QUESTION-martin_p wrote:Ah, the old 'a prediction was wrong, so all predictions are wrong' argument!
What happened to the EVIDENCE Marty?martin_p wrote:Well if you can point out where I said it was definitely right that'd be useful for a start. But the difference with the PREDICTIONS now are we at least have some actuals to plug into economic FORECAST MODELS. So, if we have 'no deal' we know the terms on which we'll be trading for example (i.e. WTO) and a whole host of EU related things we'll no longer have access to. I'm prepared to buy the 'project fear' theory on lots on the post referendum predictions as essentially nothing was immediately going to change. This time it's different.
Hello GreenmileGreenmile wrote:
About as honest as the rest of Rowls’ posts on this thread.
Don’t you mean proof?RingoMcCartney wrote:
I said that as it hasn't happened yet you couldn't possibly have any evidence. .
I've never claimed there's any evidence for what I've stated, only common sense and logic, which is still far removed from yourself who hasn't responded to any of my points.Lancasterclaret wrote:These threads are ace when you just turn up occassionally and read through what people actually put.
Claretandy - everything that Carney says is "Project Fear" until he says something good about free trade and suddenly, its all worth listening to.
Colburn - no evidence of any of the ******** you are talking. Mate, you'd look daft on here if it wasn't for the hilarious post by Jakub!
Jakub - I'm starting to think (like with Ringo) that you are a brilliant parody account. No one could come out with what you have done without a little giggle
**** funny it has to be said.
And of course, a national tragedy that people actually post stuff like this and think its alright.
It's not daft to essentially need something implies you would die without something, I've already ceded in the modern world we need it as we are all accustomed to all our mod cons ect & for some people medically unfit would struggle without it, the monks & nomadic goat herders who use wood & animal dung for lighting fires (cooking) manage to get by without it, in my mind to essentially need something means you would die without it, which clearly isn't the case for some people. The idea is absurd that we don't need it because of what we are & where we are has conditioned that thought that robustly it's almost impossible to imagine a life without.Lancasterclaret wrote:These threads are ace when you just turn up occassionally and read through what people actually put.
Claretandy - everything that Carney says is "Project Fear" until he says something good about free trade and suddenly, its all worth listening to.
Colburn - no evidence of any of the ******** you are talking. Mate, you'd look daft on here if it wasn't for the hilarious post by Jakub!
Jakub - I'm starting to think (like with Ringo) that you are a brilliant parody account. No one could come out with what you have done without a little giggle
**** funny it has to be said.
And of course, a national tragedy that people actually post stuff like this and think its alright.
Did I upset you snowflake?Rowls wrote:Hello Greenmile
You are possibly the dullest poster on this entire forum.
Sincerely
Rowls
As long as you continue to misunderstand the uses of the word evidence you'll continue to get this wrong and continue to look a fool. I even tried helping you by posting some dictionary examples of how to use 'evidence', please read them.RingoMcCartney wrote:Your fixation with the definition of "evidence" , and who provides it is clearly clouding your ability to absorb information.
For time immemorial the sun HAS risen in the morning. It has done for millenia. These PAST events allow us to PREDICT it will do the same tomorrow. These past events are not in themselves evidence that it will rise tomorrow but they allow us to BELIEVE, (in reality we KNOW, barring planetary catastrophe) that it will. But only when it's happened will you be able to provide evidence that it actually did.
Correct, but it's easy to put words in peoples mouths that they've never said. I thought you'd understand that.RingoMcCartney wrote:As can be seen by the above quotes.
I said nothing of the sort Marty.
Look at the words very carefully, then point out where I've said them (clue - I haven't)RingoMcCartney wrote:
You said you could provide evidence of a future event.
Says the man posting about Brexit on a football messageboard at 2am!Rowls wrote:Hello Greenmile
You are possibly the dullest poster on this entire forum.
