Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[RingoMcCartney]

Ok, this is going back to page 9 and 10 but nevertheless:

In my OPINION not having similar access to information on advanced passenger details ( the EU SIS II) on incoming flights as we do now will have a negative impact.

The evidence I am relying on is that we currently access it over 500 million times a year, it’s the largest information system for public security in Europe and there is the report published by Parliament on the 7th Dec 2018 and that there is no agreement in place not enabling legislation.

My OPINION may change as new information comes to light but at the moment the available evidence is that we don’t have an agreement and that will be negative.

BINGO!

You admit you have an OPINION.

And it's a FACT that we currently access it over 500 million times a year.

But, it's a fundamental mistake to assume that WHEN WE LEAVE, there won't be an equivalent or even an improved version in the future.

The process of leaving the EU has not happened yet. The process is incomplete, not concluded.

We do not have the benefit of the passage of time to see how the negotiations around EU SIS II HAVE CONCLUDED.

Therefore it's CONJECTURE to claim that in the short tern not having access to EU SIS II is EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

[RingoMcCartney]

Corrected.

LeuvenClaret you constantly make the same mistake . Over and over again.

I DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

THE LIKES OF MARTY AND BURNLEY ACE DO.

Please try and read the words and absorb them.

Following the referendum result, the stock market fell dramatically. 

Imploding Turtle was on here through out the following 48 hours posting graphs of the fall in the FTSE 100.

He claimed this was EVIDENCE of the promised stock market crash!

His OPINION was wrong and to claim it was EVIDENCE was also wrong. 

Why?

Because since then, the FTSE 100 has recovered and reached records levels. 

His OPINION was based on incomplete EVIDENCE. He had not allowed time to judge whether his OPINION was based on an event that was short term.

His opinion was CONJECTURE as it was based on a short term, incomplete event.

Given that brexit HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, and may not happen yet, people are basing their OPINION not on what they are mistakenly assuming and calling "EVIDENCE" but on CONJECTURE. 

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Your thoughts.

[RingoMcCartney]

You are contradicting yourself- they cannot have evidence for a future event then go on to say they have past irrefutable scientific EVIDENCE.

So you accept that they can use evidence from other experiments to provide evidence for a future event!!

No contradiction on my part.

You can have EVIDENCE that enables you to make a PREDICTION on a future event. Like scientists

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for a future event.

You can have CONJECTURE. Like you

[Tall Paul]

So we can add conjecture to the list of words that Ringo doesn't understand the meaning of.

[Burnley Ace]

BINGO!

You admit you have an OPINION.

And it's a FACT that we currently access it over 500 million times a year.

But, it's a fundamental mistake to assume that WHEN WE LEAVE, there won't be an equivalent or even an improved version in the future.

The process of leaving the EU has not happened yet. The process is incomplete, not concluded.

We do not have the benefit of the passage of time to see how the negotiations around EU SIS II HAVE CONCLUDED.

Therefore it's CONJECTURE to claim that in the short tern not having access to EU SIS II is EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

Oh god we are back to page 2 again!

What is EVIDENCE Ringo? It’s the AVAILABLE body of facts indicating whether a belief is true!

My belief - leaving EU SIS II will have a negative impact
The AVAILABLE body of facts (the evidence)- as above.

What are you relying on that makes you think there will be an equivalent or better system? What are you relying on that makes you think leaving EU SIS II isn’t going to be negative.

New evidence may emerge that will refute my belief but at the moment there is none.

[LeuvenClaret]

LeuvenClaret you constantly make the same mistake . Over and over again.

His OPINION was based on incomplete EVIDENCE.

Your thoughts.

But it was evidence then? your words not mine.
Just because the evidence is incomplete or wrong does not negate it from being evidence at the time.

[Burnley Ace]

You can have EVIDENCE that enables you to make a PREDICTION on a future event. Like scientists

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for a future event.

What is the difference between “have” and “provide”?

Have - possess, own, or hold
Provide - make available for use

You can have evidence that enables you to make a prediction (form a belief you believe is true) on a future event but you cannot “make available for use” evidence for a future event.

You just don’t make sense.

[martin_p]

So we've tried analogies based on the sunrise, flying rockets to the sun. Now we're off the the fracture clinic!

Marty, we have not left yet.

