"Any deal to leave the EU should respect the results of the referendum"

[spacein_vader]

Not what I said.

Repeatedly, remainers have said, paraphrasing, we weren't told Brexit meant leaving the Single Market or Customs Union.

And that is that-out untrue.

What I said is we sere told that, explicitly and repeatedly, by both sides. Once side used it to explain how we could make trade deals with the rest of the planet. The other sude used it as a disaster scenario, to scare us.

Oh, and while we're at it, the EU stated, again repeatedly and explicitly, no cherry-picking. That the very core of the EU is the relationship between member states embedded in the Single Market, and the Customs Union, and that there is no having part of the single market without having all of it, and what goes with it, which includes accepting the foyr freedoms, the jurisfiction of the ECJ and "contributions".

I didn't say I believed either side. Both speak with forked tongue, and you have to filter all their claims.

What I said was that one of the favourire refrains of Remainers is "nobody said", usually with the inference that all those that voted Leave would have sern the light and voted differently if we had bern told.

We were told. Repeatedly. By the leaders of both sides. And the claim that we weren't is either out of ignorance, because it was repeated extensively, including in the week before the vote, or an outright lie.


Oh, and call me a hypocrit again and you get suspended. You know the rules and are on extremely thin ice.

The post I made contained a link to a video showing Farage, Banks and various other leavers stating that the common market/Norway style arrangements WERE a viable (some of them even a preferable,) option.

We may well have been told leaving the common market was the way, certainly by remain as a worst case, but if leave did, they weren't consistent on it. It was by no means the given it appears to have become.

As for the cherry picking, I agree that has always been clear so I don't know what the government were playing at with Chequers as that was never going to fly. Barnier seems to have become fed up of telling us that nicely though, given his tone last night.

[Corky34]

Not what I said.

Repeatedly, remainers have said, paraphrasing, we weren't told Brexit meant leaving the Single Market or Customs Union.

And that is that-out untrue.

What I said is we sere told that, explicitly and repeatedly, by both sides. Once side used it to explain how we could make trade deals with the rest of the planet. The other sude used it as a disaster scenario, to scare us.

Oh, and while we're at it, the EU stated, again repeatedly and explicitly, no cherry-picking. That the very core of the EU is the relationship between member states embedded in the Single Market, and the Customs Union, and that there is no having part of the single market without having all of it, and what goes with it, which includes accepting the foyr freedoms, the jurisfiction of the ECJ and "contributions".

I didn't say I believed either side. Both speak with forked tongue, and you have to filter all their claims.

What I said was that one of the favourire refrains of Remainers is "nobody said", usually with the inference that all those that voted Leave would have sern the light and voted differently if we had bern told.

We were told. Repeatedly. By the leaders of both sides. And the claim that we weren't is either out of ignorance, because it was repeated extensively, including in the week before the vote, or an outright lie.

To be fair we were told both things, we were told we'd have to leave the single market and we were told we'd not be leaving the single market.

Who said what seems to be besides the point IMO, that point being we voted to do something without the slightest idea of what that something was, you're probably going to say how you, we, or everyone knew exactly what they were voting for but we didn't because things were said by both sides and nothing was written down.

If it's not written down IMO there's no way to hold politicians to account as they'll spend from here to eternity equivocating and pretending they meant something else, and yet despite that it seems we still voted to give them free reign, while you personally may not have believed a single word they said some people did and voted accordingly, with such a small margin and only 37% of the population actively saying they wanted to leave the EU, along with all the other transgressions, it seems unfair to go down a path that few people knew we'd be heading down, in the end it's undemocratic as democracy requires free and fair voting and the referendum was anything but fair.

As for the cherry picking, I agree that has always been clear so I don't know what the government were playing at with Chequers as that was never going to fly. Barnier seems to have become fed up of telling us that nicely though, given his tone last night.

IIRC That phrase came about as a direct response to our politicians claiming we could have our cake and eat it.

[Biscuit]

You called me hypocritical, in a public post, in direct contravention of our rules, and you want to "discuss" it in private?

Yes, it is a final warning, and there is nothing to discuss. If you don't know why, you need to read the rules again.

And to be clear, it's nothing to do with what you're arguing. It's about insults.

This subject is EXACTLY why we have a rule against it. It's a contentious subject. Frankly, it's hard to think of a more contentious, divisive subject, and if people sink to calling others names, any actual discussion will cease.

Following our rules is not hp for debate, not subject to some orivate understanding, and for that matter, doesn't even require a "final warning".

But seeing as you appear interested in clarifying perspectives, I'll clarify it. You can make whatever argument you like on Brexit, adopt whatever stance you like and that's not a problem.

Call other members names, directly or indirectly, and you break our rules. What happens then is at our discretion, and not up for negotiation or discussion. Do it again and a suspension will follow immediately.

Clear enough? That's a rhetorical question.

I highlighted a perspective you seem to hold and called it hypocritical. I didn't insult YOU (for example, I didn't say, "you're nothing but a hypocrite", which for the record, I don't believe). I was questioning the percieved duality of the perspective you hold, and stating that it seems hypocritical to me.
It clearly wasn't intended as a blind insult and doesn't seem any worse than you indirectly referring to remainers as snivellers and whiners...

As far as I was concerned, I was not, and have not broken the community guidelines, hence my suggestion that it could have been resolved in a more diplomatic fashion. The comment was intended as part of healthy discussion of ideas, was not intended to offend, and I felt it didn't need to derail the thread in the way it has, much easier for me to change the wording to something you take less offense too than go down this path... But nevermind I guess.

[Saracen]

Anyone ever told you the first rule of holes? Stop digging.

You were told it was not up for argument and you were on thin ice.

Account suspended for 7 days.

Corky, you seem to be looking for it too. Got anything you want to add, other than "thanks" for his posts, because having forced me into a suspension for the first time in so long it took me a while to remember how to do it, I'm fine with doubling up? My advice is to keep quiet, because my patience over this is exhausted.

Everybody take note. Discussions, especially in contentious threads, WILL be conducted without insulting other users. Trying to pretend that there's a difference between

a) you said "x" and it's hypocritical, and
b) you're a hypocrit ..

... is a distinction without a difference, and I warned specifically that

1) Direct or indirect it wasn't on, and
2) It wasn't up for debate

This is an area that's been dealt with numerous times over the years and moderating decisions aren't up for debate.

[peterb]

Thread closed to prevent any more casualties

[Zak33]

We don't suspend people often (Biscuit will be un banned after a while.. it's a suspension but we had to manually display that option)

when the settles and Biscuit is back onboard, I'm here for all ranting and moans via PM. I'm busy, but a good listener. But please be aware.. Sara knows what offended him, and warns people before he bites. He always does, and it's rare that this occurs. Peter is similar in many veins.

I'd not have been offended by being called a Hypocrit, but I'd have been much ruder back! Sara isn't that gentleman - he's more professional.