Shit hits the fan in Venezuela.

[madd0ct0r]

In fairness to Stormthebeaches my default setting is also British parliamentary system, so i too assumed that:

"Trump recognized unelected right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as new president," because I felt that it implied that Guaido wasn't elected at all. "


Its not even unusual to have prime minister's in the uk who was appointed but not from winning a ge personally. Theresa May was this fora year before she called the early election.

"Unelected" to me, is an army coup or a lord

[stormthebeaches]

Only to you did it imply this. Everyone else reading it interpreted he was not elected to the presidency. It did not mean he was not elected for something else. There is no need (except for you) to mention he was elected to another position, because they weren't discussing it. There is no way in hell someone with a decent grasp of English and who can follow sentences logically would interpret it the way you did, as I explained earlier.

I've explained why I thought the statement was flawed, and I have provided several suggestions for alternatives. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, madd0ct0r has just stated that he agrees with me. Maybe you shouldn't claim to speak for "everyone".

Except in your interpretation of the article, whereas everyone interpreted it to mean "elected to president", you interpreted it to mean "elected to any position." You're looking at one word out of context. Hence the China example is pertinent, since Xi Jinping is elected to non presidential positions within his party by party members, and hence using your logic, its not fair to say he is unelected to the presidency without needing to mention he was elected to other positions, even if those other positions are not being discussed.

By this logic it would be fair to say that British Prime Ministers are unelected, because Britain has a closed list political system. That means you vote for the party, not the person. It is the party in power that picks the Prime Minister.

No it did not. It implied your "standards" can be used to justify that bullshit statement I used earlier for illustrative purposes.

Seriously, do you understand phrases and concepts like "by your logic." Not joking here, because I don't think you do. I don't think you understand the concept of an analogy very well. Here is a clue. If someone uses the phrase "by your logic I can justify X"(or something similar like I did), it does not imply you gave an opinion on X. It just means your arguments can be used to justify X, even if you disagree with X. People use analogies in this manner to examine your underlying logic, and show your "logic" isn't very well thought out, if it can be used to justify X when the author disagrees with X.

Your definition of "elected," is such, it would be DECEPTIVE to state someone is unelected for position A, if they just so happened to be elected (fairly of course) to unrelated position B. Even though the former does not preclude the latter.

You said:

"If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP. Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards."

Let's break this down:

"If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP."

This sentence is perfectly clear. You have made your belief that my logic would justify calling Xi Jinping elected. You have made your point here clearly. It is the following sentence that I take issue with.

"Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards."

This implied that I made a statement about President Xi Jinping being illegitimate and that I was probably thinking of the position of president of China when I did so. Likewise "that type of twisting of statements if fair game by your standards" implies that your are twisting a statement that I made, which again implies that I made a statement about China's political system in this thread.

How is anyone is supposed to take your argument seriously, your argument being that you interpret government to mean parliament, when in that same statement you defined them as two different things. The problem with you buddy, is words don't have pre agreed upon meaning. They mean whatever the hell you want when its convenient for your argument.

I explicitly stated that Parliament is part of the Government. It is reasonable for someone to think you are referring to Parliament when you say British Government, because Parliament is part of the British government. "British Government" to me, means the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. When you referred to the "British Government", it was perfectly reasonable of me to bring up Parliament because Parliament is the legislative branch of the British Government. Especially when you were mentioning "British Government" with regards to Brexit, where it is Parliament, not the Prime Minister, which is calling the shots there. In fact, Parliament recently rejected Theresa May's Brexit plan by over 200 votes, the biggest defeat a Prime Minister has ever suffering in the House of Commons in British history.

[mr friendly guy]

I've explained why I thought the statement was flawed, and I have provided several suggestions for alternatives. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, madd0ct0r has just stated that he agrees with me. Maybe you shouldn't claim to speak for "everyone".

Then you and him are interpreting the statement like a Nostradamus fan interpreting his ramblings to prove he foresaw the rise of Hitler.

When the author mentions unelected and President in the same sentence, and no other position, it can only mean unelected to the presidency. Nowhere else would we apply this twisted logic.