People have broken their arms in the past. We can look at previous outcomes and prognosis. To PREDICT outcomes.

For the last time.

WE HAVE NOT LEFT THE EUROPEAN UNION YET.

NOBODY HAS EVER LEFT THE EU BEFORE.

Stop pointing to what may turn out to be short term replacable or reversible business decisions or events and claiming them to be EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

Only the passage of time will afford us the opportunity to judge with any accuracy whether or not leaving the EU HAS BEEN either positive or negative for the UK.

Till then you do not have EVIDENCE. Just an opinion.

Exactly like me.

But you’ve accepted that you can predict the outcome of a spaceship flying into the sun despite the fact it’s never happened, why can’t you extend that to other things?

[SGr]

Ringo typing out these comments with steam billowing out of his ears. Probably the only entertaining thing about these Brexit threads.

[Lancasterclaret]

Well, this thread has about ten minutes left so enjoy it while we can!

[CombatClaret]

Ringo typing out these comments with steam billowing out of his ears. Probably the only entertaining thing about these Brexit threads.

He's probably laughing because we're discussing semantics and not actual Brexit.

[RingoMcCartney]

Oh god we are back to page 2 again!

What is EVIDENCE Ringo? It’s the AVAILABLE body of facts indicating whether a belief is true!

My belief - leaving EU SIS II will have a negative impact
The AVAILABLE body of facts (the evidence)- as above.

What are you relying on that makes you think there will be an equivalent or better system? What are you relying on that makes you think leaving EU SIS II isn’t going to be negative.

New evidence may emerge that will refute my belief but at the moment there is none.

Your calling the FACT we we currently access the largest information system for public security in Europe "EVIDENCE". Having access to it is a FACT. Not EVIDENCE.

You're making the ASSUMPTION that WHEN brexit happens there won't be an equivalent or better system to replace it.

You're then making the quantum leap to to claiming that loosing something that we have now , to be evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk. You're refusing to accept it'll be replaced or an agreement to continue to access it will not be made.

I have no EVIDENCE to rely on that says it will be replaced or improved. Nor am I saying that losing it would be negative on the U.K.

However, until we have actually left and time allows to see whether or not we did make an agreement to continue access it.

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE.

[RingoMcCartney]

But it was evidence then? your words not mine.
Just because the evidence is incomplete or wrong does not negate it from being evidence at the time.

Now you're making false claims!

I said "He claimed this was EVIDENCE of the promised stock market crash!"

My words describing what HE said and claimed.

His OPINION was wrong and to claim it was EVIDENCE was premature and wrong.

Claiming to Refuse to accept time, space continuum and it therefore, let's you off the hook for claiming an event is EVIDENCE and you've been proven to be spouting CONJECTURE is not a viable argument.

His OPINION was based on incomplete EVIDENCE. He had not allowed time to judge whether his OPINION was based on an event that was short term.

His opinion was CONJECTURE as it was based on a short term, incomplete event.

Given that brexit HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, and may not happen yet, people are basing their OPINION not on what they are mistakenly assuming and calling "EVIDENCE" but on CONJECTURE. 

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

[RingoMcCartney]

But you’ve accepted that you can predict the outcome of a spaceship flying into the sun despite the fact it’s never happened, why can’t you extend that to other things?

Yes because the PREDICTION is based on past EVIDENCE.

You can extend it to other things !

But not brexit. Why? Because it hasn't happened yet and no other country has left the EU before.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has not happened yet.

You can make PREDICTIONS for a future event based on PAST EVIDENCE.


Try this for other things.


I'm going to make an ASSUMPTION.

It's an ASSUMPTION based on conclusive anthropological EVIDENCE backed up by past scientific research.

As a man you have two balls.


Now I'm going to make a PREDICTION based that past conclusive EVIDENCE .


That neither one of your two balls are crystal.


Unless my PREDICTION is proven wrong. You cannot see into the future.

[RingoMcCartney]

What is the difference between “have” and “provide”?

Have - possess, own, or hold
Provide - make available for use

You can have evidence that enables you to make a prediction (form a belief you believe is true) on a future event but you cannot “make available for use” evidence for a future event.

You just don’t make sense.

I am.

Try reading it again.


You can have EVIDENCE that enables you to make a PREDICTION on a future event. Like scientists

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for a future event.

