Brexit - Merged Threads

[Granett]

27 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Hardly fake, the public have been able to view it since 2002..

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11018818

Not fake. Fake news. If it's been in the public domain for 15 years why is the Express reporting on it now and claiming it's a "REVEALED SECRET!" 

25 minutes ago, poontang said:

You didn't watch the video did you?

And if you did where is the ad hominem argument... and what has Andrew Marr got to do with anything?

Yup, watched the vid. Yours is the ad hominem, unless you've a point in there other than that the interviewee comes across badly. What in the points discussed do you feel counters my point? 

18 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

Wanting to continue trading with the EU is not a soft Brexit. A soft Brexit would imply continuing to pay into the EU budget and allowing the "four freedoms", also probably being subject to the European Courts.

You need to take that up with @12gauge82,  it was his point about wanting Farage in charge and a no-deal hard-Brexit. Farage wants a Norway-esque deal   @12gauge82

Edited November 22, 2017 by Granett

[Danger-Mouse]

14 minutes ago, Granett said:

 

You need to take that up with @12gauge82,  it was his point about wanting Farage in charge and a no-deal hard-Brexit. Farage wants a Norway-esque deal   @12gauge82

From Nigel's LBC show, two days ago . . .

" Mr Farage said: "I campaigned for us to leave. Full stop. End of. Taking back control of our nation and our country. I didn’t campaign for a Brexit divorce bill, I didn’t campaign for terms like hard Brexit or soft Brexit. I certainly didn’t campaign for a transitional arrangement."

[Granett]

15 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

From Nigel's LBC show, two days ago . . .

" Mr Farage said: "I campaigned for us to leave. Full stop. End of. Taking back control of our nation and our country. I didn’t campaign for a Brexit divorce bill, I didn’t campaign for terms like hard Brexit or soft Brexit. I certainly didn’t campaign for a transitional arrangement."

As I said before, if the point you're making is that Farage has now changed his mind, then to be consistent, you appear to arguing that the mandate for Brexit has a shelf-life too, and that another vote will be needed in a few years in case anyone else has changed their mind like Farage. 

[Danger-Mouse]

Just now, Granett said:

As I said before, if the point you're making is that Farage has now changed his mind, then to be consistent, you appear to arguing that the mandate for Brexit has a shelf-life too, and that another vote will be needed in a few years in case anyone else has changed their mind like Farage. 

What the . . . . are you talking about? I am completely baffled! Where have I said anything that remotely resembles that statement?

Since when did Nigel ever change his mind on what he wanted?

 

[poontang]

31 minutes ago, Granett said:

 

Yup, watched the vid. Yours is the ad hominem, unless you've a point in there other than that the interviewee comes across badly. What in the points discussed do you feel counters my point? 

 

Where is my ad hominem attack? 

My point is quite simple. You used a number of quotes earlier which had been taken out of context and in part, and passed them off as fact. I don't know where you got the quotes from originally (although I could hazard a guess) but they were debunked in the video I posted. Do you not now accept that the quotes you used erroneously were at best misleading, or as likely intended, were designed to deceive the public?

[SO3isme]

Can anyone help me out here by supplying (succinctly) a good reason or reasons for remaining in the EU?

i.e. something we won't have once we've left.

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

If it's been in the public domain for 15 years why is the Express reporting on it now and claiming it's a "REVEALED SECRET!" 

To keep it in the limelight, & why not.

Where does the Express claim it's a "REVEALED SECRET".

[Danger-Mouse]

8 minutes ago, SO3isme said:

Can anyone help me out here by supplying (succinctly) a good reason or reasons for remaining in the EU?

i.e. something we won't have once we've left.

Well . . . the Remain camp couldn't manage to do that during the referendum campaign (hence Project Fear) so it seems unlikely.

[Newbie to this]

49 minutes ago, SO3isme said:

Can anyone help me out here by supplying (succinctly) a good reason or reasons for remaining in the EU?

i.e. something we won't have once we've left.

 

39 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

Well . . . the Remain camp couldn't manage to do that during the referendum campaign (hence Project Fear) so it seems unlikely.

 sounds about right, some people fear change

[Granett]

7 hours ago, Danger-Mouse said:

What the . . . . are you talking about? I am completely baffled! Where have I said anything that remotely resembles that statement?

Since when did Nigel ever change his mind on what he wanted?

