The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...31 32 33 34 35 ...73 74 75 · >>
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#481New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 12:25:31
@shadowen Said

Bollocks. If anyone were to go back over our posts there are heaps of times when i have given you facts and figures. Problem is you usually ignore them and so the desire to go back and find the references once more becomes less and less.


Yet you demand of me to go trudging back through months of posts to do the same?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#482New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 12:34:05
@shadowen Said

Before I answer your question this was at a time when you were saying that the EU had every right to stick to their red lines, whilst at the same time claiming the Brits were issuing an ultimatum, and by extension were acting unreasonably, when they wanted to stick to their red lines. You were effectively saying the EU should be applauded for sticking to their red lines but the British were to be castigated for doing the same thing. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.


Yes. And I later refined that statement because I realized it was causing misunderstandings.

Quote:

Anyway the Barnier quote "I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU" was given to highlight the thinking of the EU re Brexit. It was to show that whilst the EU were within their rights to drive a hard bargain they were not the men in white hats that EU lovers presented them as (and still do).

Here is the full quote:
"Was I saying that the EU were being unfair and unreasonable? No I wasnt. Both things are subjective. Here it is interesting nonetheless to recall what EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier said to EU leaders in May 2017:
"I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU."

Anyway, the EU were out to get the very best deal they could for themselves. So yes they were selfish. The UK were meant to be trying to get the best deal they could for themselves. So they also should have been selfish. I can't think of a single international deal that has ever been negotiated that was, or could reasonably be seen as, genuinely unselfish.

Was I trying to blame the EU for the failure of May to get her deal through Parliament? No. The EU must have known that the deal they gave May had little chance of passing the first time. They could hardly have been surprised when it failed. May asked them to make changes. They refused. So second time around they KNEW it would fail to attract sufficient support in Parliament. May came back a third time. Knowing the major problems the Irish Backstop was causing the EU yet again refused to budge. They did so knowing that May's deal would again fail. Now does this mean the EU were to blame for May's deal failing? No. They were in a very strong negotiating position (as May's government would never seriously consider no deal) and they made full use of their position. I don't blame them for doing so. They made sure they got the EU the very best deal that they could. This was infact their job. So I don't blame them. Don't know how I can be any clearer."


Okay. Thank you. At least we cleared that up now. I would like to say, however, that in a back and forth with me, while quoting me, I think it would be reasonable to assume that what you say is relevant to what I have been saying. Throwing in asides in the middle of discussion is how tangents are formed.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#483New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 12:34:38
@shadowen Said

By the way, care to give an example of how you think the 2016 peoples vote should have been worded? What should the choices have been in your opinion?


That depends. What are my restrictions?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#484New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 13:15:24
@nooneinparticular Said

That depends. What are my restrictions?

Administratively it has to be practical and you can only offer two options. Other than that it's up to you.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#485New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 14:09:14
@nooneinparticular Said

Do you have a source somewhere? Because I can't find anything on this at all.

A couple of the MPs who were on the committee that the yellowsnow authors reported to asked them if they had visited the PoC. They said no. They asked if they had spoken to anyone at the PoC. They said no. This came up on LBC and on BBCQT. I havent heard anyone claim what they said wasnt true. Furthermore, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, president and chief executive of Port Boulogne Calais went on BBC's today programme in September last year to once again state that a no deal exit wouldnt cause them any problems. He was also pretty angry at the authors of Yellowsnow and he stated that no one had visited the Port or ever even bothered to speak to anyone from the Port. He then went on to describe the preparations they had taken for a no deal scenerio and to talk about the stress testing they had done (something i have previously detailed). By the way, he was also on BBC's today back in January of last year where he explained why a no deal exit wouldnt cause any problems re the flow of traffic at the Port.

@nooneinparticular Said

There is a disconnect between 'Calais has made preparations for no deal' and 'Yellowhammer is worthless'. Just because Calais has made preparations for no deal, it does not necessarily logically follow that Yellowhammer's conclusions are off. We would have to look at the data to make a more concrete judgement on that assertion.

The yellowsnow authors offered no data. They simply made general assumptions based on significant congestion at the PoC caused by unready HGVs. This despite the fact that the PoCA had built a very large holding area well away from the Port specifically for unready HGVs. Something the Yellowsnow authors ignored completely. They also ignored the extra staff numbers at the PoC and they ignored the results of the PoCA's stress testing in a no deal scenario. The PoCA is a very big business. They have a lot to lose if they don't properly prepare for a no deal scenario and such a scenario comes to pass.

