paulhanley

I'm not so sure it's a non-binary question. As a principle I think it's absolutely the right question to ask. I agree with you that there then follows a secondary question - what type of future relationship do you want with the EU - either as a member (for those who want to remain) or as a non-member (for those who want to leave). The trouble is - as a leave voter, - there's been such endless abuse of the "thick racists" variety over three years that you become suspicious of the motives when a line of questioning seems to want to muddy the waters on the outcome of the 2016 referendum. That's polarisation - but it's polarisation caused by extremist remainers. I know for a fact that had the outcome in 2016 been remain I'd have accepted it. I'd have remained frustrated with the EU and I'd have articulated that - but I wouldn't have gone in to denial that a majority of those who turned out disagreed with me and I wouldn't have been calling for a second vote. Such behaviour lacks any democratic values or integrity.

By definition if you put three, four or five options on a ballot paper rather than two the result will be different. Irrespective of the subject being voted upon. You're asking about the difference between a soft and hard Brexit. I could equally ask whether you'd have accepted various shades of remain on the ballot paper. The trouble is, once you get away from a binary choice, it's very unlikely one side will get more than 50 per cent which means entrenched opponents of the outcome have even more opportunity to seek to undermine a result they didn't want. I'm saying that in a theoretical way rather than in one that directly addresses a vote/referendum on the subject of EU membership.

The mood has not changed. I'll tell you what has changed though - suddenly you believe in democracy. You spot a way of manufacturing an election result you like and you're all over it like a cheap suit. When it's a result you don't like - 52/48 in a referendum that explicitly asked the question 'leave or remain' .... well, you didn't like that result. So you can deny that one and try to undermine it. The extent of the duplicity is quite startling. You are the epitome of the sour, hysterical, sore-losing remainer. You need grief counselling.

My analysis is simple. You think you've found an election/result that suits you so you're creaming your drawers about it. You've no idea how each individual Labour or Conservative voter would have voted. Nor have you any idea how those who turned out in the EU referendum (72 per cent turnout) would have voted as compared to the 36 per cent in the election last week. On every level you are clutching at straws. So I shall repeat again. At the EU referendum - in which the clear question was asked, should we stay in the EU or leave, 52 per cent (17.4 million) voted leave. 48 per cent (16.1 million) voted remain. To be in such a state of utter denial three years on is not healthy. You should have been assigned a grief counsellor some considerable time ago.

You've clearly seen in to the minds of all of the Conservative and Labour voters to create this impartial analysis of the EU election of yours. What a clever man you are. As ever the remain voters have startling intellect and insight way beyond that of the hopes and dreams of us window-lickers on the leave side. How could we ever have thought we could compete in debate with such incomparable wisdom. EU referendum. Leave or remain. 52/48 in favour of leave. It's not what you want to hear but true nonetheless. Google it and see for yourself.

The remain vote is not bigger than leave. You've no evidence of anything of the sort. The last time a referendum was held on this issue directly asking the question leave or stay, leave won. Now that is a categorical fact. The electorate were given a view of a post Brexit world that does not fit in with your pro-EU, pro-corporatist, anti-democratic world view comfort zone. They opted to vote for it in greater numbers than vote against it. So enmeshed in your own rectitude are you that you were and continue to be confounded by this. Hence your straw clutching attempts to create a parallel reality. You lost. Get over it. Seek counselling.

You are a citizen of the post democratic age. You can't cope with election or referendum results that go against your world view. Try arguing against what I said instead of dismissing it. Aren't us window-licking leave voters allowed to use long words? Does it confound you when we do so? Just like it confounds you when you are on the losing side in a referendum?

If ever saw the sanctimonious remain arrogance distilled in to one paragraph this is it. Don't let people have a vote - they might decide something I/we disagree with. We're one step away from disenfranchising people here on the grounds that they have been deemed "too stupid". A technocracy, a plutocracy, a geniocracy, a noocracy. Elements of this attitude verge on all these forms of governance. It's not an attitude that is compatible with living in a democracy society though. We had a referendum on whether to stay in just after joining. And on such a momentous issue we had a vote on leaving - a long overdue vote given how changed an animal the EU was compared to the EEC we joined. The problem is you just can't compute the result. Parliament is supposed to reflect the wishes of the people - otherwise what's the point in having it? What's the point in democracy if it isn't based on governance mechanisms that deliver what the majority asked for? And parliament clearly does not do so on this issue. It speaks volumes about people who think democracy can in any way involve not allowing "people who lick windows for a passtime" their say. In effect you're saying 'anybody who disagrees with me is thick' or 'an extremist'. This type of stuff is every bit as bad as racism, sexism and any other ism you would care to mention. This is liberal intolerance writ large and precisely the mindset from which ills of our modern day culture like no platforming emerge. Its shameful. It's not Brexit that has to be stopped - it's this type of dangerous attitude.

