British Politics

[EvanG]

5 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Shhh... don't let the Remainers know, they're currently reading the country its last rites.

If I were British I'd be in the remainer camp too, I don't see anything positive about Brexit, but let's keep things in perspective, when it finally comes through, it's going to be tough, but the UK won't go back to the Middle Ages either.

[bucketfoot]

25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://brexitcentral.com/i-backed-remain-but-the-warped-project-fear-narrative-does-not-stand-up-to-scrutiny/

'It’s a concerted propaganda effort aimed at demoralising the British public and shaking our confidence in the UK’s ability to make success of Brexit. As all propaganda, it distorts facts by presenting a warped view of reality, devoid of any nuance or reflection. One way it does so is by filtering out real facts that do not fit into the prevailing anti-Brexit narrative of impending economic calamity. '

That's all it is.... and it's pathetic.

[DieselDaisy]

The latest in remainer scaremongering is, Turkey Twizzlers returning to school dinner menus! And that Yankee in charge of the BoE is an utter remainer. 

PS

So using ''remainer logic'', i.e., simply adding up all the losers and declaring them the winner, can we proclaim this bi-election a victory for leave by 56.5%?

 

Spoiler

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[bucketfoot]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The latest in remainer scaremongering is, Turkey Twizzlers returning to school dinner menus!

Well, the Remainers seem to have us surviving on bread and water for the next 50 years so Turkey Twizzlers would be a godsend.

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

So using ''remainer logic'', i.e., simply adding up all the losers and declaring them the winner, can we proclaim this bi-election a victory for leave by 56.5%?

Yes we can.

[Dazey]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The latest in remainer scaremongering is, Turkey Twizzlers returning to school dinner menus! And that Yankee in charge of the BoE is an utter remainer. 

PS

So using ''remainer logic'', i.e., simply adding up all the losers and declaring them the winner, can we proclaim this bi-election a victory for leave by 56.5%?

 

  Hide contents

 

I like that you included the Monster Raving Loonies in your win for leave. 

[DieselDaisy]

Can we ever trust Carney when he predicted a recession - this is before the referendum?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-carney-doubles-down-on-brexit-recession-risk-warning-a7044681.html

Project Fear has been incorrect at every turn!

5 hours ago, Dazey said:

I like that you included the Monster Raving Loonies in your win for leave. 

Their EU manifesto pledge is to send Noel Edmunds to negotiate "because he understands Deal or No Deal". They also want Germany to compensate everybody for German measles.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brecon-radnorshire-by-election-result-ukip-monster-raving-loony-party-lady-wales-lady-lily-pink-a9036411.html

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Can we ever trust Carney when he predicted a recession - this is before the referendum?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-carney-doubles-down-on-brexit-recession-risk-warning-a7044681.html

Project Fear has been incorrect at every turn!

How can you say he has been incorrect in his Brexit predictions when Brexit hasn't happened yet? 

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How can you say he has been incorrect in his Brexit predictions when Brexit hasn't happened yet? 

 

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

- this is before the referendum?

 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

 

Just skimmed it, but think he was talking about the consequences of Brexit, not the consequences of the referendum.

And just because someone thinks the consequences of Brexit will be bad for UK, and that someone is a person of expertise on the matter, doesn't mean there is some "Project Fear" about. They should speak out. They should warn when they fear the consequences. And it goes both ways. If people with expertise think the consequence of not going through with Brexit is bad, then they should speak out, too. Trying to stifle discussion or describe the other side in conspiratorial ways doesn't help at all.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Just skimmed it, but think he was talking about the consequences of Brexit, not the consequences of the referendum.

And just because someone thinks the consequences of Brexit will be bad for UK, and that someone is a person of expertise on the matter, doesn't mean there is some "Project Fear" about. They should speak out. They should warn when they fear the consequences. And it goes both ways. If people with expertise think the consequence of not going through with Brexit is bad, then they should speak out, too. Trying to stifle discussion or describe the other side in conspiratorial ways doesn't help at all.

