Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:01 pm

Just respect and a curiosity for real facts and real opinions.

All for that Paul, but I'm not seeing that enough from the Brexit side.

We've only just moved on from "we won, you lost, get over it"

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:All for that Paul, but I'm not seeing that enough from the Brexit side.

We've only just moved on from "we won, you lost, get over it"

Yes, I know, Lancs. My view, if I change, maybe someone else will also change - then who knows where that will take us....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:21 pm

I'm no longer trying to change opinion on here Paul, I'm pointing out stuff that is untrue or based on incomplete info.

I'm not going to let that stand as I want people to acknowledge that they voted based on lies and incomplete info and be honest about why they voted.

I don't agree with Ringo on this (or Jakub or smudge + others) but they are at least comparatively honest about why they voted (ie immigration) rather than trying to pretend its about something else.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:28 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:All for that Paul, but I'm not seeing that enough from the Brexit side.

We've only just moved on from "we won, you lost, get over it"

It's there, you only have to look & stay abreast of things politically, what would you like to know in particular & I'll do my upmost to answer? which is pretty much what I read in the newspaper & what I watch on television, it's not that difficult you could do that yourself.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:37 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm no longer trying to change opinion on here Paul, I'm pointing out stuff that is untrue or based on incomplete info.

I'm not going to let that stand as I want people to acknowledge that they voted based on lies and incomplete info and be honest about why they voted.

I don't agree with Ringo on this (or Jakub or smudge + others) but they are at least comparatively honest about why they voted (ie immigration) rather than trying to pretend its about something else.

Immigration isn't just 1 sole issue though it has a snowball effect on public services, wages ect.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:52 pm

Mala591 wrote:Turkey is in the EU customs union but has an independent immigration policy so it is possible. I agree that we wouldn't be able to negotiate our own international trade deals and would be 'tied into' the EU trade deals but imo that would be a price worth paying.

The CU isn’t linked to immigration, it’s trade. Access to the Single Market is linked to FOM and we will have to pay.

If we are going into a Customs Union with no input, can’t strike our own deals, still having FOM and paying for access to the Single Market and still having to comply with ECJ rulings - what are we leaving?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm no longer trying to change opinion on here Paul, I'm pointing out stuff that is untrue or based on incomplete info.

I'm not going to let that stand as I want people to acknowledge that they voted based on lies and incomplete info and be honest about why they voted.

I don't agree with Ringo on this (or Jakub or smudge + others) but they are at least comparatively honest about why they voted (ie immigration) rather than trying to pretend its about something else.

Lancaster...'they voted based on lies and incomplete info'..

Both sides were guilty of this.

Just how many times does this have to be said?
How many times?

You are regularly on here asking people to be honest, and tell the truth and so on..

Why are you not honest about this ?

Do you agree that BOTH SIDES were guilty of telling lies, providing incomplete information, and other dodgy stuff like a nationwide delivery of biased 'Remainer' leaflets..in the run-up to the Referendum?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:12 pm

I'm not seeing remain being fined or under criminal investigation Hampstead.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:18 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:The CU isn’t linked to immigration, it’s trade. Access to the Single Market is linked to FOM and we will have to pay.

If we are going into a Customs Union with no input, can’t strike our own deals, still having FOM and paying for access to the Single Market and still having to comply with ECJ rulings - what are we leaving?

Agree and I want to leave. No point with Labour's plan. Not worth giving up what we have for as 3 of the main reasons for leaving are removed. The compromise has already been made in the draft political protocol which leaves the type of trade deal for discussion at thr next stage.

The problem remains an unlimited backstop, which no uk gov could ever agree to as it would hand total control in the trade discussions to the EU.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:20 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Lancaster...'they voted based on lies and incomplete info'..

Both sides were guilty of this.

Just how many times does this have to be said?
How many times?

You are regularly on here asking people to be honest, and tell the truth and so on..

Why are you not honest about this ?

Do you agree that BOTH SIDES were guilty of telling lies, providing incomplete information, and other dodgy stuff like a nationwide delivery of biased 'Remainer' leaflets..in the run-up to the Referendum?

True and i believe people knew the score when they voted.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm not seeing remain being fined or under criminal investigation Hampstead.

I agree with your statement.

Can you answer the rather important question in my last paragraph or not?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:25 pm

Some interesting polling analysis here on why the public opinion may be moving from leave to remain if there was a second referendum.