Re preparations for a no deal scenario France (as of August 2019) has spent over €40 million and hired 700 extra customs officers. Furthermore a new "smart border" with cameras has been developed. This involves scanning the license plates of trucks heading to the UK and automatically linking them to shipping documents filled out online by exporters. As mentioned previously they have also built cavernous new inspection hangars as well as huge parking lots well away from the Port specifically for unready HGVs. Now you might have thought that the authors of Yellowsnow might have popped over to France to inspect this new infrastructure, talk to the PoCA about their new "smart border" technology etc. But no, why do that when you can simply sit in an office in London and use your imagination instead of facts.

@nooneinparticular Said

And how, exactly, would you go about trying to craft a 'reasonable' worst case scenario?

Well you start off by speaking to those in charge of the different organisations/institutions that would be at the coal face of a no deal scenario. You gather as much up to date and credible information as you can etc etc etc

@nooneinparticular Said

Yes, because despite never having seen the data they used, we can say with certainty that it is rubbish data.

We can confidently say what data they didnt use. That alone ensures that their report is not credible.

@nooneinparticular Said

Personally, I think which is a more reliable source is both a personal judgement and a moot point. Personally, I prefer to let data speak for itself. Unfortunately we have very little data to work with here, which leads me to take a stance of non commitment.

I've addressed this.

@nooneinparticular Said

I prefer to let the data speak for itself.

I have discussed at length why (based on data/facts the yellowsnow report is not credible.


@nooneinparticular Said

I remember seeing one prediction made in an offhand comment.

I did an entire post on all the predictions that were so beloved by remoaners that have been wildly off the mark. Eg employment rates, inflation, recession etc etc etc. Ringing any bells? If not i shall go back through my posts another time and find them for you.

@nooneinparticular Said

Did you? I remember you talking about margin of error and using YouGov as an example, but I would hardly call that 'providing information regarding the accuracy of polling organizations like YouGov'.

You can compare the YouGov polls for the last 5 elections with the actual results and see that they are reasonably accurate. That said polls in general are never more than an indication of how a larger demographic felt about a particular issue or issues at a very specific point in time.

As for the rest, if you want to claim that economic predictions have the same degree of accuracy as polls conducted by reputable companies then good for you. Your problem is that statistics show you are very wrong. Hell most so called economic experts didnt even predict the GFC.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#486New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 14:15:16
@nooneinparticular Said

You asked me to provide quotes of you in the past.

Which you hardly ever do. And in those very rare occasions that you do (eg the 2 million marchers) they dont actually support the contention you were making. For example when you claimed that my placing greater weight to polls conducted by organisations like YouGov than economic predictions was somehow hypocritical, which is utter bollocks.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#487New Post! Jan 17, 2020 @ 14:33:39
@nooneinparticular Said

No, I'm simply pointing out that their perspective isn't the only reasonable perspective.



@nooneinparticular Said

Suit yourself. Just know that I won't accept the claim that they're different on blind faith and will act accordingly.

Hardly blind faith. Just use a dictionary and look at what people have said and done.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it was 'just a tool designed to stop Brexit' then it did a piss poor job of doing so.

It did it's job for a not inconsiderable amount of time. In the end though a growing sense of public unrest, and the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru (that arrogant "Welsh" party that dares not to use english in their name) belief that they could topple the Tories lead to a GE. JS actually said many times that she believed she would be the next PM. Problem was, outside of their little echo chamber few people agreed with the Lib Dems Brexit policy. So whilst the SNP did very well the Lib Dems didnt get the big swing towards them that they thought they would, and of course Labour was hammered.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#488New Post! Jan 18, 2020 @ 01:41:21
@shadowen Said

A couple of the MPs who were on the committee that the yellowsnow authors reported to asked them if they had visited the PoC. They said no. They asked if they had spoken to anyone at the PoC. They said no. This came up on LBC and on BBCQT. I havent heard anyone claim what they said wasnt true. Furthermore, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, president and chief executive of Port Boulogne Calais went on BBC's today programme in September last year to once again state that a no deal exit wouldnt cause them any problems. He was also pretty angry at the authors of Yellowsnow and he stated that no one had visited the Port or ever even bothered to speak to anyone from the Port. He then went on to describe the preparations they had taken for a no deal scenerio and to talk about the stress testing they had done (something i have previously detailed). By the way, he was also on BBC's today back in January of last year where he explained why a no deal exit wouldnt cause any problems re the flow of traffic at the Port.


