FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Single Market
Single Market
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring" Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? " Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it. "Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? " To regain democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? To regain democracy"  the Single Market has nothing to do with democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? To regain democracy the Single Market has nothing to do with democracy. "Don't we know it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it.
Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market."I understand perfectly well thanks, everything you said in your OP suggests you want Britain to remain in the EU (and the single market). You said remain in the single market, continue paying the contribution fee and continue to allow free movement of people (all that together sounds a lot like continued EU membership). Free movement of people and paying the EU contribution fee were both firmly rejected by the British electorate in the referendum result. So the answer is No, continued free movement and paying the contribution fee is not going to happen no matter how many threads you decide to post on here about it. Plus a higher GDP doesn't always translate to a better quality of life, as Nigel Farage pointed out in the referendum campaign, you may have a higher GDP by staying in the EU, but add to that free movement of people and an increasingly over populated country, congested roads and public services at breaking point it generally means a lower quality of life for the people who live here in Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? To regain democracy the Single Market has nothing to do with democracy.
Don't we know it"I'm not sure you know what the Single Market is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? To regain democracy the Single Market has nothing to do with democracy.
Don't we know it
I'm not sure you know what the Single Market is. "Yes I do thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it.
Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market.
I understand perfectly well thanks, everything you said in your OP suggests you want Britain to remain in the EU (and the single market). You said remain in the single market, continue paying the contribution fee and continue to allow free movement of people (all that together sounds a lot like continued EU membership). Free movement of people and paying the EU contribution fee were both firmly rejected by the British electorate in the referendum result. So the answer is No, continued free movement and paying the contribution fee is not going to happen no matter how many threads you decide to post on here about it. Plus a higher GDP doesn't always translate to a better quality of life, as Nigel Farage pointed out in the referendum campaign, you may have a higher GDP by staying in the EU, but add to that free movement of people and an increasingly over populated country, congested roads and public services at breaking point it generally means a lower quality of life for the people who live here in Britain. "Free movement of people, or paying the contribution weren't asked on the ballot paper. In the past whenever I have suggested that at least some people voted on the issue of immigration, that idea has been shot down. I could understand why people would vote to leave to reduce immigration, but since the referendum Leave campaigners have come out publicly to say that Immigration wont be reduced. So if immigration won't be reduced, then why bother taking the 4 percent GDP hit? You say about over population, congestion etc, but if immigration isn't going to be reduced you would have all of that anyway, but with less money in the government coffers to deal with it. How can that be better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it.
Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market.
I understand perfectly well thanks, everything you said in your OP suggests you want Britain to remain in the EU (and the single market). You said remain in the single market, continue paying the contribution fee and continue to allow free movement of people (all that together sounds a lot like continued EU membership). Free movement of people and paying the EU contribution fee were both firmly rejected by the British electorate in the referendum result. So the answer is No, continued free movement and paying the contribution fee is not going to happen no matter how many threads you decide to post on here about it. Plus a higher GDP doesn't always translate to a better quality of life, as Nigel Farage pointed out in the referendum campaign, you may have a higher GDP by staying in the EU, but add to that free movement of people and an increasingly over populated country, congested roads and public services at breaking point it generally means a lower quality of life for the people who live here in Britain.
Free movement of people, or paying the contribution weren't asked on the ballot paper. In the past whenever I have suggested that at least some people voted on the issue of immigration, that idea has been shot down.
I could understand why people would vote to leave to reduce immigration, but since the referendum Leave campaigners have come out publicly to say that Immigration wont be reduced. So if immigration won't be reduced, then why bother taking the 4 percent GDP hit?
You say about over population, congestion etc, but if immigration isn't going to be reduced you would have all of that anyway, but with less money in the government coffers to deal with it. How can that be better? "But Theresa May and the new government DO want to reduce immigration. If we are going to pick and chose reports released by the media, then how about the report that was released yesterday on air quality in the UK. For the last several years in a row Britain has fallen short of the recommended air quality levels, and surely a major factor in this is because of sky high immigration which has contributed towards a higher population and higher volume of traffic and more congestion on British roads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it.
Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market.
I understand perfectly well thanks, everything you said in your OP suggests you want Britain to remain in the EU (and the single market). You said remain in the single market, continue paying the contribution fee and continue to allow free movement of people (all that together sounds a lot like continued EU membership). Free movement of people and paying the EU contribution fee were both firmly rejected by the British electorate in the referendum result. So the answer is No, continued free movement and paying the contribution fee is not going to happen no matter how many threads you decide to post on here about it. Plus a higher GDP doesn't always translate to a better quality of life, as Nigel Farage pointed out in the referendum campaign, you may have a higher GDP by staying in the EU, but add to that free movement of people and an increasingly over populated country, congested roads and public services at breaking point it generally means a lower quality of life for the people who live here in Britain.
Free movement of people, or paying the contribution weren't asked on the ballot paper. In the past whenever I have suggested that at least some people voted on the issue of immigration, that idea has been shot down.
I could understand why people would vote to leave to reduce immigration, but since the referendum Leave campaigners have come out publicly to say that Immigration wont be reduced. So if immigration won't be reduced, then why bother taking the 4 percent GDP hit?
You say about over population, congestion etc, but if immigration isn't going to be reduced you would have all of that anyway, but with less money in the government coffers to deal with it. How can that be better?
But Theresa May and the new government DO want to reduce immigration.
If we are going to pick and chose reports released by the media, then how about the report that was released yesterday on air quality in the UK. For the last several years in a row Britain has fallen short of the recommended air quality levels, and surely a major factor in this is because of sky high immigration which has contributed towards a higher population and higher volume of traffic and more congestion on British roads. "Then why ditch the manifesto pledge? You really think that the major cause of air pollution is immigration? You don't think Its the millions of people already living here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict "We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapoed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict "We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries. Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do. Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"someone is trying to stir up shit but no one is biting this same old shite gets tiring Well the report was only published today so its not old. I guess another way to pose the question is, now that we know immigration won't go down, what is the point of leaving the single market and taking a 4% hit on our GDP? Doesn't really matter what the report says, the country voted Leave and the new Prime minister Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit so she and the government are now committed to leaving the EU. The government also want to reduce immigration levels. Why don't you just accept it.
Perhaps neither of you understand that the EU and the Single Market are not the same thing? The referendum was about leaving the EU, not the single market.
I understand perfectly well thanks, everything you said in your OP suggests you want Britain to remain in the EU (and the single market). You said remain in the single market, continue paying the contribution fee and continue to allow free movement of people (all that together sounds a lot like continued EU membership). Free movement of people and paying the EU contribution fee were both firmly rejected by the British electorate in the referendum result. So the answer is No, continued free movement and paying the contribution fee is not going to happen no matter how many threads you decide to post on here about it. Plus a higher GDP doesn't always translate to a better quality of life, as Nigel Farage pointed out in the referendum campaign, you may have a higher GDP by staying in the EU, but add to that free movement of people and an increasingly over populated country, congested roads and public services at breaking point it generally means a lower quality of life for the people who live here in Britain.
Free movement of people, or paying the contribution weren't asked on the ballot paper. In the past whenever I have suggested that at least some people voted on the issue of immigration, that idea has been shot down.
I could understand why people would vote to leave to reduce immigration, but since the referendum Leave campaigners have come out publicly to say that Immigration wont be reduced. So if immigration won't be reduced, then why bother taking the 4 percent GDP hit?
You say about over population, congestion etc, but if immigration isn't going to be reduced you would have all of that anyway, but with less money in the government coffers to deal with it. How can that be better?
But Theresa May and the new government DO want to reduce immigration.
If we are going to pick and chose reports released by the media, then how about the report that was released yesterday on air quality in the UK. For the last several years in a row Britain has fallen short of the recommended air quality levels, and surely a major factor in this is because of sky high immigration which has contributed towards a higher population and higher volume of traffic and more congestion on British roads.
Then why ditch the manifesto pledge? You really think that the major cause of air pollution is immigration? You don't think Its the millions of people already living here? "Of course it's the millions already living here (now) but sky high immigration levels since the year 2004 when the Labour Blair government recklessly allowed free movement of people from Eastern European countries in the EU without any transitional controls has been a major contributing factor. Remember back then Labour and Blair told us about 35,000 Poles would come which was their estimate, when it actually happened millions of them came here. England now has one of the highest population densities in Europe, double that of Germany and quadruple what it is in France. Because of the madness that is the EU free movement of people principle, the UK population is now millions more higher than what it would have been if we had simply said 'NO' to the EU back in 2004. I'm sure you will go back to the economic argument as the Remain campaign kept doing in the referendum, but you lost the referendum using that argument and the fact is people's quality of life has gone down in this country because of uncontrolled immigration which has been far too high for many, many years and people have had enough of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!"300,000 people is just one years immigration figures! LOL. In fact the figure for the last year which was released in June just before the referendum was around 330,000. I'm talking about immigration going back years since 2004 when the Labour Blair government allowed Eastern European countries in the EU free movement of people to the Uk without any transitional controls. All added up since the year 2004 to the present day, immigration into this country has added many more millions onto the total population figure of the UK, which as already explained in other posts has had a downward effect on many people's living standards in this country. Quality of air was just one such example which I gave because a report was released on it yesterday, but it has also affected other things like public services (Nhs, GP surgeries, hospitals, schools, etc) which are now at breaking point. What does it take for you to understand that the current high levels of immigration are unsustainable for this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!"Democracy does come into it.....if the EU sticks by their four principles and being part of the single market means we have to accept their rules then it is un democratic as the the rules have been set and are being enforced by an unelected body....democracy means we get a chance to choose who makes the rules...in this instance we don't. With all the ifs and buts being thrown around in the media no wonder people get stirred up but the reality is still....no one knows what the outcome of any decisions will be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!