Full details here https://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-there-b ... or-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but a couple of interesting things I took from it:

Although Leave has lost a few more voters than Remain, the big difference is those that didn't vote in the first election are more pro-remain. Obviously the big issue would be how many of them would actually vote if there was a second vote.

The other interesting table was this one:

which kind of matches the debates on here from the past couple of years. It started off with "they need us more than we need them" and "we hold all the cards" and moved on to "there will have to be belt tightening" and "there will be a financial hit but that's not what the important issue was"

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:35 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote: Can you answer the rather important question in my last paragraph or not?

Did they lie or were some campaigners genuinely mistaken as to the potential immediate consequences?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:43 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm no longer trying to change opinion on here Paul, I'm pointing out stuff that is untrue or based on incomplete info.

I'm not going to let that stand as I want people to acknowledge that they voted based on lies and incomplete info and be honest about why they voted.

Hi Lancs, I can see things that are right and things that are not right on both sides of the argument. I don't see what any of us have to gain by pointing out the other guy's shortcomings or where we feel they have been misinformed - whichever way they voted. Democracy is not based on the intelligence of the voter - it would be 100% wrong to require the electorate to pass a "knowledge" test before we counted their vote. We could argue the same for our MPs - would we want to limit MPs to those who'd been to uni, for example? (always assuming all unis and all degrees are equal -which I doubt Is the case). Equally, we've never had a political campaign, to date, where we couldn't argue that every political point of view is argued with some deceit.

At a basic, human instincts, level - if you attack me, I'll attack you...…. but, if you don't attack me, then I've nothing to defend myself against - and maybe we've got the start of the foundations to find areas where we can start to agree.

This is the reason why I suggest that whenever groups of any sort are being created there should always be discussion and agreement on how the group comes to an end. In simple terms, don't join anything is there isn't already agreement about the terms when anyone wants to keave the group.

Who knows, maybe when the "dust has settled" the EU (whether the UK is included or outside) will re-visit the Lisbon Treaty and add the missing sections to Article 50. The EU will be better for it - and, so the UK (whether still in or not) will be better for it - plus the rest of the world, also.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:46 pm

aggi wrote:Some interesting polling analysis here on why the public opinion may be moving from leave to remain if there was a second referendum.

Full details here https://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-there-b ... or-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but a couple of interesting things I took from it:

Although Leave has lost a few more voters than Remain, the big difference is those that didn't vote in the first election are more pro-remain. Obviously the big issue would be how many of them would actually vote if there was a second vote.

The other interesting table was this one:

which kind of matches the debates on here from the past couple of years. It started off with "they need us more than we need them" and "we hold all the cards" and moved on to "there will have to be belt tightening" and "there will be a financial hit but that's not what the important issue was"

The match reduction could be perhaps attributed to people just bored b*ll*cocks of the all whingeing & whining & simply can't be arsed contributing anymore, I'm starting to feel that way, fair play to them who have stuck it out for longer compared to my relative short time.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:51 pm

aggi..there was a pretty high turnout for the referendum so I am surmising that those who did not bother voting were the really disinterested/couldn't be bothered/complete lazy ******** ...we all know some of them.

If there was a second vote [God forbid] is there any evidence that these people would be any more interested in voting?

I have my own partial rather simplistic views on that...Re those comments about 'hell' by Tusk the other day, [these research numbers were gathered before then] - if I had been a Brexiteer or a 'disinterested lazy voter' I know exactly what my reaction would have been to Tusk's disgraceful comments...that tw@t looks barely alive by the way. How dare he stick his nose in our perfectly reasonable legal decision to hold a referendum.

- just the sort of insensitive interfering Euro comment actually, that turns people off Europe and makes them want 'out'.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:54 pm

I'd be disappointed if we had a 2nd referendum. For me it would illustrate the "poverty of our politicians" (does that make a good sound bite)? and the poverty of our political processes.

My "Brenda" response would be, "sorry, I'm not voting this time."

However, my "grown up self" would also ask "OK, what can I do to help?" How can I help the country to come back together and take the right step forward?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:55 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Southern Italy, btw, doesn't have much of an trading economy, hence not greatly impacted, either way

Funny you should say that - I was at a cooking demo day thing yesterday at Nutters and Andrew Nutter was telling us all how much of an impact Brexit was already having on the price of food imported here. He specifically mentioned olive oil prices from Italy.