Lets use an example

Captain Picard wants to appoint the unqualified Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer.
Based on the statement, the author of said statement thinks Keiko is unqualified to be
a. Engineer
b. Chief Engineer
c. Doctor
d. Housewife

You would be saying anything but chief engineer. Why should the word elected have some special meaning where we must consider whether they are elected to any other position but the one being discussed. Do we apply the word qualify to say that even if Keiko is unqualified for chief engineer, we automatically must discussed whether she is qualified for something else?

By this logic it would be fair to say that British Prime Ministers are unelected, because Britain has a closed list political system. That means you vote for the party, not the person. It is the party in power that picks the Prime Minister.

Ha ha ha.

I was talking about the fact your logic says we can't call someone unelected to position X if they just so happened to be elected to unrelated position Y, because its deceptive apparently. You even quoted me saying that.

I made no mention of what constitutes legitimacy on how they are elected to position X. What you're doing by talking about the methods someone is elected to position X is irrelevant and is a red herring.

So even using your example of British PMs, even if you consider how PMs are selected as "unelected," according to your twisted logic, it would still be wrong to say they are unelected without mentioning they were elected to another position (party leader), to avoid ambiguity of course. Try harder buddy.

This sentence is perfectly clear. You have made your belief that my logic would justify calling Xi Jinping elected. You have made your point here clearly. It is the following sentence that I take issue with.

Oh I await with bated breath.

"Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards."

This implied that I made a statement about President Xi Jinping being illegitimate and that I was probably thinking of the position of president of China when I did so. Likewise "that type of twisting of statements if fair game by your standards" implies that your are twisting a statement that I made, which again implies that I made a statement about China's political system in this thread.

That was your argument? Lets explain in ALL CAPS

Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader (AFTER READING MY EXAMPLE), but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards (IN REFERENCE TO HOW I CAN TWIST AN EXAMPLE STATEMENT I MADE JUST PRIOR, USING YOUR LOGIC OF SAYING ITS DECEPTIVE TO MENTION SOMEONE IS NOT ELECTED TO A POSITION WITHOUT MENTIONING THEY WERE ELECTED TO ANOTHER POSITION). Not a statement you made genius, its referring to your standards/logic.

I explicitly stated that Parliament is part of the Government. It is reasonable for someone to think you are referring to Parliament when you say British Government, because Parliament is part of the British government. "British Government" to me, means the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. When you referred to the "British Government", it was perfectly reasonable of me to bring up Parliament because Parliament is the legislative branch of the British Government. Especially when you were mentioning "British Government" with regards to Brexit, where it is Parliament, not the Prime Minister, which is calling the shots there. In fact, Parliament recently rejected Theresa May's Brexit plan by over 200 votes, the biggest defeat a Prime Minister has ever suffering in the House of Commons in British history.

That's like saying when you think of a rectangle, its perfectly reasonable to think they mean square, because one is a subset of the other, even.. wait for it, when they mention rectangle and squares aren't exactly the same.

If you just left it that you tend to think government differently to me, I might not have pushed it, but when you just happen to say its synonymous to parliament IN THE SAME SENTENCE where you mentioned they are different, then you have a problem with that statement.

But even if I give that to you, my original point would still stand. Its hypocritical for the British to expect Venezeula to hold new elections because of unrest, when they themselves failed to do so (even if it came close).

[madd0ct0r]

We did.

Im really confused what you are arguing here mfg.

We had elections. How many more of them do we need for it to count?

[stormthebeaches]

When the author mentions unelected and President in the same sentence, and no other position, it can only mean unelected to the presidency. Nowhere else would we apply this twisted logic.

Lets use an example

Captain Picard wants to appoint the unqualified Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer.
Based on the statement, the author of said statement thinks Keiko is unqualified to be
a. Engineer
b. Chief Engineer
c. Doctor
d. Housewife

You would be saying anything but chief engineer. Why should the word elected have some special meaning where we must consider whether they are elected to any other position but the one being discussed. Do we apply the word qualify to say that even if Keiko is unqualified for chief engineer, we automatically must discussed whether she is qualified for something else?

