The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...34 35 36 37 38 39 · >>
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#526New Post! Feb 10, 2020 @ 23:34:50
@shadowen Said

You're welcome.


Thank you for finally doing something I had been asking for for almost 10 pages. it is very much appreciated.

Quote:

Early last year Carney finally changed his rhetoric re Brexit and the economy and said something to the effect that if the right decisions were made then the UK could actually be better off after Brexit. I quoted his exact comments at the time.

Now he might have changed his predictions as he was sick of looking silly every time he was proven wrong. I dont know. But he did go from being the poster boy for remain and project fear, someone who's expertise could not be questioned, to someone who was rarely mentioned after this point. But there were still plenty out there stoking project fear. Still are. And of course Carney did say "IF" the right decisions were made. That way he cant be wrong as he didnt specify what these decisions were. So if the economy does well post Brexit he can say he predicted it. If the economy doesnt do so well post Brexit he can say that the correct decisions werent taken. So either way he can claim he was right in his 'predictions'.


For someone so incredibly optimistic about the UK's own prospects you have a deeply cynical view of the government that is supposed to be materializing those prospects.

The obvious thought is that the situation has changed due to the governments own preparedness, but sure we can jump straight to wondering if he only did it to not look 'stupid'.

Quote:

I was NEVER talking about an entire industry. I specifically stated that not all polls can be treated equally. I explained why and gave examples.


Oh so what you were actually saying had no relevance to the discussion at large which was the accuracy of statistical computation. Alright then.

Quote:

Still waiting by the way for you to back up your allegations of my being hypocritical.


I thought you didn't want to play this stupid game of digging through months of posts?

Quote:

I'll come back to this when i have more time.

Note: I also gave quotes from the BoE as well as the CoTE. Care to explain why their predictions were so far out?


I honestly don't remember ever seeing these. If you would like to discuss these can you tell me where these numbers came from, as in a report or something?

Quote:

Hardly. Motive was extremely important. It framed the very nature of the report.


Which should show in the data. It's very easy to accuse someone of duplicity. It's another matter entirely to PROVE it.

Quote:

I have. You just dont want to accept it. There key assumption for most of the report is that there will be significant delays caused by unready HGVs at the PoC. I have provided you with facts showing why this assumption is not credible. You dont wish to accept anything eminating from the PoCA or French officials and give them no more weight than the simple assumptions made by civil servants (not recognised risk assessors by the way). So be it.


I was unaware that the 'PoCA or French Officials' were recognized risk assessors.

Note that the only thing I've said regarding this is that ASSUMING THESE COUNTERMEASURES WILL WORK SUCCESSFULLY AND AS ADVERTISED IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO IS UNJUSTIFIABLE WITHOUT LIVE DATA.

I have never questioned the existence of said countermeasures, only their effectiveness. I have asked this question before already but, 'what percentage of the countermeasures should be assumed to succeed or fail in a worst case scenario? How effective should said countermeasures be assumed to be in a worst case scenario?'

Quote:

You need to go further back. I did give more specific information earlier than this which i'm sure you read at the time. That's why i didnt re-post everything.

We do however agree on one thing, you cant be bothered going back though all the posts to find information that was publish up to a year (or even longer) ago, and neither can I.


Ah, so in one paragraph you say I need to look further back to support your side of the argument, and in the next you acknowledge that neither of us wish to do that. I believe a certain H word comes to mind. Just saying.
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#527New Post! Feb 11, 2020 @ 00:36:46
@shadowen Said

Well there are the definitions as per the dictionary, and then there is how the words are used by the so called "progressive left".

PL definitions
Fascist - Anyone who does not enthusiastically embrace the ideology of the PL

Xenophobic - One of the many labels given to attack anyone who holds views different to your own with the intention of silencing said person.


I mean if that's the definitions you wish to run with sure. In that case, Jen's use of those words fit perfectly.

Quote:

"Crash out" was almost exclusively used in the context of leaving without a WA and trading under WTO terms. I cant ever recall the term being used without an economic reference but if you have any examples to the contrary I would be happy to see them.

So you agree with me then. Using the term "crash out" in the context of the UK leaving the EU without a deal was an incorrect use of the term.


If you want to go by strict dictionary definitions, then sure, but at that point you end up saying that you're upset with remainers because the dictionary definition they used was about an entirely different thing. It's like getting mad at someone for saying that the UK flag is yellow. It clearly isn't, but at that point does it really matter to the point of calling it 'remoaner bs'?

Quote:

How exactly is it even shorthand when the term obviously doesnt fit with the situation being referenced, that being the UK leaving the EU without a WA?


