European Second Referendum

[Hoboh]

So because I wouldn't support you against extremists in your revolt that makes me an extremist?
The only person suffering from delusion and fantasy is you, Blair is a political has been, face facts.

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

Some would be happy to sit on the fence, you know in the middle, seems the norm in this day and age.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

And once more you are wrong.
The sentence: "If there is a revolution your types would fall under the wheels of the extremists because some of us wouldn't give support for you" does not necessarily correlate 'the extremists' with the 'us' in question. Sorry, but just a matter of English usage!
The 'us' may meaningfully, and grammatically, refer to a third set of people apart from 'the extremists' and 'you'.

[BWFC_Insane]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

And once more you are wrong.
The sentence: "If there is a revolution your types would fall under the wheels of the extremists because some of us wouldn't give support for you" does not necessarily correlate 'the extremists' with the 'us' in question. Sorry, but just a matter of English usage!
The 'us' may meaningfully, and grammatically, refer to a third set of people apart from 'the extremists' and 'you'.

It could. Indeed. However, it would be poor use of language and very ambiguous.

If he is indeed using "us" to refer to a nebulous and ill defined group, the us are seemingly happy to watch extremists commit acts of violence against "me". Which in my book is tantamount to the same thing.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

And once more you are wrong.
The sentence: "If there is a revolution your types would fall under the wheels of the extremists because some of us wouldn't give support for you" does not necessarily correlate 'the extremists' with the 'us' in question. Sorry, but just a matter of English usage!
The 'us' may meaningfully, and grammatically, refer to a third set of people apart from 'the extremists' and 'you'.

It could. Indeed. However, it would be poor use of language and very ambiguous.

If he is indeed using "us" to refer to a nebulous and ill defined group, the us are seemingly happy to watch extremists commit acts of violence against "me". Which in my book is tantamount to the same thing.

And again, to be pedantic, it is now 'you' who is expressing the fact the third set ('us' in the original) would be "happy to watch". There is a possibility, like during the start of the second world war, that an entire disenfranchised population may have been sad to watch but felt helpless to intervene in the struggle between 'the extremists' and 'you'.
I believe, without putting too fine a point on it, that you really do struggle to analyse from a dispassionate outside point of view, or as I've put to you a few times, "you have difficulty with logic".

[BWFC_Insane]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

And once more you are wrong.
The sentence: "If there is a revolution your types would fall under the wheels of the extremists because some of us wouldn't give support for you" does not necessarily correlate 'the extremists' with the 'us' in question. Sorry, but just a matter of English usage!
The 'us' may meaningfully, and grammatically, refer to a third set of people apart from 'the extremists' and 'you'.

It could. Indeed. However, it would be poor use of language and very ambiguous.

If he is indeed using "us" to refer to a nebulous and ill defined group, the us are seemingly happy to watch extremists commit acts of violence against "me". Which in my book is tantamount to the same thing.

And again, to be pedantic, it is now 'you' who is expressing the fact the third set ('us' in the original) would be "happy to watch". There is a possibility, like during the second world war, that an entire disenfranchised population may have been sad to watch but felt helpless to intervene in the struggle between 'the extremists' and 'you'.
I believe, without putting too fine a point on it, that you really do struggle to analyse from a dispassionate outside point of view, or as I've put to you a few times, "you have difficulty with logic".

Try again....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

INCORRECT

Try again....

Try what again? ...that you have difficulty with logic?
OK: You have difficulty with logic.

[BWFC_Insane]

When you describe "extremists" and "us" there can be only one conclusion.

INCORRECT

Try again....

Try what again? ...that you have difficulty with logic?
OK: You have difficulty with logic.

No, you do.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ahead of BWFC_i who has great difficulties with logical thought, today's crop of unelected Eurocrats go top of the pile:

Unelected appointee President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stated "If a deal is impossible and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"
Clearly not you Donald.

Despite Theresa May stating in parliament (after confirming a no confidence vote followed by cross party talks) "... thirdly... I will take [them] to the EU", what does Juncker do (despite saying nothing has or can change)? He says he "will travel back early to Brussels this morning... To be ready for "emergency" Brexit talks".

[BWFC_Insane]

Ahead of BWFC_i who has great difficulties with logical thought, today's crop of unelected Eurocrats go top of the pile:

Unelected appointee President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stated "If a deal is impossible and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"
Clearly not you Donald.

Despite Theresa May stating in parliament (after confirming a no confidence vote followed by cross party talks) "... thirdly... I will take [them] to the EU", what does Juncker do (despite saying nothing has or can change)? He says he "will travel back early to Brussels this morning... To be ready for "emergency" Brexit talks".

The EU are laughing at us. I don't think we are in any position to criticise their leadership given the absolute shit show we have going on here.

Juncker is a pisshead yet he still runs rings around May.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ahead of BWFC_i who has great difficulties with logical thought, today's crop of unelected Eurocrats go top of the pile:

Unelected appointee President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stated "If a deal is impossible and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"
Clearly not you Donald.

Despite Theresa May stating in parliament (after confirming a no confidence vote followed by cross party talks) "... thirdly... I will take [them] to the EU", what does Juncker do (despite saying nothing has or can change)? He says he "will travel back early to Brussels this morning... To be ready for "emergency" Brexit talks".

The EU are laughing at us. I don't think we are in any position to criticise their leadership given the absolute shit show we have going on here.

Juncker is a pisshead yet he still runs rings around May.