I just spent the last 2 hours trying to find even a mention of this anywhere and found nothing. Could you please link something to back up this statement?

The only thing I could find were statements that the Port Authority made regarding it's own readiness. I don't deny that he made them, I'm just skeptical about their truth.

Quote:

The yellowsnow authors offered no data. They simply made general assumptions based on significant congestion at the PoC caused by unready HGVs. This despite the fact that the PoCA had built a very large holding area well away from the Port specifically for unready HGVs. Something the Yellowsnow authors ignored completely. They also ignored the extra staff numbers at the PoC and they ignored the results of the PoCA's stress testing in a no deal scenario. The PoCA is a very big business. They have a lot to lose if they don't properly prepare for a no deal scenario and such a scenario comes to pass.

Re preparations for a no deal scenario France (as of August 2019) has spent over €40 million and hired 700 extra customs officers. Furthermore a new "smart border" with cameras has been developed. This involves scanning the license plates of trucks heading to the UK and automatically linking them to shipping documents filled out online by exporters. As mentioned previously they have also built cavernous new inspection hangars as well as huge parking lots well away from the Port specifically for unready HGVs. Now you might have thought that the authors of Yellowsnow might have popped over to France to inspect this new infrastructure, talk to the PoCA about their new "smart border" technology etc. But no, why do that when you can simply sit in an office in London and use your imagination instead of facts.


Let me ask you a question. How reliable are those measures in a live scenario? Not a stress test, but a live scenario?

Quote:

Well you start off by speaking to those in charge of the different organisations/institutions that would be at the coal face of a no deal scenario. You gather as much up to date and credible information as you can etc etc etc


Which helps in making a worst case scenario how exactly?

Quote:

We can confidently say what data they didnt use. That alone ensures that their report is not credible.


Maybe you can. I'm not prepared to stake my reputation and values on an inference.

Quote:

I have discussed at length why (based on data/facts the yellowsnow report is not credible.


You have discussed at length why the data and facts available have informed your opinion that Yellowhammer is not credible.

Quote:

I did an entire post on all the predictions that were so beloved by remoaners that have been wildly off the mark. Eg employment rates, inflation, recession etc etc etc. Ringing any bells? If not i shall go back through my posts another time and find them for you.


I think I remember now but I'm not entirely sure. I believe my response to those were to ask you what the underlying assumptions of those predictions were.

Quote:

You can compare the YouGov polls for the last 5 elections with the actual results and see that they are reasonably accurate. That said polls in general are never more than an indication of how a larger demographic felt about a particular issue or issues at a very specific point in time.


Which means what, exactly, to the larger discussion about the accuracy of polls "like" YouGov in relation to economic prediction?

Quote:

Your problem is that statistics show you are very wrong. Hell most so called economic experts didnt even predict the GFC.


You of course say with no actual statistics to back that up. As for the GFC, I don't know what your talking about.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#489New Post! Jan 18, 2020 @ 02:05:26
@shadowen Said

Administratively it has to be practical and you can only offer two options. Other than that it's up to you.


I would have run remaining against an actual negotiating position. It doesn't have to be permanent (and probably wouldn't be), but a starting position for negotiations would have been nice at least. What's on offer and what you want in return. If what's on offer and what you get in return changes at the end of the process, then you run a confirmatory one between the new plan or leaving with no agreement. You spell all of this out from the very beginning. You don't make it about leaving or staying, you make it about an up or down vote about implementation of a plan or not.

You ask 'implement this plan or not' then later there's no argument about things like 'well we don't like THIS plan, but maybe continuing to negotiate will be fine' that BOTH PARTIES did.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#490New Post! Jan 18, 2020 @ 02:24:45
@shadowen Said




Hardly blind faith. Just use a dictionary and look at what people have said and done.


Ah so we're going with that route?

For the record, I'm not denying that both of you hold your own views regarding what happened I'm just saying that believing you are right and they aren't is not a justification for demanding respect from someone while looking down on them.