Star Trek examples, whoa this conversation is getting off topic...

I would take issue with the statement "Captain Picard wants to appoint the unqualified Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer" because to me this implied that Keiko O'Brien is unqualified for anything regarding Starship enterprise and shouldn't even be on the ship. A better way to phrase the statement would be "Captain Picard wants to appoint Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer even though she is unqualified for the role" or Captain Picard wants to appoint Keiko O'Brien to a role she is unqualified for, chief engineer." Both these statements make it clear that Keiko O'Brien is unqualified for the role of chief engineer but leave it open that there might be other roles on the ship that she is qualified for.

I was talking about the fact your logic says we can't call someone unelected to position X if they just so happened to be elected to unrelated position Y, because its deceptive apparently. You even quoted me saying that.

When it comes to delicate political matters representing all the facts relevant to the situation is important otherwise one gets a distorted view of what is going on. I have already explained why I thought the statement in that article was flawed, and I have provided several alternatives for phrasing the statement.

I made no mention of what constitutes legitimacy on how they are elected to position X. What you're doing by talking about the methods someone is elected to position X is irrelevant and is a red herring.

I brought up British Prime Ministers as a example of how you can cherry pick facts to create a false narrative. I could say "the British Prime Minister was not elected by the people," and technically I would be correct as Britain has a closed list political system. This is an example of how cherry picking the facts can create a false narrative.

according to your twisted logic, it would still be wrong to say they are unelected without mentioning they were elected to another position (party leader), to avoid ambiguity of course. Try harder buddy.

Exactly my point. Saying that British Prime Ministers are unelected on it's own is flawed because it creates a false impression. It is cherry picking facts to create a false narrative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader (AFTER READING MY EXAMPLE), but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards (IN REFERENCE TO HOW I CAN TWIST AN EXAMPLE STATEMENT I MADE JUST PRIOR, USING YOUR LOGIC OF SAYING ITS DECEPTIVE TO MENTION SOMEONE IS NOT ELECTED TO A POSITION WITHOUT MENTIONING THEY WERE ELECTED TO ANOTHER POSITION). Not a statement you made genius, its referring to your standards/logic.

The sentence "Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards" implies that I made a statement about the President of China being unelected and that you are twisting the statement as turnaround for me twisting the statements of others. I am well aware that you were giving an analogy however your analogy does not include an example of twisting a statement so it is reasonable to assume that you thought you were twisting a statement that I made, ever though I never made such a statement. You start by saying "If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect", this is an argument, you then follow up with "because he was elected to the leader of the CCP", this is the logic to back up the argument. And no point did you twist a statement, rather you provided flawed logic to show why you believed my logic to be flawed. Since you did not provide an example of twisting a statement it is reasonable for me to assume that you were referring to me when you said "that kind of twisting statements is fair game by your standards".

That's like saying when you think of a rectangle, its perfectly reasonable to think they mean square, because one is a subset of the other, even.. wait for it, when they mention rectangle and squares aren't exactly the same.

If you just left it that you tend to think government differently to me, I might not have pushed it, but when you just happen to say its synonymous to parliament IN THE SAME SENTENCE where you mentioned they are different, then you have a problem with that statement.

But even if I give that to you, my original point would still stand. Its hypocritical for the British to expect Venezeula to hold new elections because of unrest, when they themselves failed to do so (even if it came close).

To me, "British Government" means the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Parliament is the legislative branch of the British government so, to me, bringing up Parliament is perfectly relevant when someone refers to the "British Government". Unless if bringing up the legislative branch of the British government is irrelevant in a discussion about the British government...


Could a mod please make my discussion with mr friendly guy about interpreting statements a separate topic? I fear that it is taking this one off topic.

[mr friendly guy]

I would take issue with the statement "Captain Picard wants to appoint the unqualified Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer" because to me this implied that Keiko O'Brien is unqualified for anything regarding Starship enterprise and shouldn't even be on the ship.