You can have CONJECTURE. Like your good self.

[Burnley Ace]

Your calling the FACT we we currently access the largest information system for public security in Europe "EVIDENCE". Having access to it is a FACT. Not EVIDENCE.

You're making the ASSUMPTION that WHEN brexit happens there won't be an equivalent or better system to replace it.

You're then making the quantum leap to to claiming that loosing something that we have now , to be evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk. You're refusing to accept it'll be replaced or an agreement to continue to access it will not be made.

I have no EVIDENCE to rely on that says it will be replaced or improved. Nor am I saying that losing it would be negative on the U.K.

However, until we have actually left and time allows to see whether or not we did make an agreement to continue access it.

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE.

Having access to it is a FACT not EVIDENCE.

It’s evidence of the fact!!! That’s what evidence is / “the available body of FACTS!!!
You are making the assumption something will replace it whilst also accepting you have no evidence to support that assumption!

The EVIDENCE at the moment (the available body of facts) is that there will be no replacement and that will be a negative impact of Brexit. I’m not refusing to accept just provide some evidence that it will be replaced!

[BennyD]

Nobody has flown a rocket into the Sun. All you have got is scientist guessing what will happen. They have no EVIDENCE because they have never done it. They just have an OPINION like the rest of us and until they fire a rocket into the Sun that’s all it will be.

See how stupid that sounds?

The problem is that whoever came up with this comparison is confusing science with economics. The physical properties of a metal object and the heat of the sun are known quantities, thetefore it is fairly easy to demonstrate what will happen when you put the two together. Economics although it is, apparently, a science (although unlike every other science that makes use of physical properties) can’t really act as one as there is no precedent of a major country leaving the EU. NOBODY knows for sure what will happen; there are only best guesses, opinions, conjecture and possibilities. It will be possible at some point to look back at where we are now and say 'I told you so' but until then we are all in the same boat of not knowing for sure what's going to happen.

[Burnley Ace]

Economics however, is not a science.

Google - “is economics a science”. There are 46,300,000 Results. Many, if not most, consider economics a science as it uses scientific methodology, scientific tools for crafting analyses etc.

I would accept that economic evidence may not be as conclusive as some other fields of science. It’s the quality of the evidence, the provenance of the facts being relied on, that gives authority to the opinion/belief/conjecture being proposed.

[LeuvenClaret]

Now you're making false claims!
CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete evidence.

[BennyD]

Google - “is economics a science”. There are 46,300,000 Results. Many, if not most, consider economics a science as it uses scientific methodology, scientific tools for crafting analyses etc.

I would accept that economic evidence may not be as conclusive as some other fields of science. It’s the quality of the evidence, the provenance of the facts being relied on, that gives authority to the opinion/belief/conjecture being proposed.

I did Google it, and this is the very succinct description that came up;

It is unique in the sense that economics fuses quantitative data and modeling with qualitative judgments; unlike in physics or chemistry, economics appends an implied “therefore…” statement to its conclusions. ... Economics is not a science in the way that physics or chemistry is a science.

I'm sorry, but an economist is not a scientist no matter how they wish to be perceived,

[Burnley Ace]

I did Google it, and this is the very succinct description that came up;

It is unique in the sense that economics fuses quantitative data and modeling with qualitative judgments; unlike in physics or chemistry, economics appends an implied “therefore…” statement to its conclusions. ... Economics is not a science in the way that physics or chemistry is a science.

I'm sorry, but an economist is not a scientist no matter how they wish to be perceived,

Well that Nobel laureate would disagree https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nyti ... e.amp.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this article disagrees https://www.reference.com/world-view/ec ... 15558ba5b9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I would agree it’s not a science in the same way as physics. Whichever way you look at it it doesn’t detract from the use of facts and evidence

[bluelabrador16]

The original name for Economics was Political Economy.

With the rise of Neoliberal Economics from the early 80's and the resultant effects on the real economy of countries throughout the world, anyone
advocating/associating the subject as a science is living in La-La Land or making money from the deception.

Cui Bono!

[RingoMcCartney]

Having access to it is a FACT not EVIDENCE.

It’s evidence of the fact!!! That’s what evidence is / “the available body of FACTS!!!
You are making the assumption something will replace it whilst also accepting you have no evidence to support that assumption!

