The EU debate - Part III

I'm challenging it tipped the balance?

 

Great!

So please point me to where I've said that their collapse would not affect Europe!..

That's the Italian banks I'm speaking of..

 

Well, you're wrong then, aren't you? As the figures clearly demonstrate!

 

The original post that you took issue with was that little Englanders and xenophobes drove the result.

I've provided you with stats that show a 3rd of the leave vote was primarily driven by immigration and 80% of the leave voters thought immigration and multiculturalism was a force for ill.

So quite how the **** can you continue to deny the original statement is beyond me.

 

Maybe he's from Hull?...

 

Dear or dear...
This all started with me stating that economies have grown (I gave examples of the US and The U.K., both major wouldn't you agree), which is in direct response to you saying they hadn't - first sentence.

I never mentioned Italian banks, that was initially you and Hulls conversation, but in the second sentence you are refuting Hulls claims but saying that Italian banks have always been basket cases, if that not a dismissal Italy's impact on Europe, then I don't know what is.

You can now squirm your way around this for the next god knows how many posts or take it on the chin and move on, that's really up to you.
I'm personally not going to keep trawling for your previous posts, as I said it's all there in black and white.
I might be a ****, but I'm not a lying ****!!

 

It's a survey result rather than a 'fact' and they don't seemed to ask anyone if they were xenophobic or Little Englanders.

You voted remain, and you're a very little Englander.

 

This is now becoming tedious. Other than the 30% who openly admitted they voted for Brexit on the immigration ticket, even you cannot somehow claim victory for the other 60%, even if they said that immigration and multiculturalism was a force for ill. I don't like milk, but that doesn't mean I want all the cows gone?

 

As been proved previously, figures aren't your strong suit!

 

I'm not squrming pal, you're talking bollocks, as per usual. In fact it's you that's trying to squirm out of your original assertion.

You're also attempting to deflect and change the subject. I NEVER claimed economies had not grown, only that they had slowed.

Me squirm? For an ignoramus, like you, laughable.

You've been hit so many times, you should be punch drunk by now.

Give it up! You're going nowhere, proving nothing. Only that you're a stubborn idiot who can't admit that what he posted was wrong.

I should point out that, yes, the Italian banking system has been a basket case for ever and a day. That doesn't mean it will collapse.

What I said was, that if the European banking system collapsed, which is what Dull was alluding to, then yes, that could take the global economy with it.

IF, the Italian banking system collapsed - it won't - then yes, there would be serious consequences for the whole of Europe. The U.K. Included.

 

Also, as has been more than adequately proved, you're blustering and talking bollocks!

 

So you asked for proof, I provided proof (it's in black and white) and your claiming you didn't say it?

Your first comment - "It has never made a recovery, indeed as have not the major economies of the world" - can't see the word slowed, perhaps it's hiding?

"Your second comment was - Italian banks have been a basket case as long as I can remember. It's nothing new" - that was your dismissal of Hulls comments.

So what do I do now....oh **** I did say it, I know I will go on the attack and try to hope that works.

You are really making yourself look silly now, I was happy to move on. Give it up you say....you can't admit what you posted was wrong....only I have posted it word for word. It's what you, not me, posted.
Me punch drunk...if this had been a boxing match, you would have tripped over the rope on the way into the ring and knocked yourself out. I guess at least you could then claim amnesia. Sad man, very sad man

 

As I constantly try to get you too....prove it, show me the evidence that all those who voted for Brexit or indeed "swung the vote" did it purely because of immigration.

 

No, the global economy has never completely recovered. As is still in clear evidence.

And, it's you making yourself look stupid by continually reading things into my posts that I did not say.

You're a clueless buffoon, blustering away trying to prove the unprovable.

 

Pal, work it out for yourself, as you think you're so clever.

33% of 52% who voted leave! And you don't think that swung the vote??

Let's say there were 17 mill votes for leave and 16 mill for remain. That's approx 5.1 mill votes going to immigration being the reason for voting leave. And you still don't buy that it swung the vote??

 

That's your trouble, I responded directly to your post and now you're saying that you didn't actually mean what you posted, but I'm reading things into your post.
Here we go again (and again and again if you like), you said and I quote "Indeed as have not the major economies of the world". There no ambiguity in that statement, why you are now claiming there is, I don't know.
The second comment was around Italy being a basket case and not having any impact on Europes finances. As it was your conversation with Hull, I will let you squirm with him on that as I really can't be bothered.

You can keep claiming I'm a Buffon till the cows come home, it won't change your comments. I'm not trying to prove anything, it's all there in black and white. I don't know you personally, so have no idea if by saying A, I somehow should know you didn't actually mean A, you meant B.

 

Yes, because you are reading into it. I NEVER said that an Italian bank collapse would not affect Europe. Merely that it's always been a basket case. Has it looked like it could collapse before? Yes. Has it ever collapsed? No, and it won't now. But you chose to read something different into it to suit your own ends.

You are a buffoon, because you cannot backtrack on what you said. I asked you to support your claims. You couldn't - you still can't, despite all your bluster.

I see no reason to 'squirm' as you try to term it, I'm quite comfortable with what I've posted and what I've asserted. If you chose too try and read something different into, your problem.

I'm going out with my lady for the evening now. So I'll leave you to do whatever you do on a Saturday night.

 

Why do you keep calling me pal. I think we have worked out that I am not your pal?
If it's intended to somehow intimidate me, you're failing miserably at that too.

No I'm saying that the 33% were a "given" to the leave campaign. That means another 19% of the leave vote, voted for another reason to leave Europe (or so we are led to believe). If I was running a campaign I would focus on the 19% as they are the votes that could be "swung". It's nothing to do with being "so clever" it's kind of common sense. It's a bit like our other conversation where I'm wasting my time with you, you're right and I'm wrong even if the evidence supports what I am saying.

 

It doesn't. But please carry on trying to show that it does!...

 

But for the umpteenth time, I have supported my claims by providing your words. I noticed how you have dropped the economy question and are now claiming that we should all know that your dismissal of Hulls comments, around the Italian banks, wasn't meant as it was written.
As I appear to be the bigger man, I do hope that our last few hours posting doesn't spoil your evening with your lady. I guess I won't be getting the same pleasantry's back?