I know what you mean about southern Italy and Sicily though....they are like another world that is impacted by little not only in Europe / rest of the world but even by their northern Italy counterparts. But if things like tourism and sale of olive oil does begin to hit them it will hit them harder because there is so little else to do in many of the rural parts of southern Italy.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:00 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, I can see things that are right and things that are not right on both sides of the argument. I don't see what any of us have to gain by pointing out the other guy's shortcomings or where we feel they have been misinformed - whichever way they voted. Democracy is not based on the intelligence of the voter - it would be 100% wrong to require the electorate to pass a "knowledge" test before we counted their vote. We could argue the same for our MPs - would we want to limit MPs to those who'd been to uni, for example? (always assuming all unis and all degrees are equal -which I doubt Is the case). Equally, we've never had a political campaign, to date, where we couldn't argue that every political point of view is argued with some deceit.

At a basic, human instincts, level - if you attack me, I'll attack you...…. but, if you don't attack me, then I've nothing to defend myself against - and maybe we've got the start of the foundations to find areas where we can start to agree.

This is the reason why I suggest that whenever groups of any sort are being created there should always be discussion and agreement on how the group comes to an end. In simple terms, don't join anything is there isn't already agreement about the terms when anyone wants to keave the group.

Who knows, maybe when the "dust has settled" the EU (whether the UK is included or outside) will re-visit the Lisbon Treaty and add the missing sections to Article 50. The EU will be better for it - and, so the UK (whether still in or not) will be better for it - plus the rest of the world, also.

Democracy should never be based on the intelligence of the voter, but it should be based on honesty and correct information. Where information is demonstrably incorrect then it absolutely should be corrected.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:00 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:Did they lie or were some campaigners genuinely mistaken as to the potential immediate consequences?

That duplicitous **** Osborne [Chancellor of the Excheqeur..a position of some significance I think you'll agree] definitely lied, and then ran away at high speed, with his best trainers on to edit a free newspaper.

- who ran fastest, him or David Cameron?..

[To be clear they were both REMAINERS]

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:04 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:That duplicitous **** Osborne [Chancellor of the Excheqeur..a position of some significance I think you'll agree] definitely lied, and then ran away at high speed, with his best trainers on to edit a free newspaper.

- who ran fastest, him or David Cameron?..

[To be clear they were both REMAINERS]

What was his lie?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:04 pm

TVC15 wrote:Funny you should say that - I was at a cooking demo day thing yesterday at Nutters and Andrew Nutter was telling us all how much of an impact Brexit was already having on the price of food imported here. He specifically mentioned olive oil prices from Italy.

I know what you mean about southern Italy and Sicily though....they are like another world that is impacted by little not only in Europe / rest of the world but even by their northern Italy counterparts. But if things like tourism and sale of olive oil does begin to hit them it will hit them harder because there is so little else to do in many of the rural parts of southern Italy.

Hi TVC, yes, I agree. I've got some Italian friends at work (in London). Northern Italy is the "industrious, wealth creating" region of the country, Italians can divide themselves between northerners and southerners. One of my friend's father had is own oil trees - living somewhere north of Rome, and I'm not sure where the dividing line between north and south is drawn. He always brought me a very nice bottle after their harvest - until the bugs got into the trees and the fruit.

Exchange rate movements, £ down, Euro up, will have had an effect on food imports from EU (and EU tariffs and CAP have an effect on food imports from outside EU). Biggest driver of food prices is the quality and size of the harvest each year, with weather patterns and crop diseases playing their part to determine the former.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:12 pm

I see there is creep in the argument about whether we would be better off. I was very clear that we would not be
better off initially and accepted that freedom has a price. I don't think i was on my own.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:14 pm

martin_p wrote:What was his lie?

I'm not going through all that again Martin.... you should know.

You're pretty much at the heart of most Brexit threads, and everything that can be said, has been said twenty times.

I'm still waiting for a reply from Lancaster to my earlier question?

He's not usually short of words.

i can fully understand his discomfort though.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:17 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:I'm not going through all that again Martin.... you should know.

You're pretty much at the heart of most Brexit threads, and everything that can be said, has been said twenty times.

I'm still waiting for a reply from Lancaster to my earlier question?

He's not usually short of words.

i can fully understand his discomfort though.

Well if you're talking about the 'emergency budget' there wasn't a Prime MInister (nor a Chancellor) not much more than 24 hours after the vote, so we'll never know whether Camerson and Osbourne would have done that or not.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:44 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:aggi..there was a pretty high turnout for the referendum so I am surmising that those who did not bother voting were the really disinterested/couldn't be bothered/complete lazy ******** ...we all know some of them.