Quote:

It did it's job for a not inconsiderable amount of time. In the end though a growing sense of public unrest, and the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru (that arrogant "Welsh" party that dares not to use english in their name) belief that they could topple the Tories lead to a GE. JS actually said many times that she believed she would be the next PM. Problem was, outside of their little echo chamber few people agreed with the Lib Dems Brexit policy. So whilst the SNP did very well the Lib Dems didnt get the big swing towards them that they thought they would, and of course Labour was hammered.


So when you say 'stop something' you mean delay it? Not to end it? Well in that case all the conservatives who voted against May's Deal AND no-deal at the same time are guilty of the same, no?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#491New Post! Jan 30, 2020 @ 13:48:45
@nooneinparticular Said

I just spent the last 2 hours trying to find even a mention of this anywhere and found nothing. Could you please link something to back up this statement?

The only thing I could find were statements that the Port Authority made regarding it's own readiness. I don't deny that he made them, I'm just skeptical about their truth.

Iain Duncan Smith was one of the MPs

@nooneinparticular Said

Let me ask you a question. How reliable are those measures in a live scenario? Not a stress test, but a live scenario?

Obviously until it happens you cant say for certain. But to simply ignore the results of multiple stress tests that included computer simulations and 800 trucks tells you much about the authors.


@nooneinparticular Said

Which helps in making a worst case scenario how exactly?

Seriously? You are asking how obtaining pertinent, up to date information helps with forecasting? Are you serious?

@nooneinparticular Said

Maybe you can. I'm not prepared to stake my reputation and values on an inference.

It's not an inference, its a fact.

@nooneinparticular Said

I think I remember now but I'm not entirely sure. I believe my response to those were to ask you what the underlying assumptions of those predictions were.

The predictions were based on what they (the 'experts' said would happen if the UK simply voted to leave. Then they became what would happen if the UK invoked Article 50. Now it's what will happen when the UK actually leaves. So far they havent managed to get a single prediction even vaguely right. Indeed, whatever they predict the opposite seems to happen eg employment rates, inflation, investment etc etc etc

@nooneinparticular Said

Which means what, exactly, to the larger discussion about the accuracy of polls "like" YouGov in relation to economic prediction?

How many times do i have to go over this? It means that YouGov polls have been PROVEN to be reasonably accurate whereas economic predictions re Brexit have been PROVEN to be spectacularly inaccurate. This is hardly a surprise as YouGov polls are essentially about something that has happened whereas economic predictions are about what some people think might happen. The point being that they are not comparable. So accepting the established general accuracy of YouGov polls whilst being highly skeptical about the economic predictions re Brexit is entirely reasonable....despite the fact that you seem to think otherwise.


@nooneinparticular Said

You of course say with no actual statistics to back that up. As for the GFC, I don't know what your talking about.

No, I have provided actual statistics in the past that prove how inaccurate economic predictions re Brexit have been. You even said just recently that you seemed to recall me doing so. As for the GFC. I think we can agree that was a major economic event and yet very few economists predicted it. So if you cant predict something as huge as the GFC with all of its red flags what sort of credibility do you have?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#492New Post! Jan 30, 2020 @ 14:24:10
@nooneinparticular Said

I would have run remaining against an actual negotiating position. It doesn't have to be permanent (and probably wouldn't be), but a starting position for negotiations would have been nice at least. What's on offer and what you want in return. If what's on offer and what you get in return changes at the end of the process, then you run a confirmatory one between the new plan or leaving with no agreement. You spell all of this out from the very beginning. You don't make it about leaving or staying, you make it about an up or down vote about implementation of a plan or not.

You ask 'implement this plan or not' then later there's no argument about things like 'well we don't like THIS plan, but maybe continuing to negotiate will be fine' that BOTH PARTIES did.


Firstly why should the remain option be unconditional whilst the leave option is highly conditional? The EU is ever growing, ever changing. The relationship the UK had with the EU in 2016 for example was very different to the relationship they had with the EU prior to the Maastricht Treaty, and then later after the Lisbon Treaty. So surely your remain question would need to be conditional. Otherwise people would be voting to remain in an organisation that in 2020 is already different to what it was in 2016.