Because that's how we're both accustomed to seeing it? I mean a b**** is a female dog, but we all associate it with something else entirely, regardless of its pure dictionary definition.

Quote:

Really? Promising the people (and your party) that you will act in a certain way on the biggest issue of the day only to do the exact opposite isnt that serious? Wow. We have VERY different expectations of our pollies. More importantly the UK public didnt share your views re their actions. Hence why these rebel MPs werent re-elected.


Accountability isn't about trust. In fact, accountability works best when there is a healthy amount of distrust. Hence why MY suggestions were designed to force accountability for all parties involved. You should never, NEVER, trust your politicians to do as they say and certainly, certainly not as you interpret their words to mean. I think this little exercise has shown that very well.

You vote for your representatives because their views match yours, not the other way around. And they certainly aren't mind-readers. May's deal, with no viable options on the table gets voted down and leavers rejoice. Boris gets the same treatment and leavers vote them out. The politicians don't know what the people will accept, they only know what they will accept. Clearly there was a disagreement between the two.

Quote:

Doesnt it?


If that's the way you wish to go with this. I was under the impression that you didn't like the term 'crash out' because it unfairly characterized what leaving on WTO terms would mean. Apparently however, you object because it is definitionally incorrect. Seems like a nonsensical reason to dislike something but you do you I guess.

Quote:

Simple. Brexit will be a success if the government fulfill the promises they made to the people re Brexit in the lead up to last years election. So if the government dont sell out the UK's fisheries, if they don't accept any ECJ jurisdiction in the UK, if they take the country out of the customs union and out of the single market etc then it will be a success.


Ah, so even if no new or better trade deals materialize, the average UK citizen does not become richer, or if there's increased illegal border crossings and smuggling between NI and ROI, it can still be considered a success as long as fisheries (which the UK government voluntarily sold the rights to in the first place) are restored, you're out of the single market and customs union, and your not under the ECJ?

Interesting. I mean if all that is worth the risk then more power to you.

Quote:

Which is what i have said all along! So if you acknowledge that then why did you use the phrase in the first place? It's hardly shorthand.


It is? So when you said it was 'remoaner emotive BS', you were just THAT passionate about the fact that the actual definition refereed to being drop dead tired? I didn't realize you were that passionate about dictionary definitions.

As for why I used it as shorthand, I did it because it worked. Clearly we both knew what the context of it was or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Quote:

I have provided examples and references in the past. Only you either ignore them or try to re-interpret them (eg 2017 Tory manifesto).


I'm sorry that the thing you said was in the manifesto wasn't actually in the manifesto. As a stickler for definitions I thought you might appreciate that a bit but sure. Blame me for 'trying to re-interpret' their words when what you said was in there wasn't actually in there.

Quote:

Taking Emily Thornberry as just one example. At the Labour party's conference last year she gave a speech where she said she would campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. On BBCQT a short while later she said that Labour (if elected) would firstly negotiate their own deal (and she most likely would be one of the UK's chief negotiators) and then put that deal to the people vs remain. When asked she said she would campaign to remain. As in campaign against her own deal! On LBC she specifically said Labour would never allow another referendum where 'no deal' was an option and that she would campaign for remain.


You do remember that whole discussion about the rift in the Labour Party we had right?

Also as a reminder, we (or at least I) were talking specifically about the rebel conservatives here. Labour has it's own issues and the part of Labour that said they would respect the vote and then go back on it is quite clearly them going against what they said, but the rebel conservatives are a different matter entirely. Of course even then, Labour as a whole got shellacked at the polls, not just the parts of Labour that wanted to vote for remain.

Quote:

Such as?


I know that the few rebel conservatives I saw who gave statements I could remember said something to the effect of 'they will not stop fighting for a deal'. If you really want me to, I can go look for them again but it might take a while to find.

Quote:

Simply interested in debate.


I don't really see how arguing over how many MP's were traitors and how many were maligned by association is a productive use of time nor do I see how it's relevant to the wider discussion, but if that's what you really want to do...

Quote:

Nope. Our situation is nothing like that btw Jen and I. She is all about emotion and will not tolerate any dissenting views. If you dont agree with her its because you're a far right extremist, a fascist, sexist, racist etc etc etc. In my case it's mainly because I am a white, heterosexual male who apparently hates women and poms!

So there may be nothing that you and I will ever agree on and that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on anything. All i expect is discussion that is based on more than simple feelings, and a discussion where the person's views are attacked rather than the person themselves. Again, watch Terry Christian on GMB and you will understand why it's pointless my trying to have a discussion with Jen.