Why? How do you infer that from the statements given? I didn't say she was unqualified for every position being offered. I didn't say it was for a position on a ship, it could be space station. Since you're going to use ST canon, rather than assume I just chose those names for fun, it could very well be a space station. Moreover, if I used generic names like Bob or Jim, do you think I must refer to someone you know named Bob or Jim. LOL.

But it does raise an interesting point about how you think, you infer things that aren't there.

How did you infer it was for a position on a ship named Enterprise from my statement. I didn't even mention it was a position on a ship, yet alone named a ship. Oh, the same way you infer the author is saying Guaido was unelected to any position, by pulling it out of your arse.


If the author of the article Elfdart posted needs to implicitly state Guaido was elected to another position rather than president because it confusing to you, I should also need to state Keiko is unqualified for another position other than chief engineer so its not confusing to you, using the same logic. Yet it was clear enough for you to think the sentence means she is unqualified for any position on the ship without me needing to say such (even though it wasn't my intent). Funny how that one works doesn't it? Its almost like your logic is selectively applied against arguments you don't like so you can conveniently accuse some of dishonesty.

Your argument as it stands, is a leap in logic fallacy. Its like saying, Bob was wrong about X, therefore he is wrong about everything, unless I specifically mention subjects he is right about. Guaido was not elected to president, therefore he is unelected to any position unless we specifically mention some that he is. Seriously, no one other than an idiot thinks that's logical.

When it comes to delicate political matters representing all the facts relevant to the situation is important otherwise one gets a distorted view of what is going on. I have already explained why I thought the statement in that article was flawed, and I have provided several alternatives for phrasing the statement.

As has been explain to you, its because you assume things which weren't said. Its not that your statements aren't clearer, it was the original statement was clear enough to understand the meaning, and you're accusing people of dishonesty because you're too god damn stupid to understand simple sentence structures without it needing to go over every possibility.

I brought up British Prime Ministers as a example of how you can cherry pick facts to create a false narrative. I could say "the British Prime Minister was not elected by the people," and technically I would be correct as Britain has a closed list political system. This is an example of how cherry picking the facts can create a false narrative.

You obvious don't know what a red herring is do you?

Hint, your logic is flawed not because you cherry pick (hence your cherry picking example is irrelevant), your logic is flawed because you insist others must add in addition irrelevant information otherwise it becomes "cherry picking". Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?

Exactly my point. Saying that British Prime Ministers are unelected on it's own is flawed because it creates a false impression. It is cherry picking facts to create a false narrative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Again it wasn't that you can cherry pick facts to give a false narrative, its when you insist others have to put in irrelevant facts otherwise they are somehow being dishonest.

The sentence "Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards" implies that I made a statement about the President of China being unelected and that you are twisting the statement as turnaround for me twisting the statements of others. I am well aware that you were giving an analogy however your analogy does not include an example of twisting a statement so it is reasonable to assume that you thought you were twisting a statement that I made, ever though I never made such a statement. You start by saying "If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect", this is an argument, you then follow up with "because he was elected to the leader of the CCP", this is the logic to back up the argument. And no point did you twist a statement, rather you provided flawed logic to show why you believed my logic to be flawed. Since you did not provide an example of twisting a statement it is reasonable for me to assume that you were referring to me when you said "that kind of twisting statements is fair game by your standards".

The example of twisting a statement was given dumbass, in the very post you replied to. You know, the part you said I showed why your logic was flawed. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we have a real persistent dummy here.

And yes your logic is flawed, because you will never ever apply that logic to yourself. Every time someone says person X is unelected by the people for president, you will never ever accuse them of making dishonest statement because they failed to mentioned that person X may been elected properly for some other position. Unless they are taking a position you support. How do I know this, why you did it yourself with the British PM example. You never once mentioned you also need to mention they were elected to party leader. You see, you don't even follow your own logic when its inconvenient. Because no one every assumes because someone is unelected to position x, they must be unelected to any other position.