If there was a second vote [God forbid] is there any evidence that these people would be any more interested in voting?

I have my own partial rather simplistic views on that...Re those comments about 'hell' by Tusk the other day, [these research numbers were gathered before then] - if I had been a Brexiteer or a 'disinterested lazy voter' I know exactly what my reaction would have been to Tusk's disgraceful comments...that tw@t looks barely alive by the way. How dare he stick his nose in our perfectly reasonable legal decision to hold a referendum.

- just the sort of insensitive interfering Euro comment actually, that turns people off Europe and makes them want 'out'.

There was a pretty high turnout but the number not voting was still around 13,000,000. Given the margin was under 1,300,000 then it wouldn't take that many extra voting to change the picture.

I thought Barnier's original comments were fair enough given how many sensible plans those Brexiteers have come up with. The issue was more in the reporting of them (somehow those who promoted without a sketch of a plan became all Brexiteers when this was reported). Holding a referendum wasn't the issue, the people who were pretending they had a plan that wasn't realistic and then legging it is an issue (and I don't think many will disagree with that).

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:58 pm

https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b9 ... il:content

This should be a worry for those that think we can secure better trade deals with non-EU countries when we leave.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:04 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:aggi..there was a pretty high turnout for the referendum so I am surmising that those who did not bother voting were the really disinterested/couldn't be bothered/complete lazy ******** ...we all know some of them.

If there was a second vote [God forbid] is there any evidence that these people would be any more interested in voting?

I have my own partial rather simplistic views on that...Re those comments about 'hell' by Tusk the other day, [these research numbers were gathered before then] - if I had been a Brexiteer or a 'disinterested lazy voter' I know exactly what my reaction would have been to Tusk's disgraceful comments...that tw@t looks barely alive by the way. How dare he stick his nose in our perfectly reasonable legal decision to hold a referendum.

- just the sort of insensitive interfering Euro comment actually, that turns people off Europe and makes them want 'out'.

Exactly, I'm not entirely sure there will be enough to overturn, factor in the younger generation some now at a voting age, but should only apply to people who voted initially, it's a nonsense idea anyway if it's a no deal its a no deal, let them cut their nose to spite their face, any sort of second referendum/people's vote, lots who initially voted out in the first place will have lost faith in democracy & will abstain on principal. It already been pledged Brexit anyhow in whatever form will be delivered.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:05 pm

martin_p wrote:Well if you're talking about the 'emergency budget' there wasn't a Prime MInister (nor a Chancellor) not much more than 24 hours after the vote, so we'll never know whether Camerson and Osbourne would have done that or not.

Yes I know all that..

- their lies, their intimidation, their misinformation, their leaflets, their 'emergency budget chatter' HAD NOT WORKED - ENOUGH OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC HAD SEEN THROUGH THEIR LIES AND BLUSTER AND VOTED THE 'WRONG' WAY..[52%>48%]

At which point the two REMAIN cowards ran away as fast as their little legs would carry them.
There was no emergency budget [Osborne] because there WAS NEVER AN INTENTION TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY BUDGET ! That was all just about INTIMIDATION.

- it's not complicated this stuff.

Why did you ask me what I meant [871] when you so obviously already knew?
Were you hoping to trip me up..catch me out?
Unlikely.

Is the REMAIN story on here going to be that only 'one side lied' ? Is that it?
That would be totally dishonest, tawdry and 'sad'...['sad' meaning..is that really the best you can do..is that all you've got?]
Yet some keep banging on about honesty and truth...just laughable.

For clarity try this..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36534192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have copied the interesting bit..[15 June 2016]

EU REFERENDUM: Osborne warns of Brexit Budget cuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------

'George Osborne says he will have to slash public spending and increase taxes in an emergency Budget to tackle a £30bn "black hole" if the UK votes to leave the European Union.

The chancellor said this could include raising income and inheritance taxes and cutting the NHS budget.

But 65 Tory MPs have said his position would be "untenable" if he tries to cut NHS, police and school spending.

And Vote Leave criticised Remain's "hysterical prophecies of doom".

The UK votes on whether to remain in the EU or to leave on 23 June.

In other referendum news:

In the latest of a series of government warnings about the consequences of a vote to leave, Mr Osborne shared a stage with his Labour predecessor, Lord Darling, setting out £30bn of "illustrative" tax rises and spending cuts, including a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax and a 3p rise in the higher rate.