You're fine as far as Jen is concerned as you pretty much always disagree with me and so she is happy to endorse your views. Were your views to be similar to mine then you would be subject to the same treatment.


No actually, it's because I acknowledge the basis of her position, even if I don't agree with it. You on the other hand, don't even acknowledge that her basic position, at it's very core without all the baiting back and forth you BOTH do, is even worthy of being considered valid.

Hint hint, if you want to have a serious discussion with someone, don't say that everything they say and post is globalist propaganda. it's probably not going to make them very receptive to your own views when you completely dismiss theirs.

Quote:

At the time in question yes. But no deal at this stage was merely hypothetical. When it became a genuine possibility under BJ all bar the 21 rebels supported 'no deal' as an option...consistent with what they had promised the people.


How was it hypothetical? At the time, the date of exit was less than 20 days away from their votes? Also, why should it being hypothetical excuse the way they voted?
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#528New Post! Feb 11, 2020 @ 23:13:09
@shadowen Said

"Crash out" was almost exclusively used in the context of leaving without a WA and trading under WTO terms. I cant ever recall the term being used without an economic reference but if you have any examples to the contrary I would be happy to see them.


I missed this earlier. I would like to point out that we have both been discussing the 'crash out' in terms of it's effects on the border, on immigration, on 'the divorce bill', and on international standing. It's not just about trade here.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#529New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 07:04:53
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Have the Brits kicked the Hun out of their fishing waters yet?


As of yesterday the EU are saying that they must indefinitely retain full access to the UK's national waters for the purpose of fishing. They have further stipulated that the UK must agree to this before June or there can be no FTA.

The EU have also stated that the UK must have dynamic alignment with EU laws, regulations and policies including, but not limited to, free movement of people, environmental standards, agriculture, workers rights, the Northern Ireland/Éire border etc etc etc. Simply doing this would make it near impossible for the UK to conclude FTAs with other countries. Something the EU are very aware of.

Furthermore the EU have stated that the UK must accept ECJ jurisdiction. Effectively they want the UK to be locked into the customs union and single market as they were before. Indeed, if the EU got what they wanted then the UK would effectively remain in the EU but without any voice. Pretty much what Labour were offering as an alternative to remain on their proposed referendum!

And finally the EU are saying that even if the UK bent over for them any deal would not include Gibraltar unless Spain agreed. Meaning the UK would have to accept at least joint control with Spain over the Rock.

Indeed the EU are giving every indication that they believe they are still dealing with TM.

Personally I would like to see the UK tell the EU that if they won't accept a standard FTA (like the ones they have signed with other countries) then that's fine, we shall trade with you under WTO rules. Meanwhile we are going to focus our attention on negotiating FTAs with other nations such as the US, Japan, Australia and NZ. I personally believe that if the UK were to trade with the EU under WTO rules in early 2021 that it wouldn't be long before the EU were looking for a standard FTA.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#530New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 07:08:30
@nooneinparticular Said

Which still does not make them facts. Which means that my statement about your OPINIONS still holds true. They are still OPINIONS and not FACTS.

I have never said anyone's opinions are facts. But you have refused to accept the facts that form my opinions.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#531New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 08:29:30
@nooneinparticular Said

the people put the lions share of the work on the shoulders of the government to turn their dreams into reality.

Of course they did. That's one of the key roles of Government.

In a referendum the Parliament ask the people what they want them to do and then the responsibility is on the Parliament (with extra responsibility on the government) to do as the people instruct. In an election you tell the people what you WILL do if elected. If the majority of the people want what you are promising they elect you and you form a government. It is then up to the government to make sure they follow through on their promises. I don't know why this seems unreasonable to you.

@nooneinparticular Said

Honestly, I would have zero issues with the leaver position if any one of them acknowledged that what they're doing is a gamble and has a chance of not turning out the way they wish.

What they want is what i have detailed previously. They want the people who make laws, rules, regulations and policies that impact on their every day life to be accountable to them. They want to be able to hold these people to account. In short they want to live in a genuine democracy. None of these things are a gamble. The only way things won't turn out as they wish is if the Government go back on their promises.

@nooneinparticular Said

The remainer doom and gloom is irritating, but the leavers selective optimism is downright ridiculous. From what I've seen here and elsewhere leavers don't even see leaving the EU as a risk either diplomatically or financially. They just assume everything will work out great.

