Be Excellent To Each Other

Well, there's a first time for everything, I guess.

I have to be uber-pragmatic at work, so I need to be an idealist outside or I'd just die of despair.

Or dat pear. I poisoned two of the lot you bought.

That's bad, even for you!

I wasn't shocked at all, he just annoyed me.

Firstly I'm not a fan of him at all, don't hate him or anything just don't find him funny. I have tried, download a load of his stand up and tried to get into into it once.

Then he for a so called wordsmith or wit he was shit. Farage the one trick pony was all over him, mostly as he was so bad.

Then the state of him, I guess my description upset some people, I thought it was pretty mild for me

He just looked like a half finished panto dame, I appreciate a good lady boy as much as the next man, they always dress well, better than a lot of women I know, so he should have made more effort if thats his thing.

So it's not his way of life that bothers you, more that he's not attractive enough for you in women's clothing items (a hat... I think he was wearing a plain cut t-shirt and men's suit jacket) but you'd be more accepting/interested if you found him a more attractive transvestite (politics/celebrity/wit aside... Of course it's absolutely fine not to like him as a celebrity, personality or social commentator, that's a given)?

That's cool, I'm not judging that, I just wondered. It might be hypocritical of many to judge too much on that due to the amount of 'would' posts and judging people's worth on the value of their looks.

In general, I believe referring to any group of people by a pejorative that could feasibly be shouted at them as they are beaten up by a gang of thugs in a dark alleyway is not a good look. This is "mild", you say. So what other slurs do you use freely when you're actually mad, then? Fag? Paki? Nigger?

I didn't even want to go near that one.

I agree with Cavey on this one, I'm sure we've all got our preferred manner of dressing, whether we're transvestites or anything else.

The point is that sometimes you just have to dress to the occasion, whether you like it or not, and Izzard chose not to, and in doing so he damaged his case.

It's so blatantly obvious I'm surprised there's a debate about it, even by BEEX's famously right-on standards. (Which on the whole I tend to align with.)

To be honest, in that particular screencap at least he looks like a kooky old lady.

The Sun is backing Leave:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/7 ... 6988257280

Tomorrow The Sun comes out and backs #VoteLeave pic.twitter.com/ojcvzGiCpI

— Vote Leave (@vote_leave) June 13, 2016

Umm, looking at its front pages for the last few months surely it's been backing Leave for ages?

Not like that.

The Sun often intimates a view, possibly strongly, but only expresses it formally when they've decided that they know they're backing the winner.

Well yeah. But is anyone surprised?

That theyve called the winner a week early? Depressing more like.

I'm sure it won't affect your job one bit

That pretty much seals the win for OUT.

Oh well.

Activate MAXIMUM PINK BERET defences.

I STILL say Remain will win the day, notwithstanding their really shit campaign (and Izzard's, ahem, dress sense). We'll see; the influence of print media isn't what it was.

All we need now is for Taylor Swift to come out for Remain on her Twitter feed, and we're home and dry

/ICBMs emerge from their silos

I guess this is the danger when you abrogate responsibility for massively important decisions to the general public.

It'd be interesting if:

1) The REMAIN camp's doomsday warnings turn out to be true

and

2) BREXIT wins

Then it will have been on a Conservative government's watch that the biggest economic calamity in living memory befell the UK, making all that winter of discontent stuff look like a gentle stroll in the park by comparison.

I've forgotten how we even ended up with this referendum in the first place, was it Cameron promising it to shut up the Eurosceptics in his own party leading up to the election, or something?

Or, perhaps, if politicians go too far away from the mass of the people. Perhaps if we had had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, or on Maastricht, or if our leaders had been more open and willing to engage in the EU rather than see it as a thing to get 'victories over red lines' from we wouldn't be here now.

Helped to fend off the UKIP vote.

To elaborate on our historic lack of engagement, here's one example:

As the Lisbon Treaty said that the President of the EU Commission (the executive body of the Union) should be appointed after taking into account the outcome of the European Parliament elections, the leaders of the Euro-parties (the coalitions of national parties) all agreed to nominate a candidate each and push the Council to choose the one that came from the largest party. There were TV debates between the various nominees, and as a result Mr Junker considers himself elected by the people of the EU. None of this was picked up the British media and I doubt people voting Labour did so because they wanted Martin Schulz. The Tories aren't in the EPP and their group stayed out of this.

Whether this is a good development or not is for you to decide.

It's entirely down to Tory infighting that we're in this mess. UKIP are just some Tories.

But it's alright because when we do end up leaving the EU it'll all be Eddie Izzard's fucking fault.

Christ we won't even be able to easily flee this right wing shithole of a country.

Not once we've rebuilt Hadrian's Wall (and got the Scots to pay for it).

I'm looking forward to Merkel, Junker, and Hollande swimming across the Channel in the last week with a VOW OF CHANGE.