The EVIDENCE at the moment (the available body of facts) is that there will be no replacement and that will be a negative impact of Brexit. I’m not refusing to accept just provide some evidence that it will be replaced!

It's now crystal clear that you're not actually reading and absorbing the words I'm writing.

What part of "I have no EVIDENCE to rely on that says it will be replaced or improved." Nor am I saying that losing it would NOT be negative for the UK.

However, until we have actually left and time allows to see whether or not we DID an agreement to continue access it.

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE

We haven't left yet.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE evidence.

Do you understand?

We have not left the European Union yet.

[RingoMcCartney]

In my OPINION not having similar access to information on advanced passenger details ( the EU SIS II) on incoming flights as we do now will have a negative impact.

The evidence I am relying on is that we currently access it over 500 million times a year, it’s the largest information system for public security in Europe and there is the report published by Parliament on the 7th Dec 2018 and that there is no agreement in place not enabling legislation.

My OPINION may change as new information comes to light but at the moment the available evidence is that we don’t have an agreement and that will be negative.

Your attempting to describe having access the largest information system for public security in Europe as "EVIDENCE".

Theres no need to attempt to describe having something as "EVIDENCE", when it's a self-evident FACT already.

You're making the ASSUMPTION that WHEN brexit happens there won't be an equivalent or better system to replace it.

You're then making the quantum leap to to claiming that loosing something that we have now , to be EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

You're refusing to accept it'll be replaced or an agreement to continue to access it will not be made.

I have no EVIDENCE to rely on that says it will be replaced or improved. Nor am I saying that losing it would not be negative on the U.K.

However, until we have actually left and time allows to see whether or not we did make an agreement to continue access it.

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE.

[LeuvenClaret]

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE

We haven't left yet.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE evidence.

.

Doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong though and that it’s not evidence.
Just means he’s formed an opinion based on that evidence.
Forecasts are conjecture because no one has proof, doesn’t stop them being right or wrong.

So if Burnley Ace forms an opinion today based on that evidence, conjecture or not it’s his right, also he could also be proved to be right, who knows.

You just appear to want to shut down discussion on this in your words “as it hasn’t happened” yet, shutting down arguments in search of proof, which is coming across as churlish.

[Rick_Muller]

...and in the meantime the politicians are totally screwing it all up and trying to distract the public with stories of teenagers of ISIS etc

[Greenmile]

It's now crystal clear that you're not actually reading and absorbing the words I'm writing.

What part of "I have no EVIDENCE to rely on that says it will be replaced or improved." Nor am I saying that losing it would NOT be negative for the UK.

However, until we have actually left and time allows to see whether or not we DID an agreement to continue access it.

Claiming that losing it as EVIDENCE will brexit will have a negative impact on the uk is simply CONJECTURE

We haven't left yet.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE evidence.

Do you understand?

We have not left the European Union yet.

So we do have evidence then? It’s just incomplete.

[Rick_Muller]

So we do have evidence then? It’s just incomplete.

Nah mate, it’s black and white; all or nothing with this chap - incomplete, even if it was 99.99999999% complete wouldn’t be admissible because it’s not total evidence...

[Tall Paul]

So we do have evidence then? It’s just incomplete.

Hoist by his own petard!

[Bordeauxclaret]

Everyone else 1 Ringo 0

[Lancasterclaret]

Again (sadly)

This is the moment when you realise that banning the political threads is actually a good idea.

[martin_p]

Again (sadly)

This is the moment when you realise that banning the political threads is actually a good idea.

The political talk ended a while back. A separate forum on the semantics of the English language is what we need.

[nil_desperandum]

Again (sadly)

This is the moment when you realise that banning the political threads is actually a good idea.

This is the difficulty I have with either banning "political" threads or having a separate forum. How do you determine what is, or is going to turn out to be a "political" thread, and who will be the judge of this?
This thread is a classic of its kind. It arguably began as a political thread, (though I think it was motivated by Rowl's interest in a female academic's anatomy), but for the past few days has been dominated by Ringo and semantics.
Let's suppose it had been the other way round: i.e. a debate started about semantics that turns political because people start to bring in semantical arguments / examples from the world of politics.
At what point does a thread about semantics become political, and at what point due you "pull" it?
And what's to prevent people bringing politics obliquely into every thread?
e.g. (After a heavy defeat). "Our defence was about at effective as Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs" - followed by the usual posters debating the effectiveness of JC.
I'm genuinely interested to get answers from the mods about this.