That's simply not true. There have been MANY polls conducted over the past 4 years re the financial risks involved in the UK leaving the EU. In these polls a significant number of leave supporters acknowledge that they may be worse off after Brexit. In a YouGov poll in 2019 for example only 48% of Leave voters stated that they thought that the economy would be better off after Brexit. In another YouGov poll just over 60% of Brexit supporters stated that they believed that “significant damage” to the UK economy is a “price worth paying for bringing Britain out of the EU.” So it's not that they weren't aware of the economic risks. They were and are. However they believe that the UK becoming a genuinely sovereign nation once again is more important than the possible economic risks. Remainers have never understood this and so they have pushed a fear campaign centered around financial calamities.


@nooneinparticular Said

What's worse is that they don't even have the gall to own their own decisions.

In what way don't they own their decisions?

@nooneinparticular Said

Believe all you wish.

Ditto

@nooneinparticular Said

Really BJ's plan did nothing but kick the can down the road, because as soon as NI decides they don't like the border arrangements, talks fall back right on the point that stalled them in the first place. Hence why the 'compromise' never actually solved anything.

Nope. BJ's plan prepared the way for the UK to finally leave the EU and specified that the transition phase wouldn't extend beyond this year. It managed to get the ball rolling at last.

@nooneinparticular Said

See below.

What has any of that got to do with your fantasy that the remainer parliament of 2016-19 would have agreed to a no deal option being put to the people?

@nooneinparticular Said

Yeah, except not really. This isn't a poker game where every ones cards are hidden.

Well the EU stated very firmly to TM, and then BJ, that there would be absolutely no changes made to the WA May accepted. Take it or leave it they said. And they were true to their word with TM, but with BJ they ended up having a change of heart. So maybe the EU weren't bluffing, maybe they just had a re think. Does that make you feel better?

@nooneinparticular Said

BJ can't go back on fishing rights, on ECJ jurisdiction, on freedom of movement, etc. These are known red lines because the public has voiced, very openly and heatedly, that they cannot backpedal on this.

I would like to think that BJ isnt bluffing re the things we have now both mentioned. But he is a politician so who knows. Time will tell.

@nooneinparticular Said

The EU already know what he can't give on

And yet the EU have only yesterday said that the UK have to effectively break all of their red lines if they want a FTA. So if the EU know what BJ can't give on why are they demanding that he does? What are your theories?

@nooneinparticular Said

Okay but how does that feed into your earlier point about there being constant delays and extensions?

Surely you're winding me up. How many times do i have to go over this? I have gone into this in some depth a number of times previously and shan't do so again. So I shall on this occasion be very brief. There were constant delays and extensions under TM as she was either extremely weak and ineffectual and/or because she, along with almost all of her cabinet, her government and the opposition didn't want to honour the people's vote. They didn't want the UK to leave the EU. And the EU very openly didn't want the UK to leave. It was only when BJ became leader that things changed. Under May no progress was made at all during a three year period. In July last year BJ became PM. Just six months later he lead the UK out of the EU with a WA. How did he manage this? Because he actually wanted the UK to leave as per the people's wishes, and he placed in key positions others who shared his views re Brexit.


@nooneinparticular Said

Note that this is EXACTLY the situation I set up already, and your response was that 'the remainer government would never allow a no deal.' If this were indeed true, then asking me to produce a referendum that could result in no deal while simultaneously claiming that such a thing is impossible requires me to quite literally perform magic. I must produce a referendum that both does and does not provide for no deal at the same time. I must produce Schrodinger's referendum. Starting to see the problem here?

Yep, and the problem is simply with your referendum proposals. My point was that your proposals could never give the people what they very clearly want. To do so would indeed require you to perform magic.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#532New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 09:06:14
@nooneinparticular Said

May's deal, with no viable options on the table gets voted down and leavers rejoice. Boris gets the same treatment and leavers vote them out.

Because TM's deal didnt give leavers what they voted for. On the other hand BJ's deal had the potential to give the people what they clearly wanted. Unlike in 2017, in 2019 the people were given a very clear choice. Not surprisingly they chose what they had been constantly saying they wanted. Hence the difference in reaction. Very surprised that you can't see something so obvious.

PS - you didn't need to be a bloody mind reader in 2016-19 to know what the people wanted. The pollies knew alright. They just thought they could grease the voters up and bend them over and they wouldn't notice what was happening.

@nooneinparticular Said

The politicians don't know what the people will accept, they only know what they will accept.

Pollies who don't know what the public will accept are called the opposition.

@nooneinparticular Said

Interesting. I mean if all that is worth the risk then more power to you.

It's called democracy and yes, many in the UK would rather be poor in a democracy than rich in a country that was drifting further and further away from democracy. Crazy Brits eh.


