that Charles Dickens once used used the term in his book Nicholas Nickleby back in 1838 and that proponents of the phrase often indicate that they use it because they say that names are used for them and their own beliefs. To me, it just feels like folk are less likely to have their point understood or accepted if they use derogatory terms.

Seems to be a pretty reasonable response; no accusations but questions, alongside evidence that I've at least done a little bit of digging into the history of the phrasing. On this basis, when Photek then suggests that I "get this wrong on far (too) many occasions"... well, let's just say I disagree with that assertion.

Pretty sure nobody here is racist but I was just replying to Jawa’s interpretation of posts, it’s something he gets wrong on far to many occasions.

[Moggy]

It’s like angry Uncle Gammon has escaped Facebook.

I'm intrigued that the phrase "Uncle Gammon" and similar are used. I wonder if that naming could be considered ageist and/or racist? I believe the phrase is predominantly used as a reference to the colour of a person's skin and their age; and presumably implies that these features mean that "they think the same". Perhaps it is meant in a humorous way but, even so, it strikes me as being the kind of wording that many would - quite correctly, in my humble view - normally be furious about should derogatory terms by used for people of other skin tones or ages.

Looking into the background of the word, it seems that Charles Dickens once used used the term in his book Nicholas Nickleby back in 1838 and that proponents of the phrase often indicate that they use it because they say that names are used for them and their own beliefs. To me, it just feels like folk are less likely to have their point understood or accepted if they use derogatory terms.

Seems to be a pretty reasonable response; no accusations but questions, alongside evidence that I've at least done a little bit of digging into the history of the phrasing. On this basis, when Photek then suggests that I "get this wrong on far (too) many occasions"... well, let's just say I disagree with that assertion.

Pretty sure nobody here is racist but I was just replying to Jawa’s interpretation of posts, it’s something he gets wrong on far to many occasions.

Jawa we had this conversation a year ago.

There’s nothing racist about the term gammon. Especially when a white person is saying it about a white person.

I use the phrase to describe behaviour. A 50 year old white bloke with a red face doesn’t get called gammon unless they are acting like a gammon.

That’s the difference.

[Garth]

twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1186031565878501377

[Photek]

The DUP can’t do jack Sh*t.

[Garth]

They can if they lend their votes to opposition amendments.

[Moggy]

The DUP can’t do jack Sh*t.

With how tight votes are likely to be, the DUP voting against the government could be the deciding factor.

[Photek]

I get that, I meant in terms of they’ve been already disregarded by Boris either way.

31 unionists are going back to Stormont today in the hops of blocking the legalisation of Abortion and Gay marriage which is to come into effect tomorrow. They won’t block it as they need Sinn Fein to restore power which I think is rather splendid.

[Photek]

twitter.com/hullbhoy/status/1185634270653628416

[Photek]

twitter.com/moneillsf/status/1185907627705942018

[Garth]

twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186190046665330688

Sounds like they want their veto, but wouldn't that require renegotiating with the EU too? Don't see why the EU would want to give them that.

Edit:

twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1186201263391809538

[Garth]

twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1186235924948180993

twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186236591280414720

[captain red dog]

I think parliament will probably wreck the bill with amendments. A GE would likely produce a similar parliament. I just wish we could all stop wasting time and have current deal vs remain decided by the people. Both sides need it to clear the current stalemate.

[Garth]

twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1186243998547152897

[Moggy]

I think parliament will probably wreck the bill with amendments. A GE would likely produce a similar parliament. I just wish we could all stop wasting time and have current deal vs remain decided by the people. Both sides need it to clear the current stalemate.

The obvious and sensible solution is a referendum. So it almost certainly won’t happen.

[captain red dog]

I think parliament will probably wreck the bill with amendments. A GE would likely produce a similar parliament. I just wish we could all stop wasting time and have current deal vs remain decided by the people. Both sides need it to clear the current stalemate.

The obvious and sensible solution is a referendum. So it almost certainly won’t happen.

The thing is, if this goes through parliament to completion, even after many delays, I think whatever deal we get will be very similar to remaining anyway. If the Tories win a majority in an election and are able to push through the current deal, this split will wreck our politics for years anyway and keep Brexit on the top of the agenda.

So the excuse of "it's the EUs fault" for all the problems in the country will turn to each side blaming the other for failing to settle Brexit. This could all be sorted with one final legally binding ref. If people back this terrible deal, then we have to go with it at that point. Likewise if Remain wins, it's settled and although people will moan, they have moaned since we joined the EU anyway. If we voted remain, I think there would be an initial crybaby period but largely people are sick of the issue now and would be glad to just move on.