To me, "British Government" means the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Parliament is the legislative branch of the British government so, to me, bringing up Parliament is perfectly relevant when someone refers to the "British Government". Unless if bringing up the legislative branch of the British government is irrelevant in a discussion about the British government...

As I said, if you left it at that, I might not have pushed it, but then in the same breath you said you think of government and parliament as the same, and yet define them as different. Can you not see how that's a problem? And you still haven't addressed the fact that the UK government won't hold elections due to unrest but expect Venezeula to. Funny how you won't address that point.

[stormthebeaches]

Why? How do you infer that from the statements given? I didn't say she was unqualified for every position being offered. I didn't say it was for a position on a ship, it could be space station. Since you're going to use ST canon, rather than assume I just chose those names for fun, it could very well be a space station. Moreover, if I used generic names like Bob or Jim, do you think I must refer to someone you know named Bob or Jim. LOL.

But it does raise an interesting point about how you think, you infer things that aren't there.

How did you infer it was for a position on a ship named Enterprise from my statement. I didn't even mention it was a position on a ship, yet alone named a ship. Oh, the same way you infer the author is saying Guaido was unelected to any position, by pulling it out of your arse.


If the author of the article Elfdart posted needs to implicitly state Guaido was elected to another position rather than president because it confusing to you, I should also need to state Keiko is unqualified for another position other than chief engineer so its not confusing to you, using the same logic. Yet it was clear enough for you to think the sentence means she is unqualified for any position on the ship without me needing to say such (even though it wasn't my intent). Funny how that one works doesn't it? Its almost like your logic is selectively applied against arguments you don't like so you can conveniently accuse some of dishonesty.

Your argument as it stands, is a leap in logic fallacy. Its like saying, Bob was wrong about X, therefore he is wrong about everything, unless I specifically mention subjects he is right about. Guaido was not elected to president, therefore he is unelected to any position unless we specifically mention some that he is. Seriously, no one other than an idiot thinks that's logical.

I have explained why I would feel that the example if flawed, and I have given several alternatives of how the sentence could be rephrased. "Captain Picard wants to appoint Keiko O'Brien as chief engineer even though she is unqualified for the role" or Captain Picard wants to appoint Keiko O'Brien to a role she is unqualified for, chief engineer" are two examples.

Also, the reason I assumed Enterprise is because that is the ship Picard is Captain of. It is also the ship that is most commonly associated with the Star Trek franchise.

Your argument as it stands, is a leap in logic fallacy. Its like saying, Bob was wrong about X, therefore he is wrong about everything, unless I specifically mention subjects he is right about. Guaido was not elected to president, therefore he is unelected to any position unless we specifically mention some that he is. Seriously, no one other than an idiot thinks that's logical.

The article didn't say "Guaido was not elected to President", it just said that Guaido was unelected. My point is that the article should have specifically mentioned that Guaido was unelected for President rather than simply saying that Guaido was unelected. It's the equivalent of saying "Bob, who is wrong, gives his opinion on X" instead of "Bob is wrong about X." See how the later is much clearer?

As has been explain to you, its because you assume things which weren't said. Its not that your statements aren't clearer, it was the original statement was clear enough to understand the meaning, and you're accusing people of dishonesty because you're too god damn stupid to understand simple sentence structures without it needing to go over every possibility.

If you want to say that Guaido is unelected for the position of Presidency, then say "Guido is unelected for the position of Presidency" rather than "Guido is unelected". It is a perfectly reasonable request. There is no need to "go over every possibility" just simply state the exact position he is unelected for. To use your early example, you wouldn't just say "Bob is wrong", you would say exactly what Bob is wrong about. Alternatively, simply mention the position that Guaido is elected for, it would take one sentence. Or just say "Guaido is unelected to the position of Presidency" and eliminate the need to mention the position he was elected for.

You obvious don't know what a red herring is do you?

Hint, your logic is flawed not because you cherry pick (hence your cherry picking example is irrelevant), your logic is flawed because you insist others must add in addition irrelevant information otherwise it becomes "cherry picking". Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?

It was an example of how you can cherry pick facts to create a false narrative.