@nooneinparticular Said

As for why I used it as shorthand, I did it because it worked. Clearly we both knew what the context of it was or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

I think it more likely that you used it because you agreed with the project fear nonsense behind it or because you were lazy and/or ignorant.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm sorry that the thing you said was in the manifesto wasn't actually in the manifesto.

More bollocks. You at first claimed there was nothing in the manifesto re leaving without a deal or leaving the customs union and single market. I quoted you from the Tory manifesto and showed how you were wrong. Ever since you have desperately tried to smudge the writing and re-interpret what was said to try and fit your narrative.

@nooneinparticular Said

the rebel conservatives are a different matter entirely.

Nope. I have gone over this so many times. If you wish to blindly defend the actions of the rebels then bully for you. The public voted them out. Apparently they didnt agree with you.

@nooneinparticular Said

I know that the few rebel conservatives I saw who gave statements I could remember said something to the effect of 'they will not stop fighting for a deal'. If you really want me to, I can go look for them again but it might take a while to find.

I didnt see such statements but if they said that then they are taking people as fools. They crossed the floor WHILST BJ was trying to get a new deal!

@nooneinparticular Said

No actually, it's because I acknowledge the basis of her position, even if I don't agree with it.

I know you like to place yourself on a pedestal. I just disagree with your lofty views.

PS - I don't think i shall be taking advice from you re how to conduct a debate/discussion.

@nooneinparticular Said

How was it hypothetical? At the time, the date of exit was less than 20 days away from their votes? Also, why should it being hypothetical excuse the way they voted?

If you can't see why a hypothetical situation is different to a real situation then i can't help you.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#533New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 12:45:21
@nooneinparticular Said

For someone so incredibly optimistic about the UK's own prospects you have a deeply cynical view of the government that is supposed to be materializing those prospects.

As a rule I tend to be a little cynical about MPs in general, and Governments in particular. Re Brexit, and so far BJ has done what he said he would. That said the biggest tests of his commitment to realising Brexit are yet to come. So we shall wait and see.

@nooneinparticular Said

The obvious thought is that the situation has changed due to the governments own preparedness, but sure we can jump straight to wondering if he only did it to not look 'stupid'.

Really. So for years he was playing the same tune and then out of the blue (less than a month after his last gloomy forecasts) he changes his tune, and to you it's because the situation had suddenly changed. Mind you TM was still PM at the time...and her government were notorious for their complete lack of preparedness so I can't think what the change might have been.

@nooneinparticular Said

Oh so what you were actually saying had no relevance to the discussion at large which was the accuracy of statistical computation. Alright then.

Whatever


@nooneinparticular Said

I thought you didn't want to play this stupid game of digging through months of posts?

At least you're consistent. You keep making the allegations and keep failing to back them up. Well done you.


@nooneinparticular Said

Which should show in the data.

Why would it? They made up the data based on speculation. Their data certainly didnt come from visiting the ports in question or bothering to speak to those running said ports.

@nooneinparticular Said

I was unaware that the 'PoCA or French Officials' were recognized risk assessors.

I didn't claim they were though the PoCA is a big business and it's very much in their interests to do everything possible to protect their business. You on the other hand falsely claimed that the civil servants who wrote the yellowsnow report WERE recognised risk assessors.

@nooneinparticular Said

Ah, so in one paragraph you say I need to look further back to support your side of the argument, and in the next you acknowledge that neither of us wish to do that. I believe a certain H word comes to mind. Just saying.

Only i didnt say that (just to be different). I simply said that you didnt go back far enough. I then said in effect that i could understand why you didnt now want to go further back as neither do I. Again, you obviously have NO idea what your beloved 'H' word means. To quote a great film "you keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#534New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 13:04:12
It is interesting to note that in recent years the UK has exported more goods to countries outside of the EU than to those inside the bloc. Indeed whilst exports to destinations outside of the EU have been increasing trade to the EU has slightly decreased. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue going forward.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#535New Post! Feb 13, 2020 @ 13:07:46
Is it a coincidence that as the domestic troubles for Macron increase so too does his bullish behaviour re EU demands ahead of a FTA with the UK? Varadkar also talked tough on FTA issues in the lead up to, and during, the election campaign in Éire. That worked well didnt it.
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#536New Post! Feb 17, 2020 @ 11:15:28
@shadowen Said

I have never said anyone's opinions are facts. But you have refused to accept the facts that form my opinions.