They also said spending on the police, transport and local government could take a 5% cut and ring-fenced NHS budget could be "slashed", along with education, defence and policing.

Mr Osborne and Lord Darling said the measures - £15bn of tax rises and £15bn of cuts - are based on the Institute for Fiscal Studies' predictions about the economic impact of a vote to leave from lower trade, investment, and tax receipts.

The IFS has said such an outcome could trigger between an extra one to two years of austerity.' [BBC]

There it is at the end..if we dare to vote the 'wrong way' [we did] we will be punished for not doing as we were told.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:09 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:If Immigration doesn't go down to a level which is unsustainable for us, then I'd hazard a guess that a lot of Brexiteers are going to be disappointed.

We need immigration, and the big business will make sure we still get it. It will just be a bit darker in hue.

Same old Remainers - droning on and on and ON about immigration.

If it's not that, then they somehow manage to shoehorn in the British Empire.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:18 pm

So the IFS made some predictions and Osbourne stated what he would do to counter them. Presumably the predictions didn’t come about so there was no need to take those steps. It’s the IFS that got it wrong

Having said that, it doesn’t detract from the fact he a weaselling shibag

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:By media I meant the BBC as much as the press, who daren't even show the riots in Paris or dwell on the financial problems of Italy etc. It's all glossed over, even though these things are relevant to what's going on in Brussels and Westminster.
As for Cornwall of course I wouldn't want them to go independent, but if that's what they wanted, and that's what they voted for , then I have no right to stop them. It might be stupid, it might be financial suicide, but the definition of democracy should be the people have the right to be wrong. If you wish to avoid that situation, then you make sure that you take Cornwalls opinion into debates, in Westminster or wherever. The reason so many Scots were unhappy, is because they felt Westminster wasn't listening to them, and the same reason that the people voted for Brexit is because the majority think that Brussels isn't listening to us.
Thatcher, Major, Cameron, a succession of PMs have been to Brussels, asking them to slow down to take into account our genuine concerns of the cost and the direction the EU was going. They really don't care, as shown by all the messages coming out of Brussels even today. They don't want to give us an inch, they want ever closer Union regardless of the consequences, and if we don't like it, tough. There really is no option but to quit, whatever the deal.

It sounds very much like you're buying into the same conspiracy theories as ClaretMoffit about the media.

The BBC has loads of stories about the riots in France and plenty on the finance problems of Italy. There's even a story titled Italy recession reflects eurozone weakness. What more are you expecting?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cm01q ... ly-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it bizarre that people make such claims which are so easily refuted. Is it that you really believe this and haven't bothered checking if it is true or are you just trying to make a point and hoping no-one else will check?

You can make arguments for BBC bias the other way if you really wanted to, look at how they misrepresented Tusk's quote here for instance:

So I find it difficult to believe they're part of this conspiracy of non-reporting.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:00 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I haven't retired. I'm still working. 58 hours a week most weeks. I'm not forced to work those hours, but now I am saving for retirement.

Sorry - I must have misread or misremembered your post earlier

Colburn_Claret wrote:...If people put their effort into making Brexit a success then it will be...

Which people? Sounds like magical thinking to me. Im just not having this "if you believe hard enough, everything will be ok" nonsense - this is real life, not Peter Pan.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:03 pm

Need a change of Government with Mr C saying he is happy to stand aside, in favour of a leader!

Otherwise, we are doomed!

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:06 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Yes I know all that.. .

I've cut your post down just because it was really long and I thought it might make mine harder to read.

There is a difference between an inaccurate prediction (eg "there will have to be an emergency budget" etc) and a lie about the status quo (eg "we send the EU £350m every week" etc). Both are wrong but only one is definitely a lie.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Rowls wrote:Same old Remainers - droning on and on and ON about immigration.

If it's not that, then they somehow manage to shoehorn in the British Empire.

Have you met Jakub, or Biggles? I presume you must have them blocked. I don't think they are remainers.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:12 pm

Greenmile wrote:Sorry - I must have misread or misremembered your post earlier

Which people? Sounds like magical thinking to me. Im just not having this "if you believe hard enough, everything will be ok" nonsense - this is real life, not Peter Pan.