Democracy does come into it.....if the EU sticks by their four principles and being part of the single market means we have to accept their rules then it is un democratic as the the rules have been set and are being enforced by an unelected body....democracy means we get a chance to choose who makes the rules...in this instance we don't. With all the ifs and buts being thrown around in the media no wonder people get stirred up but the reality is still....no one knows what the outcome of any decisions will be. "The Lisbon Treaty article 50 withdrawal agreement should be started right now and we should not wait until 2017 we need this process started now as we have another 2 years or more to wait after that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!
Democracy does come into it.....if the EU sticks by their four principles and being part of the single market means we have to accept their rules then it is un democratic as the the rules have been set and are being enforced by an unelected body....democracy means we get a chance to choose who makes the rules...in this instance we don't. With all the ifs and buts being thrown around in the media no wonder people get stirred up but the reality is still....no one knows what the outcome of any decisions will be.
The Lisbon Treaty article 50 withdrawal agreement should be started right now
and we should not wait until 2017
we need this process started now as we have another 2 years or more to wait after that "Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!
Democracy does come into it.....if the EU sticks by their four principles and being part of the single market means we have to accept their rules then it is un democratic as the the rules have been set and are being enforced by an unelected body....democracy means we get a chance to choose who makes the rules...in this instance we don't. With all the ifs and buts being thrown around in the media no wonder people get stirred up but the reality is still....no one knows what the outcome of any decisions will be.
The Lisbon Treaty article 50 withdrawal agreement should be started right now
and we should not wait until 2017
we need this process started now as we have another 2 years or more to wait after that
Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute."Professionals have proven this is not a difficult task, has been done safely many a time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK will not be leaving the EU anytime soon, if at all. No UK Prime Minister is going to be invoking Article 50 before all legal challenges are exhausted AND they are sure that the UK actually has a post EU plan. Invoking Article 50 sets an exit date that would then be out of the sole control of the U.K. and that is not acceptable to anyone. There is no plan for the UK to exist in a post EU world and it will take some considerable time to make that plan. It may seem inconceivable to the typical Brexiter that making a plan for the future and unraveling our relationship with the EU is hugely complex - but it is. UKIP has already started to evaporate without its only personality and the world will move and the world and Europe and the U.K. will change in the coming years. The U.K. will still be in the EU come the next general election and the world may well be a very different place by then. I predict that the next general election will once again be about our relationship with Europe and it will only be after the election that our future relationship with the EU will be finalised." again The Lisbon Treaty article 50 withdrawal agreement should be started right now, get the ball rolling god knows how long after that it would be to wash our hands of the EU disaster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no one is biting to your thread it is being ignored" Got to agree it's a once a day fishing post. Regurgitated crap from the web or tabloids that nobody really cares about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK will not be leaving the EU anytime soon, if at all. No UK Prime Minister is going to be invoking Article 50 before all legal challenges are exhausted AND they are sure that the UK actually has a post EU plan. Invoking Article 50 sets an exit date that would then be out of the sole control of the U.K. and that is not acceptable to anyone. There is no plan for the UK to exist in a post EU world and it will take some considerable time to make that plan. It may seem inconceivable to the typical Brexiter that making a plan for the future and unraveling our relationship with the EU is hugely complex - but it is. UKIP has already started to evaporate without its only personality and the world will move and the world and Europe and the U.K. will change in the coming years. The U.K. will still be in the EU come the next general election and the world may well be a very different place by then. I predict that the next general election will once again be about our relationship with Europe and it will only be after the election that our future relationship with the EU will be finalised. again The Lisbon Treaty article 50 withdrawal agreement should be started right now, get the ball rolling god knows how long after that it would be to wash our hands of the EU disaster " If Article 50 is invoked, the actual exit date from the EU will be out of the sole control of the U.K. Why would anyone with an ounce of common sense start a process over which they have no control over its outcome? Fortunately, our elected officials are blessed with common sense and that is why Article 50 will not be invoked until the UK has a post EU plan. Brexiters are afraid that the environment might change and that the mood in the country might change. Sadly, they would rather put the economic fate of the nation at risk rather than allow elected officials to patiently and methodically do what is right for the country. Why rush in to a process that we are woefully unprepared for? That is the epitome of madness but appears fairly typical of the selfish attitude of Brexiters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no one is biting to your thread it is being ignored Got to agree it's a once a day fishing post. Regurgitated crap from the web or tabloids that nobody really cares about. " You might not care about a 4% drop in GDP, but I do. The hit that the £ has taken against the $ has already opened a £700m hole in our defence budget for example. This was exactly one of the things that the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and NATO warned us about, but Brexiters just ignored them. Brexiters talked about an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but we have just had to spend £70 billion on monetary measures to shore up our economy. So that equates to 200 weeks worth of money that was supposed to go to the NHS. So all those potential savings from leaving the EU, years and years of potential savings disappeared, evaporated in 1 single meeting of the MPC. The Bank of England have said that monetary policy decisions might cost £100 billion by the end of the year, again wiping out even more years of so called savings from leaving the EU. UK GDP for 2015 was £1,833,233,000,000 according to the Office of National Statistics. So 4% of that is £73,329,320,000. There is a lot of tax revenues from £73.3 billion pounds. A lot of extra money that you can invest in schools, or hospitals, defence, infrastructure, tax cuts, benefits, housing, social care or anything else that the government choses. That money also employs a lot of people, allows a lot of families to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no one is biting to your thread it is being ignored Got to agree it's a once a day fishing post. Regurgitated crap from the web or tabloids that nobody really cares about. You might not care about a 4% drop in GDP, but I do. The hit that the £ has taken against the $ has already opened a £700m hole in our defence budget for example. This was exactly one of the things that the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and NATO warned us about, but Brexiters just ignored them. Brexiters talked about an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but we have just had to spend £70 billion on monetary measures to shore up our economy. So that equates to 200 weeks worth of money that was supposed to go to the NHS. So all those potential savings from leaving the EU, years and years of potential savings disappeared, evaporated in 1 single meeting of the MPC. The Bank of England have said that monetary policy decisions might cost £100 billion by the end of the year, again wiping out even more years of so called savings from leaving the EU. UK GDP for 2015 was £1,833,233,000,000 according to the Office of National Statistics. So 4% of that is £73,329,320,000. There is a lot of tax revenues from £73.3 billion pounds. A lot of extra money that you can invest in schools, or hospitals, defence, infrastructure, tax cuts, benefits, housing, social care or anything else that the government choses. That money also employs a lot of people, allows a lot of families to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads." you seem to have forgotten to mention the cost of trident in all of your above, you must have been listening to radio2 yesterday to mention some of the above  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no one is biting to your thread it is being ignored Got to agree it's a once a day fishing post. Regurgitated crap from the web or tabloids that nobody really cares about. You might not care about a 4% drop in GDP, but I do. The hit that the £ has taken against the $ has already opened a £700m hole in our defence budget for example. This was exactly one of the things that the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and NATO warned us about, but Brexiters just ignored them. Brexiters talked about an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but we have just had to spend £70 billion on monetary measures to shore up our economy. So that equates to 200 weeks worth of money that was supposed to go to the NHS. So all those potential savings from leaving the EU, years and years of potential savings disappeared, evaporated in 1 single meeting of the MPC. The Bank of England have said that monetary policy decisions might cost £100 billion by the end of the year, again wiping out even more years of so called savings from leaving the EU. UK GDP for 2015 was £1,833,233,000,000 according to the Office of National Statistics. So 4% of that is £73,329,320,000. There is a lot of tax revenues from £73.3 billion pounds. A lot of extra money that you can invest in schools, or hospitals, defence, infrastructure, tax cuts, benefits, housing, social care or anything else that the government choses. That money also employs a lot of people, allows a lot of families to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. you seem to have forgotten to mention the cost of trident in all of your above, you must have been listening to radio2 yesterday to mention some of the above "I'm a Radio 4 man myself. Yes you're right, the tax revenue from the larger economy could even help towards paying for Trident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute." Perhaps smarter than staying on an aeroplane destined to crash? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute. Perhaps smarter than staying on an aeroplane destined to crash?" Irony..... The passenger knows more than the pilot and decides to jump without a parachute whilst the pilot continues the journey. I think you just nailed it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapped then across the face in front of the whole world. They are not going to forget that in a hurry, and neither are other countries.