[RingoMcCartney]

So we do have evidence then? It’s just incomplete.

Yes.

We have EVIDENCE of reversible, replacable short term events and business decisions.

If you base your opinion on them , claiming to be EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk. Then, given you're basing that OPINION on a process that has not drawn to a conclusion , you have CONJECTURE.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from/ for an event that has not happened yet.

You can have an opinion based on past EVIDENCE of the outcome of an event that has not happened yet.

Nobody has ever left the EU. There is no past evidence to support an opinion OPINION either way.

If I were to claim that EU asset managers moving to London, record levels of foreign investment into the uk, real wages growth outstripping inflation and record levels of employment are EVIDENCE that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk. I'D BE WRONG.

Why?

Because each and every one of those examples are reversible, replacable short term events and business decisions.

Therefore if my opinion would not be based on EVIDENCE as Remoaners arrogantly claim, it would be based on CONJECTURE.


All the way through this thread I've not once claimed I have evidence that brexit will have a positive impact on the uk. NOT ONCE.

All I've said is that in my OPINION, brexit will be positive in the long run, for the UK.

[RingoMcCartney]

Hoist by his own petard!

No.


See above post as to why not.

[RingoMcCartney]

Nah mate, it’s black and white; all or nothing with this chap - incomplete, even if it was 99.99999999% complete wouldn’t be admissible because it’s not total evidence...

The process of leaving the EU is not COMPLETE and the long term ramifications of doing so will not be open to objective judgement by the benefit of HINDSIGHT and PERSPECTIVE for some considerable amount of time. Perhaps decades.

The process of withdrawal has not even CONCLUDED.

Therefore. In the meantime we are all entitled to an OPINION as to whether brexit will have a negative impact on the uk. Or a positive impact on the U.K.

And I've said that all along.

However, and Lancaster claret in particular is a Remoaner who has repeatedly claimed that Brexiteers only have "belief". While in a pretty arrogant way claiming his view is backed by facts and EVIDENCE.

Time and time again Remoaners have pointed to what may prove to be short term , reversible, replacable business decisions and events and claiming in their OPINION, it's EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

Given they are pointing to EVIDENCE that may prove to be short term , reversible, replacable business decisions and events. In a fluid , ongoing brexit environment that has NOT EVEN STARTED YET, LET ALONE COMPLETE. Then given the definition of CONJECTURE, what they're loftily calling EVIDENCE is not. It's CONJECTURE.

And they, once you've stripped away the, self confirmed, supposition that they have an opinion backed by EVIDENCE. They are shown to be left with EXACTLY the same thing as me.

Belief, an opinion

[RingoMcCartney]

If it helps you - my comments are EVIDENCE yours are OPINION.

This is a perfect example.

[RingoMcCartney]

There's plenty of EVIDENCE, you just don't want to see it.

Nissan cite Brexit as a problem as the withdraw new jobs from the UK.
Banks have already started moving billions of pounds of assets off shore.
Many other businesses implmeneting their 'no deal' emergency plans, some of which involve moving some operations into the EU.

This is not project fear, this is what's happening.

Of the OPINION that what may turn out to be short term or reversible business and events decisions as EVIDENCE.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete evidence.

[RingoMcCartney]

What I am saying is based on the available body of facts (EVIDENCE) and your comments on Brexit aren’t based on FACTS or KNOWLEDGE that’s why they are an OPINION.

That’s one of the reasons you are unable to answer any Brexit questions that require you to highlight the benefits of Brexit because there is no EVIDENCE that it’s a positive

Another post claiming their OPINION is based on EVIDENCE and mine are simply an OPINION.

We haven't left yet. The process is not COMPLETE

Brexit has not CONCLUDED

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete evidence.

[RingoMcCartney]

There really is no point in trying to argue against a faith based system!

In other words-

Remoaners have EVIDENCE

Brexiteers have "faith"

No .

Remoaners have CONJECTURE

Brexiteers have opinion.

[RingoMcCartney]

Correct. It’s their inability to understand the concept of EVIDENCE despite it having been explained in terms a 5 year old would understand (to pick just one example from many) that makes them thick.