Again it wasn't that you can cherry pick facts to give a false narrative, its when you insist others have to put in irrelevant facts otherwise they are somehow being dishonest.

Mentioning that Guaido is head of the National Assembly is very relevant because it puts him third in the line of succession. This means that if the Presidency and Vice Presidency are vacant (because of fraudulent elections, for example) he would be interim President. Mentioning that he is part of an opposition movement that was voted into Parliament with a two thirds majority is also relevant because it shows that the opposition have some degree of popular support. This are important factors to look at when discussing the situation in Venezuela. But frankly, the author didn't even have to include this, if he simply stated "Guaido is unelected to the position of Presidency" it would have been clear.

Again it wasn't that you can cherry pick facts to give a false narrative, its when you insist others have to put in irrelevant facts otherwise they are somehow being dishonest.

And again, the facts that the author left out are not irrelevant. And as mentioned above, this isn't even about leaving out facts that this point, simply rewording sentences to specify exactly what you mean. My original point was that the author should have said "Guaido is unelected to the position of Presidency".

The example of twisting a statement was given dumbass, in the very post you replied to. You know, the part you said I showed why your logic was flawed. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, we have a real persistent dummy here.

You didn't give an example of twisting a statement, you gave an example of faulty logic. And I never said you showed me why my logic was flawed, I said that you were attempting to show me why my logic was flawed.

And yes your logic is flawed, because you will never ever apply that logic to yourself. Every time someone says person X is unelected by the people for president, you will never ever accuse them of making dishonest statement because they failed to mentioned that person X may been elected properly for some other position. Unless they are taking a position you support. How do I know this, why you did it yourself with the British PM example. You never once mentioned you also need to mention they were elected to party leader. You see, you don't even follow your own logic when its inconvenient. Because no one every assumes because someone is unelected to position x, they must be unelected to any other position.

But the article didn't mention that Guaido was unelected to the position of Presidency. The exact statement was "Trump backs unelected Guaido, for Presidency". As I have explained several times, I feel that statement should have been rephrased to "Trump backs Guaido, who is unelected to the position of Presidency" or "Trump backs Guaido for Presidency, a role he is unelected for." If you want to use the sentence "Trump backs unelected Guaido, for Presidency" then you need to mention the position that Guaido was elected for otherwise it can imply that Guaido is unelected, period. If you feel that mentioning the position that Guaido is elected for is a waste of time of time, the word the original sentence as "Trump backs Guaido, who is unelected to the position of Presidency" or "Trump backs Guaido for Presidency, a role he is unelected for." This is a reasonable request.

Also, original example of "British Prime Ministers are unelected by the people" was an example of how you can cherry pick facts to create a false narrative. It was an example of how one can cherry pick facts to be dishonest. And no point was it saying that this would be a fair way to describe British PM's. You would have to describe how the position of party leader is selected, as well as how a closed list political system works to for a more accurate understanding of the British political system. And you say that I'm the one who misinterprets statements...

As I said, if you left it at that, I might not have pushed it, but then in the same breath you said you think of government and parliament as the same, and yet define them as different. Can you not see how that's a problem?

I have explained that I consider "Government" to be the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Parliament, as the legislative branch of government, is included in my description of "Government". I view "British Government" as an umbrella term than includes Parliament. I have made it very clear and I have no idea what you are referring to when you "think of government and parliament as the same, and yet define them as different."

And you still haven't addressed the fact that the UK government won't hold elections due to unrest but expect Venezeula to. Funny how you won't address that point.

Are you actually comparing the "unrest" in Britain to what's going on in Venezuela? That's like comparing someone who has the common cold to someone who has the Ebola virus. This is a false equivalence fallacy. And Britain has called elections. There was a general election in 2015, a snap election in 2017 and it is very likely that there will be another snap election in 2019.

And the reason I didn't respond before was because you originally said another referendum or election in regards to Brexit. This was a position I actually agreed upon. I think there should be, at the very least, another Brexit referendum.


Could a mod please make my discussion with mr friendly guy a separate thread before it derails this one any more?