Im going to put my faith that the IFS know a hell of a lot more about the economy than you do.
Still no one has been able to give a good reason for leaving the single market (not the EU) because democracy doesn't come into it, the budget contribution arguement is mout now the bank of England have printed an extra £60 billion in a single day, and the idea that Immigration of 300,000 people have more impact on air pollution than 65,000,000 people already living here is simply nonsense, and the fact that the government has given up on an immigration target as says that it might control the number of immigrants up!
300,000 people is just one years immigration figures! LOL. In fact the figure for the last year which was released in June just before the referendum was around 330,000. I'm talking about immigration going back years since 2004 when the Labour Blair government allowed Eastern European countries in the EU free movement of people to the Uk without any transitional controls. All added up since the year 2004 to the present day, immigration into this country has added many more millions onto the total population figure of the UK, which as already explained in other posts has had a downward effect on many people's living standards in this country. Quality of air was just one such example which I gave because a report was released on it yesterday, but it has also affected other things like public services (Nhs, GP surgeries, hospitals, schools, etc) which are now at breaking point. What does it take for you to understand that the current high levels of immigration are unsustainable for this country. "It's nonsense to suggest that tax funded services are at breaking point because their are too many tax payers using them. If McDonald's had a queue out the door then they wouldn't blame it on too many customers. If your public services are crap, like ours, it's because they aren't run properly and that problem would exist if 40m people used them, 60m, 70m or 1 billion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boooooooring. But for the record the wording was 'could' not 'would' affect GDP by 4%. And crucially 'if' we use WTO terms. Which we will be avoiding by doing our own deals. So another abysmal attempt at shit stirring based on nothing more than the opinion of someone of limited imtelligence who read something by someone who expressed an opinion on something they can't predict
We are going to be using WTO rules for years before any new deals are signed. A few weeks ago people were saying how great its going to be signing a new trade deal with China, then we went and slapoed"Someone say something? Didn't think so because if they did they ignored what I said. I will cut it down and simplify. The report said 'could' and 'if' not 'would' and ' will' meaning it is speculation and opinion only. And the more intellectually astute will know the Government is busy getting deals agreed in principle before we trigger Article 50 to ensure we hit the ground running when we exit the EU. The intellectually challenged will carry on trying to shit stir until it happens. Ho hum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute. Perhaps smarter than staying on an aeroplane destined to crash? Irony..... The passenger knows more than the pilot and decides to jump without a parachute whilst the pilot continues the journey. I think you just nailed it "If the passenger sees the flames before the pilot does, then it might be an idea to react. On a (not so) different note, on two aeroplane flights - I noticed that the stewardess had not closed the door properly during take off. - I noticed a loose bolt on a wing joint. In both cases, I informed the stewardess (and decided not to use that airline in future). Sometimes, you would be an idiot to put your faith in the pilot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute. Perhaps smarter than staying on an aeroplane destined to crash? Irony..... The passenger knows more than the pilot and decides to jump without a parachute whilst the pilot continues the journey. I think you just nailed it
If the passenger sees the flames before the pilot does, then it might be an idea to react.
On a (not so) different note, on two aeroplane flights
- I noticed that the stewardess had not closed the door properly during take off.
- I noticed a loose bolt on a wing joint.
In both cases, I informed the stewardess (and decided not to use that airline in future).
Sometimes, you would be an idiot to put your faith in the pilot."Ryan air? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We do appear to be in a position whereby a democratic decision was taken for which there was no credible plan for the way the vote went.. Now rightly so that should attract criticism for all those in the forefront of both sides but its where we are now and given the complexity of what may come and what needs sorting its probably wise to at least get in place the people who will be doing the unravelling of the current situation before we push the button so that we as a country achieve what is in our best long term interests.. " Indeed. A voice of reason
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ability of the OP to make a 'maybe' into a solid fact and then fabricate some doomsday scenario is quite amazing. And then to extend that 'maybe' into use of WTO rules about which they evidently know nothing is even more amazing. The 'Single Market' is a closed shop of countries who pay in a membership fee (well about 8 out of 28 do) to enjoy Tariff Free trade amongst themselves. It is designed to protect and advantage those member countries to the detriment of other trading nations. The EU does this by creating inward trade barriers. No country has ever left the EU (with all due respects to Greenland) so no one has any experience or real data with which to prophecy the future. Everyone is as ignorant as everyone else. The difference between the 'Remoaners' and the 'Brexiters' is that the former are still peddling 'Project Fear', wedded to the only thing they know which is membership of this Protectionist Customs Union, and the latter who have every confidence in the country they clearly love because they voted for it to become a Sovereign State again. The WTO enforces the agreements made between countries. It does not enforce specific Tariffs as such just what has been agreed. It also makes sure one country (or group of countries) does not persecute or penalise one country against another. Groups of countries can create 'Customs Unions' (which is what the EU is although it labels it 'The Single Market' to mislead people) but must treat other countries fairly and equally. The bottom line here is the day after we leave the EU nothing will change while we negotiate a new Trade Agreement with the EU. Why? Because the EU will not want sudden change and neither will we and the WTO will not allow the EU to penalise the UK simply for leaving the EU. This new agreement will mean 'access to' the Single Market and nothing more. Just like every other country has access to it. And remember the EU has £61 Bn annually worth of reason to maintain good relations with the UK. That is the surplus they earn from us." I think you’ll find that it is the IFS that is making these claims, I was just discussing them. The IFS are a highly respected organisation that know what they are talking about. I know you like to hate on people who have dedicated their lives and become experts in their field. Can you name another organisation with the experience and reputation to back up your claims? You still haven’t understood how the WTO works. They want lower tariffs or ideally no tariffs around the world. To achieve that they make countries work to their highest tariffs, so that when they want a good deal with one country, they have to make a good deal with the other country too, that way, little by little, tariffs around the world reduce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think you’ll find that it is the IFS that is making these claims, I was just discussing them. The IFS are a highly respected organisation that know what they are talking about. I know you like to hate on people who have dedicated their lives and become experts in their field. Can you name another organisation with the experience and reputation to back up your claims?" And how many Brexits has the IFS experienced exactly? .... None. And would this be the same IFS who 'forecast' certain events that never happened? And was one of the main players in 'project fear' proir to the Referendum? I do believe it was. I do not 'hate' anyone (unlike you) but I do have a healthy scepticism of 'forecasts' from people who have a particular agenda and which are nothing more than guesses given the total lack of knowledge of the situation the UK will be in shortly. And what 'claims' have I actually made? Do please enlighten us. " You still haven’t understood how the WTO works. They want lower tariffs or ideally no tariffs around the world. To achieve that they make countries work to their highest tariffs, so that when they want a good deal with one country, they have to make a good deal with the other country too, that way, little by little, tariffs around the world reduce." Errr .. I suspect I have a very healthy knowledge of the WTO given my past work but hey never mind. Yes the WTO would like to see more Free Trade and reduced Tariffs but it does not manipulate policies so do be careful how you use the word 'highest'. In fact it was the 'Uruguay Round', approved in 1997, that brought the WTO itself and lower Tariffs into play. Quote: "The result is a 40% cut in their tariffs on industrial products, from an average of 6.3% to 3.8%." and: "The proportion of imports into developed countries from all sources facing tariffs rates of more than 15% will decline from 7% to 5%." If the UK agrees to a Tariff of say 10% with Botswana it cannot apply a higher Tariff to Iceland for the same commodity unless Iceland agrees. So the EU has to start with the UK at a Zero % rate and justify any upward movement to the WTO under the Uruguay Round Agreement for industrial goods and the current Doha Round for agricultural products. All very boring but those are the facts. Have a read and please find me where the WTO uses any manipulation of Tariffs to achieve the policy you describe: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ability of the OP to make a 'maybe' into a solid fact and then fabricate some doomsday scenario is quite amazing. And then to extend that 'maybe' into use of WTO rules about which they evidently know nothing is even more amazing. The 'Single Market' is a closed shop of countries who pay in a membership fee (well about 8 out of 28 do) to enjoy Tariff Free trade amongst themselves. It is designed to protect and advantage those member countries to the detriment of other trading nations. The EU does this by creating inward trade barriers. No country has ever left the EU (with all due respects to Greenland) so no one has any experience or real data with which to prophecy the future. Everyone is as ignorant as everyone else. The difference between the 'Remoaners' and the 'Brexiters' is that the former are still peddling 'Project Fear', wedded to the only thing they know which is membership of this Protectionist Customs Union, and the latter who have every confidence in the country they clearly love because they voted for it to become a Sovereign State again. The WTO enforces the agreements made between countries. It does not enforce specific Tariffs as such just what has been agreed. It also makes sure one country (or group of countries) does not persecute or penalise one country against another. Groups of countries can create 'Customs Unions' (which is what the EU is although it labels it 'The Single Market' to mislead people) but must treat other countries fairly and equally. The bottom line here is the day after we leave the EU nothing will change while we negotiate a new Trade Agreement with the EU. Why? Because the EU will not want sudden change and neither will we and the WTO will not allow the EU to penalise the UK simply for leaving the EU. This new agreement will mean 'access to' the Single Market and nothing more. Just like every other country has access to it. And remember the EU has £61 Bn annually worth of reason to maintain good relations with the UK. That is the surplus they earn from us. I think you’ll find that it is the IFS that is making these claims, I was just discussing them. The IFS