I don't disagree they are laughing at us.
I don't disagree that Juncker is an unelected pisshead.
I don't disagree that Juncker can run (metaphorical) rings around May. (he can hardly stand mind, so I think literal rings would be a stretch).

But, especially given the two examples of illogical thinking I've quoted above, I believe we are in a position to criticise their leadership: having one's own leaders running a shit show is no barrier to criticising others' shit shows. Just another example of why you are passionate but non logical.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ahead of BWFC_i who has great difficulties with logical thought, today's crop of unelected Eurocrats go top of the pile:

Unelected appointee President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stated "If a deal is impossible and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"
Clearly not you Donald.

Despite Theresa May stating in parliament (after confirming a no confidence vote followed by cross party talks) "... thirdly... I will take [them] to the EU", what does Juncker do (despite saying nothing has or can change)? He says he "will travel back early to Brussels this morning... To be ready for "emergency" Brexit talks".

The EU are laughing at us. I don't think we are in any position to criticise their leadership given the absolute shit show we have going on here.

Juncker is a pisshead yet he still runs rings around May.

I don't disagree they are laughing at us.
I don't disagree that Juncker is an unelected pisshead.
I don't disagree that Juncker can run (metaphorical) rings around May. (he can hardly stand mind, so I think literal rings would be a stretch).

But, especially given the two examples of illogical thinking I've quoted above, I believe we are in a position to criticise their leadership: having one's own leaders running a shit show is no barrier to criticising others' shit shows. Just another example of why you are passionate but non logical.

I don't think either statements are illogical. Why wouldn't the EU be discussing Brexit today? Tusk says what many people believe. You disagree, but it doesn't make it illogical.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ahead of BWFC_i who has great difficulties with logical thought, today's crop of unelected Eurocrats go top of the pile:

Unelected appointee President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, stated "If a deal is impossible and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"
Clearly not you Donald.

Despite Theresa May stating in parliament (after confirming a no confidence vote followed by cross party talks) "... thirdly... I will take [them] to the EU", what does Juncker do (despite saying nothing has or can change)? He says he "will travel back early to Brussels this morning... To be ready for "emergency" Brexit talks".

The EU are laughing at us. I don't think we are in any position to criticise their leadership given the absolute shit show we have going on here.

Juncker is a pisshead yet he still runs rings around May.

I don't disagree they are laughing at us.
I don't disagree that Juncker is an unelected pisshead.
I don't disagree that Juncker can run (metaphorical) rings around May. (he can hardly stand mind, so I think literal rings would be a stretch).

But, especially given the two examples of illogical thinking I've quoted above, I believe we are in a position to criticise their leadership: having one's own leaders running a shit show is no barrier to criticising others' shit shows. Just another example of why you are passionate but non logical.

I don't think either statements are illogical. Why wouldn't the EU be discussing Brexit today? Tusk says what many people believe. You disagree, but it doesn't make it illogical.

You see, you don't get it. I don't disagree with what Tusk had to say if he said it (although I disagree with him that it is the only positive conclusion). But he didn't state it, he asked a question with an answer he wants to magically appear of its own accord, then deny the conclusion by not answering his own question!. Logic dictates he should have stated that Britain should remain in the UK, but he didn't because of twisted logic, and a fear of being accused of interfering in British domestic politics, despite interfering in British domestic politics by his intervention...

You really weren't taught Logic at school, were you? That's not a rhetorical question by the way.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But anyway. Part Two.
Are you any clearer in understanding what the next steps are? Or not?
(Because I am, thanks be to mighty parliament).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But anyway. Part Two.
Are you any clearer in understanding what the next steps are? Or not?
(Because I am, thanks be to mighty parliament).

Tractatus Logico-Politicus
1. May is intractable.
1.1 May defeats motion of no confidence.
1.1.1 May denies opportunity for 2nd referendum vote.
1.2 May puts back plan A for second vote.
1.2.1 May loses second vote
...
2. (1.1.1)
2.1. May puts back plan B (which is plan A plus bullshit) for third vote.
...
4. March 29th arrives

Did you like the irony between Tractatus and intractable? It's my biggest hope.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Unbiased BBC giving five minutes to Scotland's first billionaire and obvious pro-remainer Sir Tom Somefxcker.
They need renaming the EBC.
Why the fxck does having money give that Scottish knob a voice I'm denied?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Tom Watson has just come out with a calumny about May!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Michael Gove, the little shit, just destroyed Corbyn. Totally.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...now Jeremy Corbyn getting in on the act, the thick wazzock. Invited to talks, puts a precondition of taking no deal off the table! ... How can you take No Deal off the table when there is no deal? No no deal cannot work without a deal!!! Yet another with a lack of logic!

[BWFC_Insane]

...now Jeremy Corbyn getting in on the act, the thick wazzock. Invited to talks, puts a precondition of taking no deal off the table! ... How can you take No Deal off the table when there is no deal? No no deal cannot work without a deal!!! Yet another with a lack of logic!

How can you take no deal off the table?

State that if no deal can be reached you will revoke A50.

It’s really quite simple. If you had a logical brain. Which clearly you don’t....

[BWFC_Insane]

Like to say though that instead of making demands all leaders including May and Corbyn should have simply got round a table and negotiated. For the greater good. All should have been prepared to drop some of their principles to make a suitable deal happen. End of the day May has the most to lose from doing so. Corbyn should suck it up and get in there and just try and find a way forward.

Sadly I think any way forward will come from backbenchers now...