The only facts I have refused to accept are the ones that I cannot verify. A reasonable stance I would think, but apparently you think differently.
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#537New Post! Feb 17, 2020 @ 11:51:40
@shadowen Said

As a rule I tend to be a little cynical about MPs in general, and Governments in particular. Re Brexit, and so far BJ has done what he said he would. That said the biggest tests of his commitment to realising Brexit are yet to come. So we shall wait and see.


You do realize the ridiculous nature of being cynical about government but expecting them to fix problems arising from 'the people's' decisions, don't you?

Quote:

Really. So for years he was playing the same tune and then out of the blue (less than a month after his last gloomy forecasts) he changes his tune, and to you it's because the situation had suddenly changed. Mind you TM was still PM at the time...and her government were notorious for their complete lack of preparedness so I can't think what the change might have been.


If you honestly think that TM was not at least trying to prepare for a no-deal scenario then you're nuts. If that were true, there's no way in hell that BJ's year and a quarter would be enough time to prepare for it.

Quote:

At least you're consistent. You keep making the allegations and keep failing to back them up. Well done you.


I did back them up, you just failed to agree with them but never explained why.

Quote:

Why would it? They made up the data based on speculation. Their data certainly didnt come from visiting the ports in question or bothering to speak to those running said ports.


I was unaware that risk assessment data was only valid when gathered in person. Actuaries must have a ton of travel time logged then if that were true.

Quote:

I didn't claim they were though the PoCA is a big business and it's very much in their interests to do everything possible to protect their business. You on the other hand falsely claimed that the civil servants who wrote the yellowsnow report WERE recognised risk assessors.


And you don't think that preventing a short term panic by making fanciful claims about the preperations is 'protecting their business'? We both agreed earlier that the claim the port authorities made regarding 'no delays on day one' was suspect, but you still trust them despite that?

Also, I never claimed that the civil servants who wrote yellowhammer were recognized risk assessors. The only thing I said was that 'I assume that the people who wrote the report are knowledgeable in their field of risk assessment, just as you assume that the port authority is knowledgeable in their field of running a port.' You have not been able to provide any evidence to cast doubt on the way the report was compiled. The only thing you've done is cast aspersions on the report based on how YOU (a non-expert in the field) THINK that the report should have been done.

Quote:

Only i didnt say that (just to be different). I simply said that you didnt go back far enough. I then said in effect that i could understand why you didnt now want to go further back as neither do I. Again, you obviously have NO idea what your beloved 'H' word means. To quote a great film "you keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".


This is YOUR counterargument. I shouldn't be the one going back 'far enough' to support YOUR assertions. Don't shift the blame on me for 'not going back far enough', especially when it seems like what you're actually saying is to go diving through different threads and not this one.

But sure. If the word hypocrite doesn't apply, that must mean that you don't actually expect me to go trudging back through years of posts, even though you don't want to yourself. In that case, your claim that you've 'said all this before' in regards to the stats, is completely unsubstantiated and can be freely dismissed.
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#538New Post! Feb 17, 2020 @ 13:50:24
@shadowen Said

Of course they did. That's one of the key roles of Government.

In a referendum the Parliament ask the people what they want them to do and then the responsibility is on the Parliament (with extra responsibility on the government) to do as the people instruct. In an election you tell the people what you WILL do if elected. If the majority of the people want what you are promising they elect you and you form a government. It is then up to the government to make sure they follow through on their promises. I don't know why this seems unreasonable to you.


No, that's one of the key roles of the electorate. It is up to the electorate to scrutinize the plans of those in office or trying to get into office. It is the electorates job to be informed about the complexity and the feasibility of any plan being put forward by a politician. It is the electorates job to be informed and understand the implications of the decisions they make when they vote.

The politicians were vague which resulted in a chaotic process. The politicians certainly carry some responsibility for this, but the electorate voted them in on such a vague platform and thus share some of that responsibility.

Quote:

What they want is what i have detailed previously. They want the people who make laws, rules, regulations and policies that impact on their every day life to be accountable to them. They want to be able to hold these people to account. In short they want to live in a genuine democracy. None of these things are a gamble. The only way things won't turn out as they wish is if the Government go back on their promises.


I still fail to see how leaving the EU accomplishes ANY of these goals. The people vote for EU representatives. They vote for the people in their own Parliaments. If the laws are hurting them, then it's because the people they voted for 'betrayed' them, not the EU. Leaving the EU but keeping the 'traitors' in power doesn't solve the issue here. They want accountability for their politicians but they never actually blamed their politicians in the first place. Leavers believed it was all the EU's fault, not the incompetence of their own politicians.