are a highly respected organisation that know what they are talking about. I know you like to hate on people who have dedicated their lives and become experts in their field. Can you name another organisation with the experience and reputation to back up your claims? You still haven’t understood how the WTO works. They want lower tariffs or ideally no tariffs around the world. To achieve that they make countries work to their highest tariffs, so that when they want a good deal with one country, they have to make a good deal with the other country too, that way, little by little, tariffs around the world reduce." Have you researched IFS predictions? They are not terribly reliable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war" Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ability of the OP to make a 'maybe' into a solid fact and then fabricate some doomsday scenario is quite amazing. And then to extend that 'maybe' into use of WTO rules about which they evidently know nothing is even more amazing. The 'Single Market' is a closed shop of countries who pay in a membership fee (well about 8 out of 28 do) to enjoy Tariff Free trade amongst themselves. It is designed to protect and advantage those member countries to the detriment of other trading nations. The EU does this by creating inward trade barriers. No country has ever left the EU (with all due respects to Greenland) so no one has any experience or real data with which to prophecy the future. Everyone is as ignorant as everyone else. The difference between the 'Remoaners' and the 'Brexiters' is that the former are still peddling 'Project Fear', wedded to the only thing they know which is membership of this Protectionist Customs Union, and the latter who have every confidence in the country they clearly love because they voted for it to become a Sovereign State again. The WTO enforces the agreements made between countries. It does not enforce specific Tariffs as such just what has been agreed. It also makes sure one country (or group of countries) does not persecute or penalise one country against another. Groups of countries can create 'Customs Unions' (which is what the EU is although it labels it 'The Single Market' to mislead people) but must treat other countries fairly and equally. The bottom line here is the day after we leave the EU nothing will change while we negotiate a new Trade Agreement with the EU. Why? Because the EU will not want sudden change and neither will we and the WTO will not allow the EU to penalise the UK simply for leaving the EU. This new agreement will mean 'access to' the Single Market and nothing more. Just like every other country has access to it. And remember the EU has £61 Bn annually worth of reason to maintain good relations with the UK. That is the surplus they earn from us. I think you’ll find that it is the IFS that is making these claims, I was just discussing them. The IFS are a highly respected organisation that know what they are talking about. I know you like to hate on people who have dedicated their lives and become experts in their field. Can you name another organisation with the experience and reputation to back up your claims? You still haven’t understood how the WTO works. They want lower tariffs or ideally no tariffs around the world. To achieve that they make countries work to their highest tariffs, so that when they want a good deal with one country, they have to make a good deal with the other country too, that way, little by little, tariffs around the world reduce. Have you researched IFS predictions? They are not terribly reliable." What's their brier score? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL at the quality of debate! " What's your brier score? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. " Then enter the debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate." What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. " Brexiteers also win!!!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. Brexiteers also win!!!!!!!" See what I mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. " Quite happy to hear what you have to say. I see as much intolerance from both sides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. " I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. " A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all. "Nahhhh... Who needs experts making forecasts when you can just as easily call them fear monger a, wing it and act with reckless abandon. Sounds like a plan..... Not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all. "You mean like the economic forecast George Osborne gave in the Referendum campaign saying he could predict everyone in the UK would be £4,300 worse off in the year 2030. Sorry but that was just complete bollocks, the same as his Project fear emergency budget claim if the country voted leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. " David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol " Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. " I understand that but when we vote we know who is going to stand ive been a lkfe long tory but would i have voted for them if the leader of the party was boris.... No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. I understand that but when we vote we know who is going to stand ive been a lkfe long tory but would i have voted for them if the leader of the party was boris.... No " And if your seriously disputing my original point that the referendum has left our politcal system in tatters i cant take your argument seriously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Smart move jumping out of the aeroplane without a parachute. Perhaps smarter than staying on an aeroplane destined to crash? Irony..... The passenger knows more than the pilot and decides to jump without a parachute whilst the pilot continues the journey. I think you just nailed it
If the passenger sees the flames before the pilot does, then it might be an idea to react.
On a (not so) different note, on two aeroplane flights
- I noticed that the stewardess had not closed the door properly during take off.
- I noticed a loose bolt on a wing joint.
In both cases, I informed the stewardess (and decided not to use that airline in future).
Sometimes, you would be an idiot to put your faith in the pilot."All this talk of jumping out of aeroplanes without a parachute, its already been done. Just 2 weeks ago, Luke Aikins successfully jumped out of an aeroplane at 25,000 ft with no parachute, he skydived down to earth and landed into a huge safety net. From aeroplane to earth with no parachute and no injuries, not even so much as a single bruise on his body. It was covered by all the major news channels, here is the video in case anyone missed it.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBavry0K2E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. I understand that but when we vote we know who is going to stand ive been a lkfe long tory but would i have voted for them if the leader of the party was boris.... No And if your seriously disputing my original point that the referendum has left our politcal system in tatters i cant take your argument seriously" Point number one would be that I haven't made an arguement, I'm simply stating facts. Point two is that our political system hasn't changed (yet), just some of the people in it have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. I understand that but when we vote we know who is going to stand ive been a lkfe long tory but would i have voted for them if the leader of the party was boris.... No And if your seriously disputing my original point that the referendum has left our politcal system in tatters i cant take your argument seriously Point number one would be that I haven't made an arguement, I'm simply stating facts. Point two is that our political system hasn't changed (yet), just some of the people in it have. " Our political system hasnt changed but the streangh of the parties has and history shows that every stong succesfull government in the past has had strong oposition my worry is that we have a weak government with no oposition i may be wrong but i dont see that being a posetive framework for what will be the most important trade negotiation we will ever make | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Our biggest problem politically as far as i can see is the wasteland of internal politics we have a really weak conservative government who werent voted for and no opposition now labour are self destructing the most credible and together party are the lib dems but we couldnt vote them in cos they would overturn the brexit vote and start civil war Why weren't the conservatives voted for? They won a general election with a majority. David cameron and his cabinet won a general election the mismatch of badly placed mp's and teresa may won fuck all lol Our political process elects a party not a person. I don't remember see Cameron on my ballot paper, nor would any voter outside of Witney. I understand that but when we vote we know who is going to stand ive been a lkfe long tory but would i have voted for them if the leader of the party was boris.... No And if your seriously disputing my original point that the referendum has left our politcal system in tatters i cant take your argument seriously Point number one would be that I haven't made an arguement, I'm simply stating facts. Point two is that our political system hasn't changed (yet), just some of the people in it have. Our political system hasnt changed but the streangh of the parties has and history shows that every stong succesfull government in the past has had strong oposition my worry is that we have a weak government with no oposition i may be wrong but i dont see that being a posetive framework for what will be the most important trade negotiation we will ever make" Agree with you on that point!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all.
Nahhhh... Who needs experts making forecasts when you can just as easily call them fear monger a, wing it and act with reckless abandon. Sounds like a plan..... Not."OK how many of your so called 'experts' have ever .. repeat EVER.. been in a country that has left the EU before? And if that has never happened before (which it hasn't) how can these 'experts' make any 'forecast' worth anything more than sticking a wet finger in the wind? Since when was the democratic process 'reckless abandon'? Since when was voting to take your country's Sovereignty back 'reckless abandon'? Since when was making sure your Supreme Court is in your own Country 'reckless abandon'? Since when was taking control of who comes into your own country 'reckless abandon'? Keep throwing the exaggerations around all you want its still just that.. an opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all.
Nahhhh... Who needs experts making forecasts when you can just as easily call them fear monger a, wing it and act with reckless abandon. Sounds like a plan..... Not.
OK how many of your so called 'experts' have ever .. repeat EVER.. been in a country that has left the EU before? And if that has never happened before (which it hasn't) how can these 'experts' make any 'forecast' worth anything more than sticking a wet finger in the air"A brier score would answer that for you. Just saying. It's irrelevant that it hasn't happened before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's too early to say what the real impact of Brexit is. All I see on this thread is Brexiteers going LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! GET OVER IT!! That's not a debate. Then enter the debate. What's the point? Brexiteers have shown that they won't listen to any other arguments. Brexiteers refuse to hear any experts. Brexiteers shout down the opposition. I don't think its us 'Brexiteers' who are shouting about anything, or need to, or indeed the ones calling down hell and damnation on our country because the vote did not go our way. In case you seem to have missed it we won the referendum and therefore the argument by a good margin on a very healthy turnout. 17.4 million people listened and agreed with the Brexit argument. Nothing else needs saying by us 'Brexiteers'. Its the Remoaners who are doing all the complaining and shouting and coming up with dodgy 'forecasts' and Project Fear scenarios. Go shout at them because personally I am getting rather bored with their repeated bitching. A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way.