On such earnest advice are decisions made not to touch Sowerby Bridge with a barge pole.

I'm sure the fair folk of Sowerby Bridge raked it in that day!

Ex United. I am sure he came in for some stick for that reason alone!

I thought that about the goal! The Div 4 game that went ahead was in January. A 0-0 after which there was much upset among the fans about Phil Neal's negativity!

Apart from one year when we had a green away strip it had been red all the way through the 70s and early 80s as well. We made hard work of the replay at Burnden as well. Before seeing them off back at The Shay. I am going to try to post those games soon when work and other stuff allows.

Democrats are democrats whether from the left or the right. You wouldn't understand.

Here's Halifax 1 Bolton 1 from the 1986/7 FA Cup First Round in November 1986. It's the first in a trilogy of games, with Bolton eventually winning through. Essentially we made a bit of a meal of seeing off a side a division below us. For younger viewers - there was no penalties at the end of a replay back in the day, ties just kept being replayed until there was an outcome! Halifax have Phil Brown in their ranks two years before he signed for us - and a lad called Rick Holden who went on to make his name with Oldham during their top flight glory days of the early 1990s. Their goal was scored by a young lad called David Longhurst who four years later sadly died on the pitch after suffering a heart attack while playing for York City against Lincoln. Bolton's goal and the subsequent pitch invasion are already on You Tube. Hope you enjoy the rest of the game (despite the fact that the commentary seems to lag a few seconds behind the pictures) 

Here's Halifax 1 Bolton 1 from the 1986/7 FA Cup First Round in November 1986. It's the first in a trilogy of games, with Bolton eventually winning through. Essentially we made a bit of a meal of seeing off a side a division below us. For younger viewers - there was no penalties at the end of a replay back in the day, ties just kept being replayed until there was an outcome! Halifax have Phil Brown in their ranks two years before he signed for us - and a lad called Rick Holden who went on to make his name with Oldham during their top flight glory days of the early 1990s. Their goal was scored by a young lad called David Longhurst who four years later sadly died on the pitch after suffering a heart attack while playing for York City against Lincoln. Bolton's goal and the subsequent pitch invasion are already on You Tube. Hope you enjoy the rest of the game (despite the fact that the commentary seems to lag a few seconds behind the pictures)

You've been bleating on for three years now, trying to find any chink of light to undermine the vote of 17.4 million people. At some stage you are going to have to let this go and accept the result. Or you are going to end up needing counselling. I suspect you will be diagnosed with EDD. Entrenched Democracy Denial.

What point are you trying to prove? If both sides lied the outcome is neutral. Just focus on these figures. 52/48. 17.4/16.1.Three years on and you're still desperately trying to undermine the result. You lost. Suck it up buttercup.You and Mr Osborne and his brazen lies.

These were largely predictions on what would happen in the event of a leave vote alone. So yes, lies.

Yes of course. When you're a remainer its "exaggerations". When you're a leaver its "lies". Classic double standards.

Are you denying his lies? The answer is because nobody has taken him there yet. When you win a referendum you've no need to prove that people saw through the opposition's lies. The result speaks of that fact very eloquently. 51.9 per cent v 48.1 per cent or 17.4m v 16.1m. In case you'd forgotten.

The point is we pay in a lot more than we get back.

And George Osborne was in public office. The second most important. In 11 Downing Street. He spent millions of our money printing and posting leaflets full of lies. Are you going for the world record in the longest continous example of the pot calling the kettle black? If this were 30 years ago you'd be due a slot on Record Breakers with Roy Castle.

If that's true - then the referendum result would have been equally influenced by untruths. Which means game over for the remain side and their sour grapes about lies - still being spouted three years on. Yet on and on the teenage sulking goes. As evidenced on this thread this evening.

And another from the desperate remain campaign: Each household would be more than £4,300 worse off as a result of a leave vote alone. You seem to have the memory of the average guppy-fish when it comes to your side's lies in the first half of 2016. Perhaps you should do some proper research. Lie after lie and after lie. Whoppers - one after another. Followed by a comical amnesia.