I think he means the politicians , businesses and the British public , it’s happening so needs to be backed and looked at as a great opportunity ( which it may be well be when looked back on) endless bitching by Tory haters ain’t helping anyone . My business has been hammered by the fall in the £ since Brexit and I voted remain but I respect the vote and have planned accordingly . There’s some huge economies we will be tapping into from India to Brazil . Either embrace it and ride the initial bumps or sit and moan and plan doomsday scenarios. I’d have far more respect for Jezza if he just said “ **** it let’s back mays deal and honour the public vote and get moving “

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:18 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:I think he means the politicians , businesses and the British public , it’s happening so needs to be backed and looked at as a great opportunity ( which it may be well be when looked back on) endless bitching by Tory haters ain’t helping anyone . My business has been hammered by the fall in the £ since Brexit and I voted remain but I respect the vote and have planned accordingly . There’s some huge economies we will be tapping into from India to Brazil . Either embrace it and ride the initial bumps or sit and moan and plan doomsday scenarios. I’d have far more respect for Jezza if he just said “ **** it let’s back mays deal and honour the public vote and get moving “

I’m part of the British public. I fail to see what how my belief or otherwise in the benefits of Brexit will change anything at all (unless there’s a second referendum). Businesses are clearly planning for Brexit, but for the biggest of them (who pay the most tax) that just means moving their operations abroad, as we’re seeing almost daily.

You may have a point with politicians but sadly the vast majority of the bunch we’ve ended up with will always put the interests of their own careers and their respective parties ahead of the country’s.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:23 pm

: IMG_20190208_171739.jpg (415.95 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

Not the only reasons Gina, but most of them seem pretty good to me

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:55 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:Based on Brexit Barclays have already moved 116 bil out of the Uk.
Nissan is not making a car in n the uk because of brexit uncertainty,
To me this is the same as the sun rising yesterday.

Does it mean that it the sun will rise tomorrow probably based the evidence of previous days.

So based on economic evidence we are probably expecting a down turn after Brexit
But we might not, just as the sun might not rise ...but it’s a certainty... that’s what u mean right?

I've now removed the word "proof"

So based on economic evidence we are PROBABLY EXPECTING a down turn after Brexit"

Till it ACTUALLY happens, what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what they claimed as evidence was just their misplaced opinion or belief.

Given the sun has risen in the morning, for time immemorial. You and I could predict that it will rise tomorrow morning.

Till it does ACTUALLY HAPPENS, we cannot provide evidence that it DID.

Nobody has ever left the EU before.

Till it actually happens, nobody will be able to provide evidence as to whether or not brexit had a negative or a positive.

Just supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts .

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has no yet happened.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:13 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:There your words, not mine! You are squirming again and changing your position. Of course you can’t provide from an event in the future but you can, as people have been telling for the last 6 months, provide evidence for an event in the future!

All together now - Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

1, I'm quoting YOU, actually using the definition of "evidence" YOU provided! They're YOUR words.

Your claiming what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what your claiming as evidence, could turn out to be exactly what it was all along - opinion/belief. supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts .

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has no happened yet.

As for squirming? Again don't flatter yourself. I've got my feet up with a cigar on, waiting.

Waiting for you to carry out that errand I've sent you on.

Namely for you to prove you can actually provide evidence from an event that has not yet happened.

You know the drill.

Take a photo of tomorrow mornings sunrise and post the evidence on here.

Today.

Run along now.

TICK TOCK

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:23 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:1, I'm quoting YOU, actually using the definition of "evidence" YOU provided! They're YOUR words.

Your claiming what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what your claiming as evidence, could turn out to be exactly what it was all along - opinion/belief. supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts .

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has no happened yet.

As for squirming? Again don't flatter yourself. I've got my feet up with a cigar on, waiting.

Waiting for you to carry out that errand I've sent you on.

Namely for you to prove you can actually provide evidence from an event that has not yet happened.

You know the drill.

Take a photo of tomorrow mornings sunrise and post the evidence on here.

Today.

Run along now.

TICK TOCK

It’s good old black and white Wrongo, only understanding the word evidence in a single context, and also asking someone to prove something they’ve never claimed (or misunderstanding what’s being said to him).