We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election.
I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all.
Nahhhh... Who needs experts making forecasts when you can just as easily call them fear monger a, wing it and act with reckless abandon. Sounds like a plan..... Not.
OK how many of your so called 'experts' have ever .. repeat EVER.. been in a country that has left the EU before? And if that has never happened before (which it hasn't) how can these 'experts' make any 'forecast' worth anything more than sticking a wet finger in the wind?
Since when was the democratic process 'reckless abandon'?
Since when was voting to take your country's Sovereignty back 'reckless abandon'?
Since when was making sure your Supreme Court is in your own Country 'reckless abandon'?
Since when was taking control of who comes into your own country 'reckless abandon'?
Keep throwing the exaggerations around all you want its still just that.. an opinion."Your entire premis is based on taking back control of our country the problem is that we cannot start trade deals with other countries until we have left our first trade dealbis with the EU and we NEED full access to the single market our government will give anything to secure this and no other country has or will ever get full access without saud country paying contributions and adhering to their rules and of course free movement so im afraid were taking back no control at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A good margin it was only 1.8%, that means it only needs a 0.9% swing for it to go the other way." Hilarious... just keep chipping away at the numbers all you want. The Remain camp LOST! " We'll all have to wait and see what happens, maybe the Lords and the Commons will just vote it down, maybe there will be another referendum or a general election." Well clearly that is something people like you and all the Remoaners want to happen. Democracy defeated your arguments and now you wish to use non-democratic means to overturn the declared will of the British People in a referendum? Are you bloody seriously suggesting this? If they do there will be a civil war I guarantee it. People voted to leave the EU because they felt remote, ignored and lost out to the EU Elite, the EU Establishment and the lack of Democracy. You think we who won are going to stand by meekly and let the same thing happen to us by our own MPs? There will be riots and civil disorder on a huge scale and the Queen will have to dissolve Parliament. And then watch who gets elected... " I know how some on here do so hate economic forecasts, but that's what the government uses to base their budget on. The government is going to have to hike up taxes or slash spending, or a bit of both to try and balance the books as a result of Brexit, maybe when people see that they will decide that they dont want that after all." There you go again ... making a huge assumption, then making it some sort of fact and then making a prediction based on an assumption. Hilarious (again)! The new Chancellor has (contrary to what Osborne 'forecast') already said there will be no emergency budget. That is one fallacy destroyed. He has also said there is no rush to make adjustments as the economy is basically in sound condition. And to support that one of the Project Fear Mongers in chief (Mark Carney) has also said the British people are very flexible as is the economy and we will cope in a good way. Second fallacy destroyed. There will be an Autumn Statement as usual. Nothing else is needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A brier score would answer that for you. Just saying." "The Brier score is a proper score function that measures the accuracy of probabilistic predictions." So its a rating of a 'forecast' then? And precisely when is this measure of accuracy performed? I would suggest it is after the event on which the 'prediction' was made. So do tell us how we can make this measure of accuracy when the events 'forecast' have not happened? " It's irrelevant that it hasn't happened before " Oh right. So someone jumping into an aircraft and trying to fly it when he hasn't done it before is 'irrelevant' to the probable outcome? How can anyone make a factual judgement when there are no previous facts on which to make that judgement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A brier score would answer that for you. Just saying. "The Brier score is a proper score function that measures the accuracy of probabilistic predictions." So its a rating of a 'forecast' then? And precisely when is this measure of accuracy performed? I would suggest it is after the event on which the 'prediction' was made. So do tell us how we can make this measure of accuracy when the events 'forecast' have not happened? It's irrelevant that it hasn't happened before Oh right. So someone jumping into an aircraft and trying to fly it when he hasn't done it before is 'irrelevant' to the probable outcome? How can anyone make a factual judgement when there are no previous facts on which to make that judgement?" Brier scores are used to measure the accuracy of forecasters, who often call themselves, or are referred to as experts. It's not a rating of a forecast, it's a rating of a forecaster. If your forecasts are accurate then you have a low brier score, a brier score of 0.5 is a dart throwing monkey. There are plenty of facts about economies and how they work, plenty of systematic biases in politics, plenty of history to look at. The fact that it isn't certain is why probabilistic modelling is required not deterministic. Rather than get into a debate about "my expert says this" and "my expert is better than your expert"... just look at their brier scores. If they don't know their brier score then they are not expert forecasters. If they don't have one, they are not expert forecasters. As I say, you can read a whole scientific study on the matter by Philip Tetlock and if you took the time to do so then you'd find that the evidence generally supports the arguement you were making earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your entire premis is based on taking back control of our country the problem is that we cannot start trade deals with other countries until we have left our first trade deal" Well that isn't quite true is it? We have already started discussions with non EU countries and we already have bilateral trade agreements with every country with whom we trade. Otherwise how did we trade? The day after we leave the EU those agreements in the name of the UK will still be in place. Those in the name of the EU (where they had a hand in it) can easily be changed to the UK. No one has said they would not do that. " with the EU and we NEED full access to the single market our government will give anything to secure this and no other country has or will ever get full access without saud country paying contributions and adhering to their rules and of course free movement so im afraid were taking back no control at all " There is a difference between full access and membership of. There are only 28 countries who are members of the 'Single Market'. There are however hundreds of others who have access to it. Does the USA pay a membership fee, accept free movement and have its supreme court in Brussels? And again you quietly ignore the fact that we are a very important market for the EU where we run a £61 Bn a year trade deficit. (That is profit to you and me). We also happen to be the single biggest market for German made cars. Who is the largest contributors to the EU budget: Germany. If the EU wish to play silly beggars with the UK we will have the WTO on our side. We will also be able to stick whatever Tariffs they wish to levy on us against them. Status Quo and pointless. We will gain access to the EU just like every other non EU member does. And remember we will be the most powerful non EU country right next to the EU and many EU based companies will see the UK as a local base to manufacture outside of the EU. The EU Single Market is declining in global trade importance and we already trade more outside the EU than within the EU.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your entire premis is based on taking back control of our country the problem is that we cannot start trade deals with other countries until we have left our first trade deal Well that isn't quite true is it? We have already started discussions with non EU countries and we already have bilateral trade agreements with every country with whom we trade. Otherwise how did we trade? The day after we leave the EU those agreements in the name of the UK will still be in place. Those in the name of the EU (where they had a hand in it) can easily be changed to the UK. No one has said they would not do that. with the EU and we NEED full access to the single market our government will give anything to secure this and no other country has or will ever get full access without saud country paying contributions and adhering to their rules and of course free movement so im afraid were taking back no control at all There is a difference between full access and membership of. There are only 28 countries who are members of the 'Single Market'. There are however hundreds of others who have access to it. Does the USA pay a membership fee, accept free movement and have its supreme court in Brussels? " The IFS study actually talks about this: "Single Market Access is virtually meaningless as a concept. Any country in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe – has ‘access’ to the EU as an export destination. Single Market ‘membership’ by contrast involves elimination of barriers to trade in a way that no existing trade deal, customs union or free trade area achieves. In particular it means reducing “non-tariff” barriers like licensing and other regulatory constraints to supplying goods or services. These sorts of barriers have become relatively more important to trade than tariffs (taxes on trade), and especially so for services." " And again you quietly ignore the fact that we are a very important market for the EU where we run a £61 Bn a year trade deficit. (That is profit to you and me). We also happen to be the single biggest market for German made cars. Who is the largest contributors to the EU budget: Germany. " Why do you think that the other 27 member states with their population of around 435 million are going to care about losing £61 billion, when Brexiters are willing to lose £73 billion per year with our population of 65 million? You can’t have it both ways, its either in your interest to have more trade (like you say the EU want) or you can throw away trade to the illusion of greater control (like Brexiters want). " If the EU wish to play silly beggars with the UK we will have the WTO on our side. We will also be able to stick whatever Tariffs they wish to levy on us against them. Status Quo and pointless. We will gain access to the EU just like every other non EU member does. And remember we will be the most powerful non EU country right next to the EU and many EU based companies will see the UK as a local base to manufacture outside of the EU. " Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” " The EU Single Market is declining in global trade importance and we already trade more outside the EU than within the EU.... " Sorry, one more time, back to the IFS report "UK service exports are especially important. They accounted for 31% of all exports in 1999 and 44% of exports in 2015. The UK runs a significant trade surplus in services and the EU is the UK’s largest service export destination, accounting for 40% of service exports whereas emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China together account for less than 5%.” As there still seems to be confusion around WTO rules and the difference between now and trading under WTO rules in the future, perhaps this section of the report will help to clarify (unless of course you think that the IFS don’t understand WTO rules either) "WTO. Under this scenario, the UK would set its own tariffs on imports from other countries up to ceilings allowed by the World Trade Organisation. For services, there would be no special access to the EU market. Similarly, goods would face the EU’s full common external tariffs as well as customs checks and non-tariff/regulatory barriers. The UK would only be bound by EU regulations in terms of goods and services supplied to the EU and would take full control over immigration policy. The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports. This option would give the UK the ability to strike its own trade deals and would not involve budgetary contributions, EU regulation or free movement of people. However, to strike trade deals that go beyond tariffs into, for example, investment and services, some degree of sovereignty would be ceded in agreeing common rules with another trading partner." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your entire premis is based on taking back control of our country the problem is that we cannot start trade deals with other countries until we have left our first trade deal Well that isn't quite true is it? We have already started discussions with non EU countries and we already have bilateral trade agreements with every country with whom we trade. Otherwise how did we trade? The day after we leave the EU those agreements in the name of the UK will still be in place. Those in the name of the EU (where they had a hand in it) can easily be changed to the UK. No one has said they would not do that. with the EU and we NEED full access to the single market our government will give anything to secure this and no other country has or will ever get full access without saud country paying contributions and adhering to their rules and of course free movement so im afraid were taking back no control at all There is a difference between full access and membership of. There are only 28 countries who are members of the 'Single Market'. There are however hundreds of others who have access to it. Does the USA pay a membership fee, accept free movement and have its supreme court in Brussels? The IFS study actually talks about this: "Single Market Access is virtually meaningless as a concept. Any country in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe – has ‘access’ to the EU as an export destination. Single Market ‘membership’ by contrast involves elimination of barriers to trade in a way that no existing trade deal, customs union or free trade area achieves. In particular it means reducing “non-tariff” barriers like licensing and other regulatory constraints to supplying goods or services. These sorts of barriers have become relatively more important to trade than tariffs (taxes on trade), and especially so for services." And again you quietly ignore the fact that we are a very important market for the EU where we run a £61 Bn a year trade deficit. (That is profit to you and me). We also happen to be the single biggest market for German made cars. Who is the largest contributors to the EU budget: Germany. Why do you think that the other 27 member states with their population of around 435 million are going to care about losing £61 billion, when Brexiters are willing to lose £73 billion per year with our population of 65 million? You can’t have it both ways, its either in your interest to have more trade (like you say the EU want) or you can throw away trade to the illusion of greater control (like Brexiters want). If the EU wish to play silly beggars with the UK we will have the WTO on our side. We will also be able to stick whatever Tariffs they wish to levy on us against them. Status Quo and pointless. We will gain access to the EU just like every other non EU member does. And remember we will be the most powerful non EU country right next to the EU and many EU based companies will see the UK as a local base to manufacture outside of the EU. Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” The EU Single Market is declining in global trade importance and we already trade more outside the EU than within the EU.... Sorry, one more time, back to the IFS report "UK service exports are especially important. They accounted for 31% of all exports in 1999 and 44% of exports in 2015. The UK runs a significant trade surplus in services and the EU is the UK’s largest service export destination, accounting for 40% of service exports whereas emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China together account for less than 5%.” As there still seems to be confusion around WTO rules and the difference between now and trading under WTO rules in the future, perhaps this section of the report will help to clarify (unless of course you think that the IFS don’t understand WTO rules either) "WTO. Under this scenario, the UK would set its own tariffs on imports from other countries up to ceilings allowed by the World Trade Organisation. For services, there would be no special access to the EU market. Similarly, goods would face the EU’s full common external tariffs as well as customs checks and non-tariff/regulatory barriers. The UK would only be bound by EU regulations in terms of goods and services supplied to the EU and would take full control over immigration policy. The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports. This option would give the UK the ability to strike its own trade deals and would not involve budgetary contributions, EU regulation or free movement of people. However, to strike trade deals that go beyond tariffs into, for example, investment and services, some degree of sovereignty would be ceded in agreeing common rules with another trading partner."" First point....The concept of free trade in the single market is a fallacy. If you have to pay a contribution fee to be in it then by definition it is not free. The contribution fee is a tariff, it's just the EU tries to disguise it by using other language. 2nd point....The EU will care about losing £61 billion profit in trade with the Uk because the eurozone is already in great difficulty. It's inevitable that Greece will soon need another bailout. Plus now the UK is leaving the EU other members will have to pay a higher contribution fee to fill the black hole the UK contribution fee has left which now needs to be filled by the EU if they want to carry on with the same funding levels as before. The UK economy on the other hand is robust as Mark Carney at the bank of England said last week. The UK is in a much better position to deal with brexit than the eurozone. 3rd point....The EU still doesn't have a single market in the services industry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” " Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
And again the simple question of how much experience does the IFS (or indeed any other so called 'expert' giving 'forecasts') have of a Brexit remains unaddressed. When the obvious answer is NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. SOD ALL. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its quite astounding how some people just will not read the facts when the original source is supplied for everyone to read. Nowhere in the WTO website does it say THEY levy any Tariffs. And yet the Remoaner in chief says they do. At which point you realise its waste of time...
And again the simple question of how much experience does the IFS (or indeed any other so called 'expert' giving 'forecasts') have of a Brexit remains unaddressed. When the obvious answer is NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. SOD ALL."Countries set tariffs, the WTO don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? " I can’t find their brier score, can you? They looked at a number of Single Market Impact studies; Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008) They also looked at the Brexit Models by different model examining data from CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD, and Economists for Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? I can’t find their brier score, can you? They looked at a number of Single Market Impact studies; Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008) They also looked at the Brexit Models by different model examining data from CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD, and Economists for Brexit. " Nope I can't find it either. You know what that means, it's means they aren't worth shit. It means they expect credibility based on a name and citing a bunch of references, whatever that has to do with things? Let me break it down for you some, if you guys were arguing over whether Jamie Vardy was a better striker than Harry Kane then it wouldn't take too long for the subject of goals and shooting accuracy to come up. A brier score is to a forecaster what goals and accuracy are to a striker. Do you know what kind of forecasters don't give their brier score? Shit ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? I can’t find their brier score, can you? They looked at a number of Single Market Impact studies; Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008) They also looked at the Brexit Models by different model examining data from CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD, and Economists for Brexit. Nope I can't find it either. You know what that means, it's means they aren't worth shit. It means they expect credibility based on a name and citing a bunch of references, whatever that has to do with things? Let me break it down for you some, if you guys were arguing over whether Jamie Vardy was a better striker than Harry Kane then it wouldn't take too long for the subject of goals and shooting accuracy to come up. A brier score is to a forecaster what goals and accuracy are to a striker. Do you know what kind of forecasters don't give their brier score? Shit ones. " But can you find any economic forecaster that publishes a brier score? You say it makes them shit because they dont publish it, but maybe its just not done in the industry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? I can’t find their brier score, can you? They looked at a number of Single Market Impact studies; Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008) They also looked at the Brexit Models by different model examining data from CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD, and Economists for Brexit. Nope I can't find it either. You know what that means, it's means they aren't worth shit. It means they expect credibility based on a name and citing a bunch of references, whatever that has to do with things? Let me break it down for you some, if you guys were arguing over whether Jamie Vardy was a better striker than Harry Kane then it wouldn't take too long for the subject of goals and shooting accuracy to come up. A brier score is to a forecaster what goals and accuracy are to a striker. Do you know what kind of forecasters don't give their brier score? Shit ones. But can you find any economic forecaster that publishes a brier score? You say it makes them shit because they dont publish it, but maybe its just not done in the industry? " Lol! It's the defining quality mark of the industry. It's a term exclusively applies to people that do forecasting! You can't apply it to a premier league footballer!! If you read the study on "expert political judgement" that I've mentioned several times now then you will see the how it's used and how the so called 'experts' do on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more." Please do not confuse a campaign in a single issue referendum with a General election where potential Governments are elected. The Brexit campaign said quite clearly (and I know because I campaigned for Vote Leave) that there was NO reason at all why any funding via the EU CAP should not be replaced by an equivalent UK funding strategy. the difference will be that any future funding will be to maximise the huge efficiency within the UK farming industry, make use of land currently 'set aside' and to make sure some profitability returns to the industry. In February this year George Eustice, the farming minister, told the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) annual conference .... that they would be better off out of the EU. “We would do far better as a country if we ended the supremacy of Europe and shaped new fresh-thinking policies that really deliver for our agriculture,” he said. “The truth of the matter is that if we left the EU there would be a dividend, so could we find the money to spend £2bn a year on farming and the environment? Of course we could. Would we? Without a shadow of a doubt.” Who has said we will not have access to the EU 'Single Market'? Any sources? And you seem to be misrepresenting the position of EU migrant workers already here. There is no 2 year time limit. As long as UK migrant workers are safe in the EU then EU migrants will be safe to remain here. Any change will be caused by the EU not any UK Government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its quite astounding how some people just will not read the facts when the original source is supplied for everyone to read. Nowhere in the WTO website does it say THEY levy any Tariffs. And yet the Remoaner in chief says they do. At which point you realise its waste of time...