Quote:

That's simply not true. There have been MANY polls conducted over the past 4 years re the financial risks involved in the UK leaving the EU. In these polls a significant number of leave supporters acknowledge that they may be worse off after Brexit. In a YouGov poll in 2019 for example only 48% of Leave voters stated that they thought that the economy would be better off after Brexit. In another YouGov poll just over 60% of Brexit supporters stated that they believed that “significant damage” to the UK economy is a “price worth paying for bringing Britain out of the EU.” So it's not that they weren't aware of the economic risks. They were and are. However they believe that the UK becoming a genuinely sovereign nation once again is more important than the possible economic risks. Remainers have never understood this and so they have pushed a fear campaign centered around financial calamities.


I don't understand. How can leavers know the risks of leaving and accept them if the experts they're supposed to be acknowledging are deemed part of 'Project Fear'? What, exactly, are the leavers 'accepting' is a price worth paying' and who is telling them these things, because it's certainly not 'the experts' that have been figuratively tarred and feathered. Who are the leavers listening to that is telling them the risks involved?

Quote:

In what way don't they own their decisions?


Let's see, leavers have blamed, TM's government, Parliament, the Speaker of the Commons, a private citizen, and the Supreme Court for the s*** show that has been the government's handling of these negotiations. Even you yourself said that 'compromising your ideals was impossible' and yet instead of accepting the consequences of that stance, namely that using power to get your way will alienate everyone else, there are instead now calls for unity.

Leavers insisted that it was their way or the highway in regards to Brexit, but instead of owning that brute force policy, they blame everyone else for 'not coming together to make something of Brexit', when they should own this s*** show just as much, if not more than, any other group.

Quote:

Nope. BJ's plan prepared the way for the UK to finally leave the EU and specified that the transition phase wouldn't extend beyond this year. It managed to get the ball rolling at last.


Even if the only place it rolls to is in a big circle? I fail to see how that's progress towards anything.

Quote:

What has any of that got to do with your fantasy that the remainer parliament of 2016-19 would have agreed to a no deal option being put to the people?


What does you requiring me to produce schrodinger's referendum have to do with parliament having to agree to a no deal option? I would think quite a bit, don't you? Your argument is based on the fundamental belief that it is literally impossible to get Parliament to agree to a no-deal option, but you also say that the only way 'the people's will' can be respected is to put a no-deal option to the people. You don't see a problem with this set of criteria? And what happened to the 'perfectly phrased' actual referendum which DIDN'T actually give the people a no deal option?

Literally, the only difference between what you have been arguing was voted on and what I have put forth is that what you have been arguing was voted on is actually represented in the question itself.

Quote:

Well the EU stated very firmly to TM, and then BJ, that there would be absolutely no changes made to the WA May accepted. Take it or leave it they said. And they were true to their word with TM, but with BJ they ended up having a change of heart. So maybe the EU weren't bluffing, maybe they just had a re think. Does that make you feel better?


And of course that had nothing to do with the UK's change in their own negotiating position regarding NI.

Quote:

I would like to think that BJ isnt bluffing re the things we have now both mentioned. But he is a politician so who knows. Time will tell.


Not my point. Also you just basically confirmed what I had just said, that BJ cannot bluff on these things and that both parties know it. By knowing what BJ cannot give on, by process of elimination, we also know what he can. Therefore any bluffing game he wants to play is a pointless exercise.

Quote:

And yet the EU have only yesterday said that the UK have to effectively break all of their red lines if they want a FTA. So if the EU know what BJ can't give on why are they demanding that he does? What are your theories?


I mean of course they would ask for the same things they did already. Why would any of that change? The prerequisites for an FTA were obvious from the start. I have been saying for a while now that the UK and the EU have what appears to be irreconcilable differences in what they both want out of an FTA. Hence why I had been suggesting for a while now to look to other countries and their 'wonderful trade deals' instead of dealing with someone that you cannot fundamentally see eye-to-eye with.

Quote:

Surely you're winding me up. How many times do i have to go over this? I have gone into this in some depth a number of times previously and shan't do so again. So I shall on this occasion be very brief. There were constant delays and extensions under TM as she was either extremely weak and ineffectual and/or because she, along with almost all of her cabinet, her government and the opposition didn't want to honour the people's vote. They didn't want the UK to leave the EU. And the EU very openly didn't want the UK to leave. It was only when BJ became leader that things changed. Under May no progress was made at all during a three year period. In July last year BJ became PM. Just six months later he lead the UK out of the EU with a WA. How did he manage this? Because he actually wanted the UK to leave as per the people's wishes, and he placed in key positions others who shared his views re Brexit.