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 pm

martin_p wrote:I'll try again, even thouugh it's doomed to failure, to explain what the word evidence means. Like lots of words it can have subtley different meanings in different context. But like a true Brexiteer everything is black and white for Wrongo, so there is only one definition of the word evidence (albeit one of the correct ones) and it's the definition he's sticking to. Here's the definition from the online Cambridge dictionary, along with some examples of use (I'm sure I've posted this before and Wrongo has ignored it, but god loves a tryer!)

evidence
noun [ U ] uk /ˈev.ɪ.dəns/ us /ˈev.ə.dəns/

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:

The police have found no evidence of a terrorist link with the murder.
[ + to infinitive ] There is no scientific evidence to suggest that underwater births are dangerous.
[ + that ] Is there any scientific evidence that a person's character is reflected in their handwriting?
Several experts are to give evidence on the subject.
There is only circumstantial evidence against her, so she is unlikely to be convicted.
Campaigners now have compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years.
Fresh evidence suggests that the statement had been fabricated.
The traces of petrol found on his clothing provided the forensic evidence proving that he had started the fire deliberately.
All the evidence points to a substantial rise in traffic over the next few years.
There is growing/mounting/increasing evidence that people whose diets are rich in vitamins are less likely to develop some types of cancer.

Please note in particular the second last example where evidence is being used to forecast traffic volumes. Now of course Wrongo is immediately going to say 'but that's a prediction based on assunmptions, etc, etc', and he'd be right, but perhaps he can now stop harping on about not being able to produce evidence in the context of Brexit.

Yes Wrongo, we all know they are predictions, but they are based on a number of different possible scenarios plugged into financial and econimic models developed over years. The vast majority of those forecasts, some of them using very optimistic post Brexit scenarios, are saying this is going to be varying degrees of bad. If that doesn't worry you then you've either got your head in the sand or your faith (and I'm calling it faith rather than a belief as belief implies some sort of supporting evidence whuch you adnit you don't have) is so great that you just refuse to contemplate the chance you might be wrong.

So, just to close this offf, you can use the fact (evidence) that the sun rose this morning and every previous morning to predict with almost 100% accuracy that, not only that it will rise tomorrow morning, but at what time and the exact point on the horizon. Why, because we understand the way the earth moves round the sun and how the earth rotates. This doesn't vary, it's a fixed model, so the only variable we have to plug into it is tomorrow's date. The only reason the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow is if something we haven't predicted that might impact the model happens and the chances of that are infitessimally small.

Now no one is claiming that economic models are that accurate of course, there's far more variables and a higher chance that something might happen that hasn't been modelled, and the forecasts come with margins of error for that very reason. But they do carry weight and when so many different forecats are giving the same bad news then surely it's time to sit up and listen!

Blah blah

I'll use your words-

"Now no one is claiming that ECONOMIC MODELS are THAT ACCURATE of course, there's far more variables and a higher chance that something might happen that hasn't been modelled, and the FORECASTS come with MARGINS OF ERROR for that very reason. But they do carry weight and when so many different FORECASTS are giving the same bad news then surely it's time to sit up and listen"

Loads of waffle about the sun and then the money shot at the end.

You admit that, with reference as to whether brexit will have a negative impact on the uk or not, is down to claiming that what you're claiming as "evidence" are actually just FORECASTS, ECONOMIC MODELS, that are NOT ACCURATE.

Your still the weather girl claiming to be a climatologist Marty.

You didn't need to explain it to me marty. I'm fully aware that we have not left the European Union yet.

No country has done it before.

I'm also fully aware that you cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has not happened.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:28 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Blah blah

I'll use your words-

"Now no one is claiming that ECONOMIC MODELS are THAT ACCURATE of course, there's far more variables and a higher chance that something might happen that hasn't been modelled, and the FORECASTS come with MARGINS OF ERROR for that very reason. But they do carry weight and when so many different FORECASTS are giving the same bad news then surely it's time to sit up and listen"

Loads of waffle about the sun and then the money shot at the end.

You admit that, with reference as to whether brexit will have a negative impact on the uk or not, is down to claiming that what you're claiming as "evidence" are actually just FORECASTS, ECONOMIC MODELS, that are NOT ACCURATE.

You didn't need to explain it to me marty. I'm fully aware that we have not left the European Union yet.

No country has done it before.

I'm also fully aware that you cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event that has not happened.

All I said was that economic forecasts are not as accurate as the model for predicting the sun will come up. Both are evidence based.

Spot the difference between what I’m saying and what you seem to think I’m saying

- You can provide evidence for a future event
- You can provide evidence from a future event

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:32 pm

Greenmile wrote:I’m part of the British public. I fail to see what how my belief or otherwise in the benefits of Brexit will change anything at all (unless there’s a second referendum). Businesses are clearly planning for Brexit, but for the biggest of them (who pay the most tax) that just means moving their operations abroad, as we’re seeing almost daily.