And again the simple question of how much experience does the IFS (or indeed any other so called 'expert' giving 'forecasts') have of a Brexit remains unaddressed. When the obvious answer is NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. SOD ALL.
Countries set tariffs, the WTO don’t."That is not what you said earlier and why I corrected you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO...." You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same?" You haven't offered expert evidence because there's no evidence your sources are experts. You're still ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a probabilistic forecast which is really about as amateur as it gets. What is the probability GDP will be 4% worse off? Or is it 100% certain and your source has a 0.0 brier score in which case you don't need to say anything further because you've already won. Plenty of people can make accurate forecasts, if you read the study you'd know who they were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same?" You have great faith in the IFS. You have no faith in our ability. That is fine, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, just going back to the IFS report “Single Market membership could be worth 4% on GDP relative to reliance on WTO terms” Again, what's their brier score? You are intelligent enough to recognise that this is not even a probabilistic statement which is 101 error for forecasting and renders it worthless before its even started. "Aliens could arrive tomorrow and anally abuse me, upload the footage onto YouTube which could trigger a stock market crash due to fear of alien invasion." - prove that statement wrong? I can’t find their brier score, can you? They looked at a number of Single Market Impact studies; Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008) They also looked at the Brexit Models by different model examining data from CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD, and Economists for Brexit. Nope I can't find it either. You know what that means, it's means they aren't worth shit. It means they expect credibility based on a name and citing a bunch of references, whatever that has to do with things? Let me break it down for you some, if you guys were arguing over whether Jamie Vardy was a better striker than Harry Kane then it wouldn't take too long for the subject of goals and shooting accuracy to come up. A brier score is to a forecaster what goals and accuracy are to a striker. Do you know what kind of forecasters don't give their brier score? Shit ones. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more." Maybe thats because we haven't actually left the EU yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? " They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same?" Why will it be bad leaving the single market? It's not free trade. It cost lots of money and only a small percentage of UK Business benefits. The argument about staying or leaving was never really about the economy for Joe Public. Maybe trade will take a hit? Maybe it won't? Joe Public doesn't really care.Because other things are more important to them x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. Maybe thats because we haven't actually left the EU yet? " That is right, they interviewed them on a documentary of how they felt about the future of their business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations." Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise " The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X" So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? " You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise " Please dont use disasters to try and win an argument i was at the challanger crash and apart from my parents dying was the saddest day of my life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same? You haven't offered expert evidence because there's no evidence your sources are experts. You're still ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a probabilistic forecast which is really about as amateur as it gets. What is the probability GDP will be 4% worse off? Or is it 100% certain and your source has a 0.0 brier score in which case you don't need to say anything further because you've already won. Plenty of people can make accurate forecasts, if you read the study you'd know who they were. " So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field?
How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts?
Dictionary.com define an expert as: "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority”
So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x" I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. " I would hope so. But its not an accurate comparison. And with economics it very much depends on who is funding the study and or what will be gained x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same? You haven't offered expert evidence because there's no evidence your sources are experts. You're still ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a probabilistic forecast which is really about as amateur as it gets. What is the probability GDP will be 4% worse off? Or is it 100% certain and your source has a 0.0 brier score in which case you don't need to say anything further because you've already won. Plenty of people can make accurate forecasts, if you read the study you'd know who they were. So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field?
How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts?
Dictionary.com define an expert as: "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority”
So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy?"I'm saying that there's this thing called the scientific method that we use in controlled experiments to understand facts about life and the world we live in. I'll take the results of reputable scientific studies over the dictionary when choosing who to believe. You of course can believe who you want. It's rather ironic that you are arguing with me that I don't accept your evidence because you won't look at my evidence of what evidence is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. I would hope so. But its not an accurate comparison. And with economics it very much depends on who is funding the study and or what will be gained x" Which is why you need a brier score and a probabilistic forecast | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. I would hope so. But its not an accurate comparison. And with economics it very much depends on who is funding the study and or what will be gained x Which is why you need a brier score and a probabilistic forecast" If you say so
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same? You haven't offered expert evidence because there's no evidence your sources are experts. You're still ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a probabilistic forecast which is really about as amateur as it gets. What is the probability GDP will be 4% worse off? Or is it 100% certain and your source has a 0.0 brier score in which case you don't need to say anything further because you've already won. Plenty of people can make accurate forecasts, if you read the study you'd know who they were. So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field?
How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts?
Dictionary.com define an expert as: "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority”
So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy?
I'm saying that there's this thing called the scientific method that we use in controlled experiments to understand facts about life and the world we live in. I'll take the results of reputable scientific studies over the dictionary when choosing who to believe. You of course can believe who you want.
It's rather ironic that you are arguing with me that I don't accept your evidence because you won't look at my evidence of what evidence is. "Its a 321 page book its going to take a while to read! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. I would hope so. But its not an accurate comparison. And with economics it very much depends on who is funding the study and or what will be gained x Which is why you need a brier score and a probabilistic forecast If you say so
"I presume you would agree that good football managers wouldn't buy players without asking what their track record is? I don't understand why people are instantly willing to buy into forecasts without asking what the track record of the forecaster is? Actually I do. They pick the forecast at agrees with their preconception and that way the debate can go on forever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I think that I have made my point (obviously not every agrees with it) that leaving the Single Market will be bad for the UK economy, and have offered evidence in the form of expert opinion (I know that you disagree with the experts). How about we debate the opposite side of the argument? If you say that no one knows what will happen to the economy (obviously I do not agree with that point), they why would you want to leave the single market if you don’t know if it is going to be better, worse or the same? You haven't offered expert evidence because there's no evidence your sources are experts. You're still ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a probabilistic forecast which is really about as amateur as it gets. What is the probability GDP will be 4% worse off? Or is it 100% certain and your source has a 0.0 brier score in which case you don't need to say anything further because you've already won. Plenty of people can make accurate forecasts, if you read the study you'd know who they were. So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field?
How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts?
Dictionary.com define an expert as: "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority”
So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy?
I'm saying that there's this thing called the scientific method that we use in controlled experiments to understand facts about life and the world we live in. I'll take the results of reputable scientific studies over the dictionary when choosing who to believe. You of course can believe who you want.
It's rather ironic that you are arguing with me that I don't accept your evidence because you won't look at my evidence of what evidence is.
Its a 321 page book its going to take a while to read!"Get 'super forecasters' on audible then, it's by the same guy, covers the same material and you can listen to it during your commute to work. Don't forget to put 'mixedbcpl' in the coupon code so I get my referral fee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes wonder if there is ANYTHING that can be agreed on in this forum!!!!!! Is the sky blue? Does the Earth go round the sun? Is mayo the best condiment for chips? "We can agree your wife looks good in that school uniform | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have published a report into the financial options post Brexit. They say that if we leave the Single Market (and rely on WTO terms), then it will cost us 4% of our GDP, much more than we have been paying as a budgetary contribution. The 27 Heads of State of the EU stated that membership of the Single Market requires the acceptance of all 4 freedoms (in the statement on 29th June 2016). Since the referendum the tories have abandoned their manifesto pledge of reducing immigration to less than 100,000 per year, and we have been told that immigration will be “controlled” but not necessarily reduced. So in light of this, surely it makes sense for the UK to remain inside the Single Market, pay the contribution, accept free movement of people, and get the increased tax receipts." There real name is the institute of allways wrong well 98%of the time,more proof that we are better off out of Europe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Get 'super forecasters' on audible then, it's by the same guy, covers the same material and you can listen to it during your commute to work. Don't forget to put 'mixedbcpl' in the coupon code so I get my referral fee. " And what if I questioned what made Tetlock the “expert” on experts?!?!?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise The basic laws of physics have proven to be true. Computer modelling using those laws is much more accurate than all these so called experts who fail to predict recessions, failure to join the Euro, Brexit etc. It's not a worthy comparison. X So the laws only got discovered after the missions I mentioned? You know that's not the case! But they had a scientific mathematical factual base to work on. Not like the wild predictions made about Brexit x I would accept economics is not so much as a hard science as moon landings. But it's not a complete art either and there are plenty of facts to work with. I would hope so. But its not an accurate comparison. And with economics it very much depends on who is funding the study and or what will be gained x Which is why you need a brier score and a probabilistic forecast If you say so
I presume you would agree that good football managers wouldn't buy players without asking what their track record is?
I don't understand why people are instantly willing to buy into forecasts without asking what the track record of the forecaster is?