 

Between him saying he wanted a deal like Switzerland or Norway, and the quote you provided. 

7 hours ago, poontang said:

Where is my ad hominem attack? 

My point is quite simple. You used a number of quotes earlier which had been taken out of context and in part, and passed them off as fact. I don't know where you got the quotes from originally (although I could hazard a guess) but they were debunked in the video I posted. Do you not now accept that the quotes you used erroneously were at best misleading, or as likely intended, were designed to deceive the public?

You're conflating like DM. That guy was being grilled about whether those quotes showed the Leave campaigners wanted to stay in the single market. The interviewer was making the point that they were actually describing soft Brexit. I was using them to show they want soft Brexit. You're asking me to defend a strawman argument you've constructed. 

7 hours ago, SO3isme said:

Can anyone help me out here by supplying (succinctly) a good reason or reasons for remaining in the EU?

i.e. something we won't have once we've left.

Despite hopes, Brexit won't return the UK to the 1950s. Pre-EU UK wasn't the rosy picture that's been painted. It won't cut the numbers of forrins. EU membership led to better laws than HM Govt was capable of. It represented a far more beneficial trading arrangement for the UK than we're going to end up with out of the EU. The sovereignty myth is going to be replaced with curtailment of UK Govt authority just as bad if not worse. We've reduced the UK standing in the world. We've made ourselves look very uneducated. The pound is at a massive low. Our credit ratings dropped so that our borrowing is now costing us far more. As an indication of our imminent prospects, the OBR has now downgraded our growth forecast for the next 5 years. Prominent leave campaigner has told his chums to take money out of the UK because the EU looks a better bet. Is there an upside? 

7 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

To keep it in the limelight, & why not.

Where does the Express claim it's a "REVEALED SECRET".

"Secret" is in the headline, and the first sentence of the article, which goes on to say, "Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers." 

As well as trying to dress it up like "new" news, I see, with typical class, the Express then goes on to point out Edward's Heath was pro-EU and probably a paedo. 

But then the Guardian is just as bad. 

[poontang]

23 minutes ago, Granett said:

 

You're conflating like DM. That guy was being grilled about whether those quotes showed the Leave campaigners wanted to stay in the single market. The interviewer was making the point that they were actually describing soft Brexit. I was using them to show they want soft Brexit. You're asking me to defend a strawman argument you've constructed. 

 

 

I'm not conflating anything.

You used those quotes to supposedly back your argument that the main players wanted a soft Brexit. Those quotes were taken out of context and skewed by Open Britain to deliberately deceive. The quotes, had  they been shown in their entirety, did not show that they wanted a soft Brexit. Which in turn renders your argument false.

I'll ask again, where was my ad hominem attack?

[Granett]

19 minutes ago, poontang said:

I'm not conflating anything.

You used those quotes to supposedly back your argument that the main players wanted a soft Brexit. Those quotes were taken out of context and skewed by Open Britain to deliberately deceive. The quotes, had  they been shown in their entirety, did not show that they wanted a soft Brexit. Which in turn renders your argument false.

I'll ask again, where was my ad hominem attack?

As I've said now a number of times, your ad hominem is just saying "he doesn't look very good" and refusing to cite even one element on the argument you feel is a good point. You're attacking the man rather than the argument. That's what an ad hominem is. 

Your conflation is where I've said the quote shows he wants a soft Brexit,and you replying, it shows they didn't want to remain.

You're not responding to my argument, you're responding to a different one. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Granett

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

As well as trying to dress it up like "new" news, I see, with typical class, the Express then goes on to point out Edward's Heath was pro-EU and probably a paedo. 

But it is NEW news, there wasn't a brexit in 2002, but there is now....

It never fails to amaze me when a quote on brexit is posted from a newspaper, the snowflake left always rubbish the paper itself......so it's not true then.

[Rewulf]

14 hours ago, Granett said:

In a discussion about the validity of sources you appear to have edited the definition of Demagogue that you "cited". Is that right? Can you link to the source if I'm mistaken. 

Wikipedia was the source, but not particularly relevant as, by nature all politicians are 'populist demagogues' if they werent who would support them?
Its like insulting the pope, by calling him a catholic 

Also there appears to be degree of false equivalence. Your claim that the Express is no worse than the Guardian is a strawman argument because it's not a case of the Express-vs-the Guardian. It's the Express (and the Mail)  vs the rest of the world pretty much. 
Didnt win the vote though did it ?