Somebody claiming Brexiteers don't understand the concept of EVIDENCE.


While Remoaners consistently spout CONJECTURE.




Comedy gold!

[Tall Paul]

Comedy gold indeed.

[RingoMcCartney]

So there is EVIDENCE then that Brexit has resulted in financial losses and job losses ?

No EVIDENCE just CONJECTURE.


Why?


Because we haven't left the EU yet. The process is incomplete. The withdrawal agreement hasn't even been drawn to a conclusion.

Therefore it's CONJECTURE. That brexit WILL have a negative impact on the uk.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete evidence.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for an event that has not happened yet.

You can have have an opinion based on CONJECTURE but seeing that it's based on an incomplete process that's all you have. An OPINION

[LeuvenClaret]

No EVIDENCE just CONJECTURE.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for an event that has not happened yet.

You passionately belive you are right so I going to stick my neck out here and take a guess.
If you change your wording slightly:-
You cannot provide EVIDENCE OF an event that has not happened yet. - then i would agree with you as this is PROOF.

But there is such a thing as evidence based forecasting. which means - You cannot provide EVIDENCE FOR an event that has not happened yet. is an incorrect statement.

Does that help?

[RingoMcCartney]

You passionately belive you are right so I going to stick my neck out here and take a guess.
If you change your wording slightly:-
You cannot provide EVIDENCE OF an event that has not happened yet. - then i would agree with you as this is PROOF.

But there is such a thing as evidence based forecasting. which means - You cannot provide EVIDENCE FOR an event that has not happened yet. is an incorrect statement.

Does that help?

No.

Because yet again you're saying that I'm claiming that I have evidence that backs an opinion that shows that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

I'm not.

Remoaners are.

You can make a PREDICTION, a FORECAST, or hold an OPINION about an event that has not happened yet.

You can have an OPINION make a PREDICTION or FORECASTS based on past PROOF/ EVIDENCE of previous similar events, to say whether or not you feel that the outcome of future event may be positive or negative.

But you cannot, cannot cannot , have an OPINION, make a PREDICTION, or FORECAST based on what may turn out to be short term, reversible, or replacable business decisions and events and claim it's backed by PROOF/EVIDENCE.

The process of withdrawing from the EU has not even CONCLUDED. The actually process of leaving the EU is INCOMPLETE . And enough time has not passed to allows us the privilege to judge objectively whether brexit has been a positive or a negative.

No other country has previously left the EU before. There is no previous OUTCOMES on which to base an OPINION, a PREDICTION or a FORECAST.

Until then, when Remoaners claim they have an OPINION, a PREDICTION or a FORECAST that is based on on PROOF/EVIDENCE. They do not.

They have CONJECTURE.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete EVIDENCE.

[martin_p]

And so the thread reaches its inevitable conclusion (several pages too late), Wrongo talking to himself. Probably best left there.

[RingoMcCartney]

And so the thread reaches its inevitable conclusion (several pages too late), Wrongo talking to himself. Probably best left there.

Well it took some stamina, graft, grit, determination, an amount of perseverance, a bit of quality at times, and the usual, minimum requirement of maximum effort. Like any Dyche-minded team I suppose. But, after 3 weeks and 15 minutes each way, of extra time.

Final Score-






Ringo McCartney 1. Several Ceaseless Remoaners 0



Have a great weekend, my evidence - free, conjecture-riddled chums!



( Take care of your crystal balls. If you look deep deep into them, you'll see the mist clearing. It reveals you, in your delorean, at a crossroads. One path leads to being on the losing side of the argument against me for eternity. The other, to being in a perpetual state of frustration of never getting the better of me. I only hope you make the right choice Marty)

[Bordeauxclaret]

41 pages of Ringo being wrong. Poor tormented soul.

Still, he’s great for a laugh.

[Elizabeth]

Just nipping in to say this is the most boring thread in the history of uptheclarets.
Any football related comments made by the main protagonists will have little value in the future based on their tedious contributions witnessed over the last couple of weeks.

[LeuvenClaret]

Just nipping in to say this is the most boring thread in the history of uptheclarets.
Any football related comments made by the main protagonists will have little value in the future based on their tedious contributions witnessed over the last couple of weeks.

Think u'll find that is conjecture Elizabeth