Sincerely
Rowls
Hahaha martin_p - It might be just 2am for you but for me it was the end of my shift and I was having a sit down and a rest before bed.martin_p wrote:Says the man posting about Brexit on a football messageboard at 2am!
I'm sorry but you're getting more and more feeble.Lancasterclaret wrote:Colburn
You haven't said anything on here that you haven't said before. You haven't said anything on here that is new for two years on Brexit.
In that time, thousands of academics, business leaders, trade experts, journalists have written realms of columns about Brexit. But you've not read any of them unless they include the words "remainer conspiracy, Brexit means Brexit, Its all the fault of the EU etc etc etc.
Its painfully obvious that you don't have a scooby doo what you are talking about
But keep posting away in reply to me. It just highlights even more that you don't.
And "common sense and logic" needs facts, evidence and a bit of knowledge about what you are talking about to be acted on, so whatever you are using, its certainly not "common sense and logic"
I wouldn't mind half as much to be honest if you were like Ringo and Jakub, who just don't like immigration and link the problems in East Lancs to the EU. They are obviously wrong, but at least they are not pretending about why they voted Brexit.
I'd be interested in which of your arguments you think are applying logic.Colburn_Claret wrote:I'm sorry but you're getting more and more feeble.
You still aren't quoting me in your replies, so that other people can see how clever you are, but hoping I don't see it and respond.
I'll ask again. You claim that Brexit is damaging for us, no problem with that, but I've pointed out several times, why it is more damaging to the rest of Europe.
I gave half a dozen reasons to you and nil d, neither of you have yet said I'm wrong, more specifically why I'm wrong. What have I missed in my post that you can see, but don't want to tell me and the rest of the world.
You either agree or disagree, but if you disagree then tell me why, because unless you do your hissy fitting is just vacuous.
It's my ball and I'm going home.....
As for your claim I don't read about Brexit, your right, I don't. I know why I voted leave, I don't need any academic, journalist or politician telling me what I see, and what I believe.
There are academics, journalists and politicians on both sides of the argument, they can't all be right, so why should I listen to one side over another. I think for myself.
Common sense and logic don't always require evidence.
When you have so many AJPs justifying opposite points of view the only thing we have to separate the wheat from the chaff is common sense and logic.
followed the very next paragraph byAs for your claim I don't read about Brexit, your right, I don't. I know why I voted leave, I don't need any academic, journalist or politician telling me what I see, and what I believe.
There are academics, journalists and politicians on both sides of the argument, they can't all be right, so why should I listen to one side over another. I think for myself.
I rest my case my lord. You are making this up as you go along.Common sense and logic don't always require evidence.
When you have so many AJPs justifying opposite points of view the only thing we have to separate the wheat from the chaff is common sense and logic.
I explained in clear and logical terms why the EU would be less concerned than we should be, (basically because their hit is divided by 27 and they will continue to trade as a "bloc" on one landmass, whilst we are cut off by the English channel, initially have no agreements in place and take the full hit ourselves).Colburn_Claret wrote: I gave half a dozen reasons to you and nil d, neither of you have yet said I'm wrong, more specifically why I'm wrong. What have I missed in my post that you can see, but don't want to tell me and the rest of the world.
.
So, when Italy (who contribute 12% to the EU's budget) take a hit on the £22bn we import from them, 18 countries in Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Czechia, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta (Who between them contribute 12% to the EU's budget) will pick up the slack? That is assuming none of them take a hit, obviously.nil_desperandum wrote:I explained in clear and logical terms why the EU would be less concerned than we should be, (basically because their hit is divided by 27 and they will continue to trade as a "bloc" on one landmass, whilst we are cut off by the English channel, initially have no agreements in place and take the full hit ourselves).
