The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...28 29 30 31 32 33 · >>
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#436New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 08:50:43
@nooneinparticular Said

There are certainly many, many things that I disagree with Jennifer on, but I rarely see hypocrisy from her. Shadow on the other hand...

Funny how on the occasions you have claimed i have been a hypocrite I have asked you for evidence and you have never been able to give any.


And hey, I am more than happy for the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens etc to become rejoiners.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#437New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 08:53:34
Meanwhile another blow for Project Fear. Remoaners liked to quote Airbus execs who for a while had been stating that if the UK left the EU the company would significantly downsize their operations in the UK or cease operations in the country entirely. Now however Airbus are saying that post Brexit they fully expect to EXPAND operations in the UK.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#438New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 15:08:45
@nooneinparticular Said

What I DID take issue with was Shadow doing the same thing after having called her on it, and it just continued from there.


And what i did - and do - take issue with is your claiming I am a hypocrite and yet then not offering any evidence despite being asked multiple times to do so. So yet again, give us an example. You see your saying something doesnt make it true. You need to provide evidence.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#439New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 15:34:17
@nooneinparticular
Funny how you always claimed that the people who voted leave didnt agree on what leave meant. This despite the fact that both sides (leave and remain) stated that leave meant leaving the customs union and the single market. Fast forward to the 2019 GE and the overwhelming majority of voters supported a party that stated they would - if elected - take the UK out of the EU. This meant out of the customs union and out of the single market. Guess leave voters knew all along what they were voting for in 2016. Just as they knew what they were voting for in 2019.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#440New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 15:52:00
@nooneinparticular Said

As for Parliament, the people vote in those in the house of commons, so if they don't reflect their interests then that's a problem the public has to address.

And address it they did.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#441New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 15:57:55
@nooneinparticular Said

As an aside, reiterating that you believe that:

A) ...Parliament are for remaining.

B) That this somehow affected the deal that could have been had, completely devoid of any evidence.

Does not automatically make it true.

In retrospect, while I do admit that blaming Leave's rosy picture as the main reason for the UK's lack of preparation is unfair and unsubstantiated, I still maintain that doing the same to Remain by attempting to paint Parliament...as Remainers is equally unfair.

And so do you still believe that the last Parliament werent for remaining? Do you still think it unfair that I was of the opinion that the last Parliament was a remain Parliament?
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#442New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 16:12:51
Four months ago I wrote:

@shadowen Said

At the end of the day, when the people are given the chance to vote (sometime this year), they (certainly leave voters) will make a judgement re how faithfully MPs have respected the people's vote of 2016 and vote accordingly.


And vote they did...and in a manner that made it extremely clear that they felt betrayed by MP's who had ignored the result of the 2016 people's vote, who had gone back on their election manifesto of 2017, and who had done everything possible to stop Brexit from happening.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#443New Post! Jan 13, 2020 @ 16:47:40
@nooneinparticular Said

It's because the Conservative Party is unified around one clear vision. Unfortunately that one clear vision seems to be self-immolation.


As it turns out being unified around one clear vision resulted in a huge majority at the GE....not self-immolation.
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#444New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 03:19:31
@shadowen Said

Funny how on the occasions you have claimed i have been a hypocrite I have asked you for evidence and you have never been able to give any.


And hey, I am more than happy for the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens etc to become rejoiners.


So did you or did you not ask Jennifer to back up her statements with facts? As you so aptly put it all those months ago regarding the police chief quoting numbers in a demonstration, just because he said it doesn't make it true.

Yet what do you look to to disparage yellowhammer? Facts and figures? Or feelings about how predictions, and by extension analytics, are unreliable completely devoid of any data? Of how because a port authority claims that his port can handle any potential disruptions caused by Brexit, it means everything's fine and yellowhammer is full of it? Despite the fact that you yourself said, while disparaging the unreliability of predictive models, that predictions of the future are difficult and unreliable, you believe in the predictive powers of a port authority to correctly and sufficiently handle the problems that may arise from a FUTURE event?

If I've got it so wrong and have "never been able to give any evidence" of your hypocrisy, then what would you call holding others to a higher standard of proof than yourself? Of requesting data from Jennifer but using feelings to dictate your own arguments? Of saying that predicting the future is difficult but believing, based on nothing, that the port authority that 'supposedly' disproves yellowhammer has cracked the secret to a field in which all of the 'experts' are bogus frauds?
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#445New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 03:40:56
@shadowen Said

Four months ago I wrote:



And vote they did...and in a manner that made it extremely clear that they felt betrayed by MP's who had ignored the result of the 2016 people's vote, who had gone back on their election manifesto of 2017, and who had done everything possible to stop Brexit from happening.


How they felt and what was said are two entirely different subjects. People can feel whatever they wish about whatever they wish, but it doesn't change what was said. They may have felt betrayed and neglected. I'm not denying that. But it doesn't change what was said.