You may have a point with politicians but sadly the vast majority of the bunch we’ve ended up with will always put the interests of their own careers and their respective parties ahead of the country’s.

Different opinions but can’t argue with your points at all really. Though be interesting to see how much actual hard business is moved away from the U.K. as been plenty of bluster and it must be Bourne in mind that Brexit will be used as an excuse/get out of jail card by many businesses that want to relocate anyway

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:33 pm

TVC15 wrote:As much as it irks me to say so Wrongo is kind of RIGHT IN WHAT HE SAYS - in so much at the moment it is OPINIONS about what will happen post Brexit - albeit some of these OPINIONS are based on evidence about what has happened TO DATE and evidence based on what certain very influential business owners or industry leaders have said that they will do in a post Brexit scenario.

So whilst those pointing to a negative impact on terms of jobs, economic growth are basing this on actual job losses they have already seen and decisions already made to move business, offices etc abroad even in those cases in theory these same people could decide to take back those jobs or move back to the Uk - there is absolutely no logic or reason for them to do so but theoretically they could.

Kudos for admitting I'm right.

Marty, Burnley Ace, aggi, claret and jew, and LeuvenClaret.

You should listen to this poster.

Stop assuming that predictions and forecasts are evidence. They're not. They're supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts based on past evidence.

Nobody has ever left the EU in the past.

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

Have a great weekend ladies

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:39 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Kudos for admitting I'm right.

Marty, Burnley Ace, aggi, claret and jew, and LeuvenClaret.

You should listen to this poster.

Stop assuming that predictions and forecasts are evidence. They're not. They're supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts based on past evidence.

Nobody has ever left the EU in the past.

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

Have a great weekend ladies

But Wrongo you’ve claimed that you have evidence that Brexit will be wonderful.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:03 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:... it must be Bourne in mind that Brexit will be used as an excuse/get out of jail card by many businesses that want to relocate anyway

I know you voted remain and I'll happily admit I'm far from the middle ground you seem to be occupying on this issue, but the above sounds a lot like a Brexiter excuse / get out of jail card itself. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit cynical.

If a business wants to relocate, it will relocate - why do they need an excuse? Who are they excusing themselves to?

It's quite possible that there are some businesses that want to relocate anyway and I suppose if you don't trust their stated reasons we'll never know exactly how many were down to Brexit, but you can just see the likes of Ringo / dsr / Crosspool etc claiming "it would have happened anyway / nothing to do with Brexit" if the exodus continues, or even gets worse (as I believe it will in a no-deal situation).

I think it's safe to say that what we've already seen is more than can be explaiend by "they would have relocated anyway" (unless they're all bluffing and intend on reversing their plans immediately after we actually leave, as some folk on here seem to believe for reasons that aren't yet clear to me).

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:11 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:It's there, you only have to look & stay abreast of things politically, what would you like to know in particular & I'll do my upmost to answer? which is pretty much what I read in the newspaper & what I watch on television, it's not that difficult you could do that yourself.

That's a kind and generous offer.

You could start by explaining, with a bit of detail (there may be follow up questions) what the plan is, exactly. ie how will we leave? what's the answer to the Irish Border question? and perhaps most importantly, how and why will Brexit make us all better off? (and try not to just say "less immigrants" if you can help it - besides aything else, if Brexit decreases overall immigration to the UK at all, it will only be because the UK becomes a less desirable place to move to)

You've been asked variations of these questions a few times on this thread alone (from memory), and I've yet to see you give a straight answer.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:37 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:aggi..there was a pretty high turnout for the referendum so I am surmising that those who did not bother voting were the really disinterested/couldn't be bothered/complete lazy ******** ...we all know some of them.
'.

Sorry, I don't agree with that. Obviously there would have been some who come into the categories you mention, but speaking personally I don't know of any.
I do know quite a number of people however, who have told me they didn't vote because they really didn't feel that they knew enough about our relationship with the EU to make an informed choice. (Everyone - of course - has become an expert in the last 2 and a half years!)
If you were to go back to my posts from 2016, (and of course I don't expect anyone to do so), I have said all along that there ought to have been a third option on the paper that said: "Don't have enough knowledge, info to make an informed choice" (or similar wording).
This might have also stopped a lot of people from simply making a guess or spur of the moment choice. (Not that I'm suggesting that that would necessarily have changed the overall percentage in favour of leave).