I cited the link,

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-carney-doubles-down-on-brexit-recession-risk-warning-a7044681.html

24th May 2016. 

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cited the link,

24th May 2016. 

What is it that you don't understand now then? 

[DieselDaisy]

I just watched a hour of the Parliament, Von Der Leyen, your new (unelected) President of the Commission.

- She came out and stated that ''Europe is united by Roman Law'' (England/Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Malta are Common Law!).

- She then said, in a clear reference to the fascist/Second World War period, something like, ''we as Europeans all experienced dictatorships'' (the United Kingdom was never occupied!).

This wasn't a very good start!!! Then what followed was a bunch of gushy abstracts, ''peace, solidarity, cooperation, working together'' etc etc.

She then got pelted with abuse from virtually all Europarties - not just the Eurosceptics - as they are all utterly pissed off with her as she didn't get the job through Spitzenkandidat. In addition, the Greens hate her because her green policies are incremental; the socialists hate her because she is a neoliberal; every German hates her because she botched German defence contracts. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What is it that you don't understand now then? 

You said, in reply to me that, ''he was talking about the consequences of Brexit'' whereas clearly I was commenting on comments leading up to the referendum and even cited the link as evidence. But then you did admit to skim reading so I'll forgive your mistake.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You said, in reply to me that, ''he was talking about the consequences of Brexit'' whereas clearly I was commenting on comments leading up to the referendum and even cited the link as evidence. But then you did admit to skim reading so I'll forgive your mistake.

But that link you cited is about a man talking about the consequences of Brexit, fearing a recession would be the outcome if the UK were to leave EU. Hence you are wrong when stating that the man was incorrect in his predictions. Because Brexit hasn't happened yet. He could be entirely correct. We won't know until Brexit actually happens.

I think it is pretty clear to me you didn't understand the article and thought the fellow talked about a recession after the referendum, and hence, since no such major recession has occurred, he was wrong and can't be trusted. Or maybe it wasn't so much a matter of incomprehension on your part but rather that you hoped no one would actually check to see if the article confirmed your conclusion. I mean you have a quota of anti-EU posts to fill and then one can't be too fastidious in making sure everything you say makes sense or is factual.

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But that link you cited is about a man talking about the consequences of Brexit, fearing a recession would be the outcome if the UK were to leave EU. Hence you are wrong when stating that the man was incorrect in his predictions. Because Brexit hasn't happened yet. He could be entirely correct. We won't know until Brexit actually happens.

I think it is pretty clear to me you didn't understand the article and thought the fellow talked about a recession after the referendum, and hence, since no such major recession has occurred, he was wrong and can't be trusted. Or maybe it wasn't so much a matter of incomprehension on your part but rather that you hoped no one would actually check to see if the article confirmed your conclusion. I mean you have a quota of anti-EU posts to fill and then one can't be too fastidious in making sure everything you say makes sense or is factual.

 

If you have no reading comprehension abilities, I cannot help you.

[Dazey]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I just watched a hour of the Parliament, Von Der Leyen, your new (unelected) President of the Commission.

- She came out and stated that ''Europe is united by Roman Law'' (England/Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Malta are Common Law!).

- She then said, in a clear reference to the fascist/Second World War period, something like, ''we as Europeans all experienced dictatorships'' (the United Kingdom was never occupied!).

This wasn't a very good start!!! Then what followed was a bunch of gushy abstracts, ''peace, solidarity, cooperation, working together'' etc etc.

She then got pelted with abuse from virtually all Europarties - not just the Eurosceptics - as they are all utterly pissed off with her as she didn't get the job through Spitzenkandidat. In addition, the Greens hate her because her green policies are incremental; the socialists hate her because she is a neoliberal; every German hates her because she botched German defence contracts. 

So you're still waffling and refusing to address the actual impact that a no deal Brexit will have on the UK in real terms? 

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Can we ever trust Carney when he predicted a recession - this is before the referendum?

Could I have been more explicit that I was referring to a point in chronology that preceded the referendum haha? 

But Soul has comprehension difficulties with the above statement! 