I assume it's all to do with diesel and the Chinese economy in reality.aggi wrote:I assume we've had the latest bit of Project Fear
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN1Q12SK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
After midnight on March 29th we will will need to start trying to make trade deals around the world since in a "no deal" brexit we will have nothing in place. (Making a separate trade deal with Italy, or any individual EU state is not possible so far as I'm aware. [It's one of the reasons given for leaving].)Darthlaw wrote:So, when Italy (who contribute 12% to the EU's budget) take a hit on the £22bn we import from them, 18 countries in Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Czechia, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta (Who between them contribute 12% to the EU's budget) will pick up the slack? That is assuming none of them take a hit, obviously.
Or is it any wonder Italy are in a scramble to get a free trade agreement with the UK outside of the EU.
Granted, the EU (as an entity) probably can't care less, however certain individual countries within might not be so happy to rely on the smaller members to 'share the hit'.nil_desperandum wrote:I explained in clear and logical terms why the EU would be less concerned than we should be, (basically because their hit is divided by 27 and they will continue to trade as a "bloc" on one landmass, whilst we are cut off by the English channel, initially have no agreements in place and take the full hit ourselves).
Precisely, you make my point perfectly. We can indeed set up deals now, but if it were as simple as Davis, Fox et al made out in 2016, then surely we would have lots of potential deals lined up now, and our Trade Minister would be boasting about them?Darthlaw wrote:
Nil - Lancs has also pointed out in this thread earlier that we can make deals now (some, albeit minor ones have already been done). You're also correct that Italy are not allowed, under EU rules, to make separate trade deals however thats the point I'm illustrating.
.
So not your point at all, seen as we won't be starting on March 29th and we do already have some agreements in place. Aside that, you got it correct.nil_desperandum wrote: After midnight on March 29th we will will need to start trying to make trade deals around the world since in a "no deal" brexit we will have nothing in place.
Will the EU allow a 'can we have some more time whilst we get our affairs in order' extension though? I can't see it.Lancasterclaret wrote:Just for these deals to be sorted in time is a reason to extend Article 50 if we are being honest.
Their hit isn't divided by 27 countries , as 20+ of them are on their knees. It will be up to about 5, to find the missing £39billion. Economies , even in Germany are going backwards, they can't afford it, or not without hitting their own people, many of whom are already upset by the EU.nil_desperandum wrote:I explained in clear and logical terms why the EU would be less concerned than we should be, (basically because their hit is divided by 27 and they will continue to trade as a "bloc" on one landmass, whilst we are cut off by the English channel, initially have no agreements in place and take the full hit ourselves).
This is why those in authority, not just the govt. are having to spend money on emergency short term measures such as stockpiling food and drugs, turning motorways in Kent into a car park with portaloos, and chartering ferry companies that don't have vessels or a port to operate from. When you replied you simply ignored my point - so I've basically moved on. There's no point in simply repeating the same realities, (no disrespect to those on here that obviously have a little more time than me and continue to do so.)
Lancaster has a theory, sorry facts and evidence, that Brexit will hit Britain hard, I'm not arguing with that. But I've pointed out several times in several ways, why it will hit Europe even harder.martin_p wrote:I'd be interested in which of your arguments you think are applying logic.
I think Lancs has part answered this, but I don't understand your point at all about the date, since that date has been enshrined in law for the best part of 2 years, so any future deal can be negotiated on the basis of "from March 30th or following any brief transition period".Darthlaw wrote:So not your point at all, seen as we won't be starting on March 29th and we do already have some agreements in place. Aside that, you got it correct.
More importantly, as has already been said on this thread, what sound business would sign up to an agreement without a start date? The EU is trying to stop us leaving, prominent remainers are trying to stop us leaving and even some moderates are trying to delay our exit.
Ask yourself a question, would you commit to buy a house from a family who didn't know when they would be leaving and that some members of the family were still arguing that they shouldn't move?
Not going to come back on the rest of your post as it's been covered so often, but I wouldn't put much weight on the "£39 billion" argument that Davis and members of the ERG have claimed, (but not the govt.).Colburn_Claret wrote:Their hit isn't divided by 27 countries , as 20+ of them are on their knees. It will be up to about 5, to find the missing £39billion. .