Secondly, the people who were pushing to leave in 2015/16 wanted the UK to leave the customs union and the single market. They wanted the UK to regain control of their borders and their fisheries etc. In a parliament completely dominated by remainers with ALL major parties in favour of remain what chance would their have been that your negotiated position would be anything other than (at best) Labours proposal whereby the UK would still be in the customs union and the single market. Would still have to abide by EU laws, and directives. Would still have to accept ECJ rulings etc. The result would be a choice btw remain with some voice or remain with no voice. Do you really think the British people would have accepted this? And how do you get to your negotiated position anyway? There are NO provisions within EU law that allows for withdrawal negotiations unless article 50 has been triggered. What would be the chances the UK Parliament would have triggered article 50 without a referendum telling them to? I would suggest that the behaviour of Parliament btw 2016 and 2019 tells us emphatically that there would have been NO chance. None. Zero. Buckleys.

So the chances of you getting your plan in the first place is virtually non existent, and if you did somehow manage to get a plan to put before the people it would be worthless as it would be a claytons choice. It would therefore have solved nothing.

In 2016 people on both sides said that if you vote to leave then that WOULD mean leaving the customs union and the single market. People heard this and chose to leave. In 2019 only one of the three major parties promised that, if elected, they would take the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market. They promised to take back control of the UK's borders and to end ECJ jurisdiction in the UK. All of the same things people were told (by both sides) would happen in 2016 if they voted to leave. And guess what? That one party won a HUGE majority. So again, people who voted to leave in 2016 had a clear idea as to what that meant. When what leaving would mean was once more articulated to them in 2019 they once again chose that option. Indeed the 2019 election results completely validate the 2016 peoples vote (including the wording of the question).

People didnt have a problem with the question on the ballot paper BEFORE the results of the peoples vote in 2016. It has only been remoaners who have tried to muddy the waters and claim that the people who voted leave didnt really know what they were voting for. In 2019 the people very clearly stated that they knew exactly what they were voting for and that they fully expect the government (to whom they gave a huge majority) to fulfill their promises re Brexit.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#493New Post! Jan 30, 2020 @ 14:47:21
@nooneinparticular Said

Ah so we're going with that route?

Yep, I'm going with facts rather than feelings.

@nooneinparticular Said

For the record, I'm not denying that both of you hold your own views regarding what happened I'm just saying that believing you are right and they aren't is not a justification for demanding respect from someone while looking down on them.

I'm not looking for (never mind 'demanding' any sort of respect from you or her. You essentially asked why is it fair to call MPs who betrayed their party, and those who voted for them, traitors. I said it's fair as by definition their actions were treacherous. End of.

@nooneinparticular Said

So when you say 'stop something' you mean delay it? Not to end it?

Nope. As i have said MANY times before the delaying tactics of remainers were ALL about ultimately STOPPING Brexit from happening.

@nooneinparticular Said

Well in that case all the conservatives who voted against May's Deal AND no-deal at the same time are guilty of the same, no?


No. Firstly voting against something you believe is not consistent with what the people want WHILST still being committed to respecting the will of the people is NOT the same as voting against something with the expressed purpose of trying to ensure what the people dont ever get what they voted for.

Secondly, when exactly did conservative MPs vote against May's deal AND no deal at the same time? Unlike BJ, TM never gave any indication that she was serious about leaving under WTO terms.
0
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#494New Post! Jan 30, 2020 @ 14:48:06
If you want to see what a remoaner looks like check out Terry Christian...
0
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#495New Post! Jan 30, 2020 @ 14:50:00
I have someone in the UK who is going to bring over a couple of the new 50p coins when he visits Oz later this year. Will be a nice little memento.
0
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...31 32 33 34 35 ...73 74 75 · >>

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   Politics
First unread post Brexit MEP Caught Out In A Lie - She DID Work For Cambridge Analytica
Sun Aug 25, 2019 @ 16:06
24 2038
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
First unread post Brexit - People's Vote NOW.
Sun Dec 09, 2018 @ 00:19
44 4485
New posts   Politics
First unread post Jen's Brexit Watch.
Mon Sep 14, 2020 @ 18:18
33 4431
New posts   Jokes & Humor
First unread post Brexit
Mon Apr 03, 2017 @ 04:16
0 310
New posts   Politics
First unread post Brexit Victory Makes Trump Presidency More Likely
Sun Jun 26, 2016 @ 16:22
17 1708