If you had said "I feel this way, because I believe that Parliament has betrayed the public" or something along those lines, I wouldn't have continued this for this long. It was your attempt to rewrite history and impose meanings that weren't originally there that I had issue with.

'Parliament is working with the EU to stop Brexit' is an opinion, not a fact, and should be treated as such. 'MP's had gone back on their election manifesto of 2017' is an opinion, not a fact, and should be treated as such. 'The Rebel Alliance had done everything possible to stop Brexit from happening' is an opinion, not a fact, and should be treated as such.
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#446New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 03:44:00
@shadowen Said

And so do you still believe that the last Parliament werent for remaining? Do you still think it unfair that I was of the opinion that the last Parliament was a remain Parliament?


Why? What changed between then and now that could have changed my opinion?
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#447New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 03:44:22
@shadowen Said

And address it they did.


As is their right.
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#448New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 03:53:51
@shadowen Said

Meanwhile another blow for Project Fear. Remoaners liked to quote Airbus execs who for a while had been stating that if the UK left the EU the company would significantly downsize their operations in the UK or cease operations in the country entirely. Now however Airbus are saying that post Brexit they fully expect to EXPAND operations in the UK.


Which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with the change in management. I'm not saying that the doom predictions are necessarily going to happen or anything, but saying that remainers were wrong when the preceding CEO kept saying they would downsize or leave in the wake of Brexit is disingenuous. That WAS the company line, until it wasn't.
nooneinparticular On January 18, 2020




, Hawaii
#449New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 04:41:58
@shadowen Said

And what i did - and do - take issue with is your claiming I am a hypocrite and yet then not offering any evidence despite being asked multiple times to do so. So yet again, give us an example. You see your saying something doesnt make it true. You need to provide evidence.


While we're on this subject again, you never answered any of my follow-up questions explaining how, exactly, the 'evidence' I presented was not acceptable. You only said that it wasn't, completely ignored my follow up questions, and moved on. To belabor the point again, "You see your saying something doesn't make it true." Just because you say that my evidence was worthless does not make it so.
shadowen On January 17, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#450New Post! Jan 15, 2020 @ 13:26:17
@nooneinparticular Said

Yet what do you look to to disparage yellowhammer? Facts and figures? Or feelings about how predictions, and by extension analytics, are unreliable?

Yep, i went with facts. Like the FACT that the yellowsnow authors made predictions about traffic flow in Calais in a no deal scenario despite never visiting the Port, nor even speaking to anyone there.

The FACTS were that the PoC authority had built (well away from the Port itself) an area for HGVs that did not present with the correct paperwork. This was done specifically to ensure min disruption to traffic flow through the port. They have increased staff numbers. FACT. They have stress tested their contingency plans both by using computers AND by using over 800 trucks. And they have done this multiple times. FACT. etc etc etc. Now I am not going to go over yellowsnow all over again. But if you bother to go back and read what i posted i did go with FACTS.

@nooneinparticular Said

Despite the fact that you yourself said, while disparaging the unreliability of predictive models, that predictions of the future are difficult and unreliable, you believe in the predictive powers of a port authority to correctly and sufficiently handle the problems that may arise from a FUTURE event?

What I essentially said was that there were no REASONABLE grounds for believing the chaos being predicted by the yellowsnow authors. There was (and is) however, based on FACTS, cause to believe on reasonable grounds that the PoCA would be able to minimise disruptions to the movement of HGVs.

@nooneinparticular Said

If I've got it so wrong and have "never been able to give any evidence" of your hypocrisy, then what would you call holding others to a higher standard of proof than yourself?

Only I dont and as always you NEVER provide any evidence to back up what you say. Your verbiage is based simply on your feelings.


@nooneinparticular Said

Of requesting data from Jennifer but using feelings to dictate your own arguments?

Bollocks. Come on then, give a bloody example. Again, you are the one whose posts seem driven by feelings with bugger all 'facts'.


@nooneinparticular Said

Of saying that predicting the future is difficult but believing, based on nothing, that the port authority that 'supposedly' disproves yellowhammer has cracked the secret to a field in which all of the 'experts' are bogus frauds?

Are you for real? Firstly are you calling civil servants with no experience in logistics 'experts' when it comes to logistics?

I gave many reasons which were/are based on facts re why I think the PoCA is a more reliable source of information re how traffic of HGVs MIGHT be effected by a no deal scenario. Now if you want to place greater weight on the opinions of civil servants who have no experience in logistics, who never visited the Port nor even spoke to anyone from the PoCA then that says far more about you than it does about me.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...28 29 30 31 32 33 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Thu Nov 24, 2011 @ 05:48
18 1239
New posts   Politics
Thu Mar 31, 2011 @ 04:11
1 500
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Fri Apr 30, 2010 @ 10:51
0 479
New posts   Gaming
Fri Jan 04, 2008 @ 22:02
2 2225
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Jul 11, 2006 @ 10:34
5 817