What career go you believe Hannan was willing to be sacked from? I'm intrigued to know more. 
Erm , hes an MEP ,so he loses that income stream when we come out.

And lastly on Redwood, I'm also unclear on how it helps the case for Brexit that one of the main campaigners is as fickle as you claim him to be. How does that address the point that his support for Brexit appears to be disaster capitalism - pulling his money out, pushing for Brexit in the knowledge of what harm it'll do to the country, and then mopping up in the aftermath? 
Thats like saying no one in remain had any financial or business interests that would be harmed if we left?
You do know that politicians are generally dishonest self serving snakes dont you ?

 

13 hours ago, Granett said:

Just to pick up on this, again, I agree about the demographic but unclear how as you suggest  that leads to the trust in the Express... 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/poorest-u-k-families-would-take-biggest-hit-from-no-deal-brexit

 

When did I suggest that ?

The express is just another rag, with a pro brexit stance, just like the guardian is a rag with a pro euro stance.

 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Granett said:

 

Despite hopes, Brexit won't return the UK to the 1950s. Pre-EU UK wasn't the rosy picture that's been painted. It won't cut the numbers of forrins. EU membership led to better laws than HM Govt was capable of. It represented a far more beneficial trading arrangement for the UK than we're going to end up with out of the EU. The sovereignty myth is going to be replaced with curtailment of UK Govt authority just as bad if not worse. We've reduced the UK standing in the world. We've made ourselves look very uneducated. The pound is at a massive low. Our credit ratings dropped so that our borrowing is now costing us far more. As an indication of our imminent prospects, the OBR has now downgraded our growth forecast for the next 5 years. Prominent leave campaigner has told his chums to take money out of the UK because the EU looks a better bet. Is there an upside? 

 

It really depends on your viewpoint though doesnt it?
You put this out there like its fact, when its not ,its theory and projection, because they are never wrong are they ?

You dont know whats going to happen next week , never mind in 10 years.

Is there an upside?
I think so, and I hope so, otherwise I wouldnt have voted for it, and campaigned for it.
If you think its going to be bad for the UK start buying into things that are going to pay off when it all goes south for us, how confident are you ?

The pathetic argument of ' we didnt know what we were voting for' or we are all thick, were racists blah blah has got that tedious now, even most of the staunchest remainers, even you, had given up on it.
Its happening, for better or worse, get used to it and stop wasting your time.

[Aled]

And it was very civil at one point as well!

Yes we are leaving, but as others have said what type of Brexit is it going to be? We don't know.

Rewulf said: "you think its going to be bad for the UK start buying into things that are going to pay off " not a mickey take but a genuine question here. Are there "things" (economic? Financial? Cultural?)  we could buy into that would be beneficial to the man in the street if Brexit does go belly up? I'm interested to know.

Cheers

Aled

 

 

[Newbie to this]

Maybe invest in the Euro

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Aled said:

And it was very civil at one point as well!

Yes we are leaving, but as others have said what type of Brexit is it going to be? We don't know.

Rewulf said: "you think its going to be bad for the UK start buying into things that are going to pay off " not a mickey take but a genuine question here. Are there "things" (economic? Financial? Cultural?)  we could buy into that would be beneficial to the man in the street if Brexit does go belly up? I'm interested to know.

Cheers

Aled

 

 

I dont know, ask Granett, or Redwood, apparently they know.

 

57 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe invest in the Euro

I definitely wouldnt invest in the Euro though 

Brexit could be painless, it could be a smooth transition to a free trade agreement, there could even be some kind of small cash incentive to sweeten the EU.
Thats what business wants on both sides, thats what the common people want on both sides.
There could be compromise on the stickier issues, a transition period to make adjustments where necessary.
It could be friendly and respectful.
But it isnt is it ?
Its going to painful, and it may even get less friendly than it is now, and its going to cost money, on both sides.
Ask yourself why.