And of course it had nothing whatsoever to do with violating a red line that TM said she would never cross, but I digress.

Yes, you have said this before, but you don't actually address my question here. In actual reality, we got May's Deal. In my hypothetical, this deal would be put up against no deal and voted on. The only way what you say happens comes to pass is if we assume that we never get any deal at all, something that would be ridiculous to anticipate from the outset especially since, as you already noted, the 'remainer government' was terrified of leaving with no deal.

Quote:

Yep, and the problem is simply with your referendum proposals. My point was that your proposals could never give the people what they very clearly want. To do so would indeed require you to perform magic.


Even though they are fundamentally the same proposals as what you insist people actually voted on.
nooneinparticular On February 23, 2020




, Hawaii
#539New Post! Feb 17, 2020 @ 15:44:15
@shadowen Said

Because TM's deal didnt give leavers what they voted for. On the other hand BJ's deal had the potential to give the people what they clearly wanted. Unlike in 2017, in 2019 the people were given a very clear choice. Not surprisingly they chose what they had been constantly saying they wanted. Hence the difference in reaction. Very surprised that you can't see something so obvious.


They believed TM's deal wouldn't give them what they wanted, which is different.

Quote:

PS - you didn't need to be a bloody mind reader in 2016-19 to know what the people wanted. The pollies knew alright. They just thought they could grease the voters up and bend them over and they wouldn't notice what was happening.


Right which is why there were discussions over the next two years on whether Brexit would be 'hard' or 'soft' because everyone was on the same page.

Quote:

Pollies who don't know what the public will accept are called the opposition.


So they must be mind readers. Gotcha.

Quote:

It's called democracy and yes, many in the UK would rather be poor in a democracy than rich in a country that was drifting further and further away from democracy. Crazy Brits eh.


If that's the choice they want to make then that is their right. My only gripe is that they chose this path, so if it blows up in their face or something, they can't blame other people for the path they chose with the risks they apparently acknowledged and accepted. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that they may be poorer, nor is it remainers, nor is it the EU's. They chose this path, so the consequences lie with them.

Quote:

I think it more likely that you used it because you agreed with the project fear nonsense behind it or because you were lazy and/or ignorant.


I mean shorthand I suppose implies a certain amount of laziness, but whatever you wish to assume about me is your own business.

Quote:

More bollocks. You at first claimed there was nothing in the manifesto re leaving without a deal or leaving the customs union and single market. I quoted you from the Tory manifesto and showed how you were wrong. Ever since you have desperately tried to smudge the writing and re-interpret what was said to try and fit your narrative.


If that's what you wish to believe.

Quote:

Nope. I have gone over this so many times. If you wish to blindly defend the actions of the rebels then bully for you. The public voted them out. Apparently they didnt agree with you.


Blindly? My reasoning is 'blindly defending' the rebels huh? Well if that's the way you feel...

Quote:

I didnt see such statements but if they said that then they are taking people as fools. They crossed the floor WHILST BJ was trying to get a new deal!


We can only trust their words. I believe you said that before, right?

Quote:

I know you like to place yourself on a pedestal. I just disagree with your lofty views.


Lofty views? If you insist.

Quote:

PS - I don't think i shall be taking advice from you re how to conduct a debate/discussion.


If you think throwing in snide remarks, questioning my intelligence, and repeating points I have already addressed while ignoring my responses is how one should conduct a discussion or debate, then I suppose that is your decision to make.

Quote:

If you can't see why a hypothetical situation is different to a real situation then i can't help you.


If you don't want to discuss it, then that is your right.
shadowen On about 15 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#540New Post! Feb 18, 2020 @ 13:41:29
@nooneinparticular Said

The only facts I have refused to accept are the ones that I cannot verify. A reasonable stance I would think, but apparently you think differently.


Nope. For example you stated that the 2017 Tory manifesto mentioned nothing about leaving without a deal. I quoted from their manifesto which proved you were wrong. Ever since you have been trying to twist, smudge and blur what the Tories promised to do if elected as you don't seem prepared to accept facts if they don't support your arguements. This is but one example.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...34 35 36 37 38 39 · >>

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   Gaming
Mon Oct 04, 2010 @ 06:19
4 472
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Wed Jan 20, 2010 @ 08:25
60 2981
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Wed Apr 15, 2009 @ 16:17
15 964
New posts   Random
Sun Jan 25, 2009 @ 04:56
9 413
New posts   US Elections
Tue Nov 04, 2008 @ 05:32
32 1548