To cite something an Australian said to the great English spin bowling colossus that is Phil ''Tuffers'' Tunell, ''can I borrow your brain, I'm building an idiot''. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you have no reading comprehension abilities, I cannot help you.

You claimed the article was evidence for people being wrong about predicting a recession, but since the article is about a man warning about the consequences of Brexit, it cannot possible be used as evidence.

And do you really think a wise strategy here now is to accuse me of lacking reading comprehension? 

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Could I have been more explicit that I was referring to a point in chronology that preceded the referendum haha? 

But Soul has comprehension difficulties with the above statement! 

Heh. You forgot to link to that article again that supposedly was "evidence" for people being wrong in their predictions 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

So you're still waffling and refusing to address the actual impact that a no deal Brexit will have on the UK in real terms? 

You think that the role of President of the Commission, the most important person in the EU, and the discussions of the, admittedly democratically stunted, but interesting, European Parliament is not something applicable in ''real terms'' - Brexit was obviously discussed! 

My gawd! 

 

[Dazey]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But that link you cited is about a man talking about the consequences of Brexit, fearing a recession would be the outcome if the UK were to leave EU. Hence you are wrong when stating that the man was incorrect in his predictions. Because Brexit hasn't happened yet. He could be entirely correct. We won't know until Brexit actually happens.

I think it is pretty clear to me you didn't understand the article and thought the fellow talked about a recession after the referendum, and hence, since no such major recession has occurred, he was wrong and can't be trusted. Or maybe it wasn't so much a matter of incomprehension on your part but rather that you hoped no one would actually check to see if the article confirmed your conclusion. I mean you have a quota of anti-EU posts to fill and then one can't be too fastidious in making sure everything you say makes sense or is factual.

The thing that Brexiteers seem willfully ignorant of when making this argument is that thus far there are no legal reasons that Brexit will start hurting us. All the speculation about damage to the UK pre-Brexit is predicated on people panicking before anything happens.

The difference between now and November 1st is that by law tariffs and border controls are in effect on day one. No matter how much people choose to believe that Brexit will be a success it isn't going to help the poor Welsh farmer who suddenly has no livelihood. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You claimed the article was evidence for people being wrong about predicting a recession, but since the article is about a man warning about the consequences of Brexit, it cannot possible be used as evidence.

And do you really think a wise strategy here now is to accuse me of lacking reading comprehension? 

Heh. You forgot to link to that article again that supposedly was "evidence" for people being wrong in their predictions 

...which clearly has a date preceding the referendum - NB I read this entire article, and did not ''skim'' read. But, here it is again, 

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Can we ever trust Carney when he predicted a recession - this is before the referendum?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-carney-doubles-down-on-brexit-recession-risk-warning-a7044681.html

 

 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You think that the role of President of the Commission, the most important person in the EU, and the discussions of the, admittedly democratically stunted, but interesting, European Parliament is not something applicable in ''real terms'' - Brexit was obviously discussed! 

My gawd! 

I think that literally wiping industries off the map in three months time because you don't like her is a tad harsh.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

I think that literally wiping industries off the map in three months time because you don't like her is a tad harsh.

This is gibberish and has no relation to what I posted. 

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...which clearly has a date preceding the referendum - NB I read this entire article, and did not ''skim'' read. But, here it is again, 

Yes, the article was from before the referendum, but the fellow was talking about the outcome of Brexit

And of course I have read the article by now, and again, he is only talking about a recession resulting from Brexit, just like I assumed from skimming through it.

So again, you cannot use this article as evidence for the man being wrong since he is talking about an event that hasn't happened yet. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, the article was from before the referendum, he the fellow was talking about the outcome of Brexit

And of course I have read the article by now, and again, he is only talking about a recession resulting from Brexit, just like I assumed from skimming through it.

So again, you cannot use this article as evidence for the man being wrong since he is talking about an event that hasn't happened yet. 

 

 

Your tried and tested,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/brexit-vote-leaves-uk-on-brink-of-recession-economists-say