Update, Ill give you a classic example of EU pettiness, and a classic anti Brexit exaggeration from the indy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-capital-of-culture-uk-cancelled-leeds-eu-banned-a8071261.html

Edited November 23, 2017 by Rewulf
Udate

[Newbie to this]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I definitely wouldnt invest in the Euro though 

I forget you can't get sarcasm across when typing text

I personally wouldn't invest in anything within the EU because I don’t think it'll be around too much longer

[Aled]

I dont know, ask Granett, or Redwood, apparently they know

Now that is a disappointment! LOL

Cheers

Aled

 

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, Aled said:

I dont know, ask Granett, or Redwood, apparently they know

Now that is a disappointment! LOL

Cheers

Aled

 

If only it were so simple Aled, markets and investments are  fickle mistress's.
If investors were 100% confident of outcomes, the world of banking, and indeed the world, would be a very different place.
The very fact an investment takes place alters the market, even the prospect of a change in a market alters the outcome of an investment.

Someone (with any kind of influence) saying that Brexit will be a disaster for the UK in general causes potential or current investors to think again or sell stock, causing a self fulfilling prophecy of varying degrees.
Confidence is key, and hopefully the people that matter most to the UK, the people that live and work here, no matter where they are from originally, will keep that confidence, and make it work.

[Aled]

Interesting Rewulf.

[12gauge82]

50 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If only it were so simple Aled, markets and investments are  fickle mistress's.
If investors were 100% confident of outcomes, the world of banking, and indeed the world, would be a very different place.
The very fact an investment takes place alters the market, even the prospect of a change in a market alters the outcome of an investment.

Someone (with any kind of influence) saying that Brexit will be a disaster for the UK in general causes potential or current investors to think again or sell stock, causing a self fulfilling prophecy of varying degrees.
Confidence is key, and hopefully the people that matter most to the UK, the people that live and work here, no matter where they are from originally, will keep that confidence, and make it work.

Another very logical and informed post. I have no doubt Brexit will have an overall positive outcome by a country mile and will continue to buy house's, spend money shopping and continue to live in a manner very much like I did before the vote, why wouldn't I? Along with 52% of the country I voted for leave, all this scare mongering is a load of nonsense, most of any damage done to the economy at present has been caused by the remainiacs attempts to block brexit which has caused uncertainty for buisness's, buisness needs certainly to operate, the remainiacs are then turning round and saying "look the economy has taken a knock" they don't tell you it's them who caused it though, coupled with the fact the economy was due a downturn anyway, Farage has been saying that since long long before the vote.

[poontang]

9 hours ago, Granett said:

As I've said now a number of times, your ad hominem is just saying "he doesn't look very good" and refusing to cite even one element on the argument you feel is a good point. You're attacking the man rather than the argument. That's what an ad hominem is. 

Your conflation is where I've said the quote shows he wants a soft Brexit,and you replying, it shows they didn't want to remain.

You're not responding to my argument, you're responding to a different one. 

Where did I say he didn't look very good? I said he failed to justify the video he'd been a part of making when confronted with the fact that he'd deliberately misquoted people to strengthen his argument. That's not an ad hominem. The argument is simple... was the video put out by Open Britain a true and honest account of what the people it showed had said about Brexit? The answer is No, it wasn't. No conflation, no strawman argument and no ad hominem.

Simply put, you took quotes and passed them off as fact. The same quotes as were used by Open Britain and were shown to be false. Why don't you just admit you fell for the lies of Open Britain without checking out the full facts?

Edited November 23, 2017 by poontang
.

[SO3isme]

12 hours ago, Granett said:

Despite hopes, Brexit won't return the UK to the 1950s. Pre-EU UK wasn't the rosy picture that's been painted. It won't cut the numbers of forrins. EU membership led to better laws than HM Govt was capable of. It represented a far more beneficial trading arrangement for the UK than we're going to end up with out of the EU. The sovereignty myth is going to be replaced with curtailment of UK Govt authority just as bad if not worse. We've reduced the UK standing in the world. We've made ourselves look very uneducated. The pound is at a massive low. Our credit ratings dropped so that our borrowing is now costing us far more. As an indication of our imminent prospects, the OBR has now downgraded our growth forecast for the next 5 years. Prominent leave campaigner has told his chums to take money out of the UK because the EU looks a better bet. Is there an upside? 

Thanks 'Appreciate the response. You think the EU is better at making laws for the UK than the UK parliament so we will have worse laws. We are going to get an overall worse trading arrangement outside the EU. I don't understand how the UK government will have less authority? The value of the £ has positive and negative consequences for the economy and is subject to speculation so I am not sure that the fall in the value of the £ since the vote (assuming it's a direct result) is such a bad thing. The exchange rate has been 20% or so lower than before the vote and I don't seem to have been affected.