If only Eddie Izzard had plumbed for a more demure beret colour, huh.

That square's already taken old chap; even Brexit is nowt compared to "the banking crisis".

But yeah, democracy and handing over the reigns of power to the people come at a heavy price? Time and again, you'll not get the vote or outcome you want, but worth it nonetheless IMO. If Brexit's what the people want than that is what we shall have. Remain's campaign has been SHIT

If only David Cameron hadn't promised a referendum and then failed to run a strong campaign for the outcome he wants.

At least if we leave and it's a disaster we can take some cold comfort in the fact it'll be forever Cameron's legacy, like Tony "Illegal War" Blair.

Reckon an exit is on the cards. People’s beliefs are too fixated on immigration and the Daily Mail headlines of EU interference on shite like hoovers.

Scary thing is that most people in this camp are not bigots or racists, they just pick up on the negative headlines and feel that they get little from the EU.

Remain has just rolled out ex PM’s who between them will have pissed off a lot of voters with their time in power regardless of their political beliefs so don’t really get the benefits of this across well.

I'm going to vote to stay in, not that I’m a huge fan of the EU, but we are in and the 2-3 years of untangling us from them and the negotiations for all the things we will want will cause chaos and probably cost more money when the dust has settled.

You're right, yes. Politicians make terrible mistakes though even in hindsight, difficult to see how Cameron could've avoided offering a referendum to halt the UKIP tide. Perhaps the EU themselves should've offered him more concessions.

Whatever happens, though, I doubt Brexit will cost the lives of half a million civilians or 350 billions in QE, another half trillion to the national debt and a decade of austerity, so that's something, right?

Let's hold off the post morgen until we lose, yeah? Hold your nerve.

Post-morgen? You are the Swedish Chef and I claim my five pounds.

Shouldn't people feel some connection with those who govern them, and with the wider electorate who select them?
We tend to see EU law as something that's done to us, not as something we are a part of. Sure, the media might have a lot to blame but the complexity and opacity of EU decision-making also play a part in this.

No I think the media is almost entirely to blame. People had absolutely zero interest in any of it and only started moaning that they felt "disenfranchised" when their right wing tabloids told them to. Idiots.

Of course, but many people outside of London feel that UK government does little for them, so see the EU as a even more distant organisation.

Surely you could change that to "see law as something that's done to us". With a referendum focusing on the EU, so people look at the EU in isolation, forgetting their disconnection from most/all politics.

Yep. Home Rule all round!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexi ... 189e25e615

Not everything is right wing shite!

Should we stop C2DE income groups voting to prevent this?

Oh, I agree. But I think most people have rough idea who the Prime Minister is, what the Commons is, and the relationship between the election and the direction of the country.

Do you know what powers are delegated to the Union, and which ones are reserved to the member countries? Who the five presidents are, who elects/nominates them, and the extent of their power?

Do you pay attention to debates in the European Parliament, and monitor outpourings from the Commission? Do you know who to contact/kick for redress of grievance? Have you even read the treaties?

Spellcasting B-R-E-C-H-T:

I completely agree, but think it's an issue on both sides, not just a right-wing problem. Referendums for issues this incredibly complex really are stupid. There is no way whatsoever that a majority of the voting public could ever have any idea what the implications of either in or out are, for our social and economic future. The people who actually understand macroeconomics have no idea what will happen if we leave. This is just not a question that anyone should have allowed to be thrown to the general public.

When you have a majority of the population uninformed about the issue (not a pejorative, I certainly don't think I understand it enough to have a valid opinion!) they turn to sources that they trust to inform them. The main problem we have is that those sources are people's existing political loyalties and their existing media preferences. And unfortunately, as the AV vote, Indy vote, and EU vote are ably demonstrating, all of those trusted sources are quite happy to lie through their teeth, and the general public do not have the capability to critically assess and discard those lies.

No, because I have been perfectly happy for our elected representatives to look after all this shit on our behalf. Nearly all of whom maintain that leaving would be a very bad idea. I'd sooner not be having to vote on this at all but as it is I'll go with their opinion. By and large it's the leave voters who have insisted on talking to me that seem to profess some sudden knowledge of the workings and shortcomings of the EU.

I always find it fascinating to note how terrified the Left is of giving the people an actual, real say about stuff, as opposed to leaving such things to technocrats, men in grey suits (more pink berets needed? ). The Right just doesn't have this problem.

Do you know who your local Councillor is?
Do you know what responsibilities your county council has over the district council or the town council?

You quite possibly do, but I bet that most of the people who are complaining that they don't know anything about the way the EU works, also don't know too much about how their local authorities work either. They may know who their local MP is (although I'd bet quite a lot don't know this either) and maybe a couple of high profile Cabinet Members, but I think the vast majority don't know much more than that.

What, like green? You warmongerer.