Actually I do. They pick the forecast at agrees with their preconception and that way the debate can go on forever. "I might. But Joe Public wouldn't. They believe what they are told x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes wonder if there is ANYTHING that can be agreed on in this forum!!!!!! Is the sky blue? Does the Earth go round the sun? Is mayo the best condiment for chips? "The sky is black(at night) The Earth goes round the sun is a myth to discredit the flat earth society Ketchup with chips It is fun to disagree sometimes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Get 'super forecasters' on audible then, it's by the same guy, covers the same material and you can listen to it during your commute to work. Don't forget to put 'mixedbcpl' in the coupon code so I get my referral fee. And what if I questioned what made Tetlock the “expert” on experts?!?!?! "A longitudinal scientific study | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field?" At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. " How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts?" Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. " Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? " In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I sometimes wonder if there is ANYTHING that can be agreed on in this forum!!!!!! Is the sky blue? Does the Earth go round the sun? Is mayo the best condiment for chips? "Just one undeniable fact you need to know, Leave won the referendum with 52%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many out of: "Cecchini (1998), Baldwin (1989), Monti (1996), Minford et al (2005), Ilzkovitz et al (2007) and Boltho & Eichengreen (2008),CEP (2016a) static and dynamic, HM Treasury, NIESR, NIESR with productivity, PwC (2016a), Oxford Economics, Open Europe, OECD" Have experienced a country, let alone the 5th largest economy, leaving the EU before? Same answer: NONE. ZILCH. ZERO.... You do understand that people managed to predict how to land on the moon before someone had done it before? They didn't predict. They made scientific/ mathematical calculations. Prediction can be scientific and mathematical but they still made assumptions. The laws of physics are not 100% known today let alone when the first moon landing happened and the apollo 1, 13 and challenge flights should be enough to convince you it's not a simple formula exercise Please dont use disasters to try and win an argument i was at the challanger crash and apart from my parents dying was the saddest day of my life " It only crashed because they let the woman drive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes. "If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes.
If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP? "Nobody has said no one is an expert. We're just saying that you can't call somebody an expert without evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes.
If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP?
Nobody has said no one is an expert. We're just saying that you can't call somebody an expert without evidence. "Well if you just look at one of the organisations mentioned, PwC, they brought in 35,000,000,000 pieces of evidence that they know something about finance and the economy in 2015 alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes.
If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP?
Nobody has said no one is an expert. We're just saying that you can't call somebody an expert without evidence.
Well if you just look at one of the organisations mentioned, PwC, they brought in 35,000,000,000 pieces of evidence that they know something about finance and the economy in 2015 alone. "Yawn. The US Intelligence Community has a budget that is more than our entire ministry of defence. They have over 20,000 full time analysts. And they concluded that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" and passed that advice to President Bush. That worked out well. So size is not the same as accurate forecasts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes.
If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP?
Nobody has said no one is an expert. We're just saying that you can't call somebody an expert without evidence.
Well if you just look at one of the organisations mentioned, PwC, they brought in 35,000,000,000 pieces of evidence that they know something about finance and the economy in 2015 alone.
Yawn.
The US Intelligence Community has a budget that is more than our entire ministry of defence. They have over 20,000 full time analysts. And they concluded that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" and passed that advice to President Bush. That worked out well.
So size is not the same as accurate forecasts."If you are the expert in experts, then which economic forecasters should we be listening to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’re not saying that you think that they are wrong, you are saying that they are not even experts in the field? At last you get it!! Wow... No one is an 'expert' in the field of post Brexit economics. I am glad the penny has dropped. How about any of the others that were mentioned? HM Treasury, OECD, PwC etc. do you think any of those are experts? Actually no. They are all biased by whatever they think is in their interests: * HM Treasury was so bad at 'forecasts' that Gideon invented the Office of Budget Responsibility to get things right. It is noticeable that they have not been involved in ANY of these pre- and post-referendum 'forecasts'. I wonder why? * OECD has been proved so wrong so often I am surprised you mention them. They were part of the Project Fear and in April this year said: " UK workers would lose the equivalent of roughly a month’s pay before 2020 in the event of Brexit. [It} is like a tax, equivalent to missing out on about one month’s income within four years, but then it carries on to 2023, 2030" And you ask us to think they have a clue what they are saying? * PwC has been embroiled in at least 22 scandals from Enron to BHS. If you think what they have to say is worth anything you really are scrabbling. Dictionary.com define an expert as: 'a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority' So you are saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not have a special skill or knowledge of Fiscal policy? In a word based on your definition and on the subject of Brexit? ... Yes.
If no one is an expert, why do you think its going to be good to leave the Single Market? Maybe the IFS are wrong, maybe it will cause a 10% hit to GDP, or a 25% hit to GDP?
Nobody has said no one is an expert. We're just saying that you can't call somebody an expert without evidence.
Well if you just look at one of the organisations mentioned, PwC, they brought in 35,000,000,000 pieces of evidence that they know something about finance and the economy in 2015 alone.
Yawn.
The US Intelligence Community has a budget that is more than our entire ministry of defence. They have over 20,000 full time analysts. And they concluded that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" and passed that advice to President Bush. That worked out well.
So size is not the same as accurate forecasts.
If you are the expert in experts, then which economic forecasters should we be listening to? "The ones with the brier scores closest to zero | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You speak as if we have no power. We are the German car industries' biggest export market. If they want to "punish" is with tariffs and the like, the price of cars will shoot up and their exports will crash. Hundreds of thousands of German automotive jobs are at stake. They would simply move production to China. Thank God we left the EU. " Its not about “punishing” its the WTO rules (if we go for that option), as you will read in the report "The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports.” So thats why its probably best that we stay in the single market, even if we leave the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You speak as if we have no power. We are the German car industries' biggest export market. If they want to "punish" is with tariffs and the like, the price of cars will shoot up and their exports will crash. Hundreds of thousands of German automotive jobs are at stake. They would simply move production to China. Thank God we left the EU. Its not about “punishing” its the WTO rules (if we go for that option), as you will read in the report "The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports.” So thats why its probably best that we stay in the single market, even if we leave the EU." That means the same immigration. Immigration was what won the leave campaign. This was the main concern. We need to reduce it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".......... Thank God we left the EU. " We haven't. And won't be for a long time yet, if ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You speak as if we have no power. We are the German car industries' biggest export market. If they want to "punish" is with tariffs and the like, the price of cars will shoot up and their exports will crash. Hundreds of thousands of German automotive jobs are at stake. They would simply move production to China. Thank God we left the EU. Its not about “punishing” its the WTO rules (if we go for that option), as you will read in the report "The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports.” So thats why its probably best that we stay in the single market, even if we leave the EU. That means the same immigration. Immigration was what won the leave campaign. This was the main concern. We need to reduce it. " So why were no efforts made to reduce non EU migration of which the UK has absolute control? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You speak as if we have no power. We are the German car industries' biggest export market. If they want to "punish" is with tariffs and the like, the price of cars will shoot up and their exports will crash. Hundreds of thousands of German automotive jobs are at stake. They would simply move production to China. Thank God we left the EU. Its not about “punishing” its the WTO rules (if we go for that option), as you will read in the report "The WTO sets binding limits on import tariffs and, unless they are part of an FTA, these tariffs must be the same for all countries (i.e. the same as the MFN). So, if no FTA were in place with the EU, the UK would face the EU’s MFN tariffs – the EU would be obliged to levy these tariffs unless and until an FTA was in place. Similarly, the UK would face other countries’ external tariffs on UK exports.” So thats why its probably best that we stay in the single market, even if we leave the EU. That means the same immigration. Immigration was what won the leave campaign. This was the main concern. We need to reduce it. So why were no efforts made to reduce non EU migration of which the UK has absolute control?" The amount of people from non EU countries has stagnated. Look it up. EU migration hasn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's only going to get worse for the southern countries of the disunited queendom , Scotland could be free of the south within a couple of years, it will be such a laugh, happy days "It depends if we go Full Brexit (tropic thunder reference ) or Brexit lite. I think if we go full Brexit there is a good chance of Scotland and maybe NI leaving, leading Wales to think they may as well leave as well. If we go Brexit lite, the Kingdom might remain United. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more." I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's only going to get worse for the southern countries of the disunited queendom , Scotland could be free of the south within a couple of years, it will be such a laugh, happy days
It depends if we go Full Brexit (tropic thunder reference ) or Brexit lite. I think if we go full Brexit there is a good chance of Scotland and maybe NI leaving, leading Wales to think they may as well leave as well. If we go Brexit lite, the Kingdom might remain United."Why would Wales want to leave the United Kingdom? A majority voted Leave in Wales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope it doesn't survive, the thought of being ruled from london by the evil tory party from now til end of days is deeply depressing " So you'd rather be ruled by unelected and unaccountable elites in a failing EU from Brussels? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen. "Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen. "Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen. "You spent a long time on that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen.
Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now!"They should feel secure and that was why Philip Hammond did it to give reassurance to business. Also with Corbyn in charge of the disaster zone that is the Labour party they don't have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020. Labour are now the lowest in the polls since they were in the early 1980's (thanks Owen Smith for highlighting that statistic from the Labour Hustings ) With another Conservative government elected in 2020, then the same level of funding (which i expect will be in their manifesto) will continue for the next term in parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No different from the tory party in London ruling Scotland, we never elected them. Yet there they sit, ruling all" Didn't hear anyone in Scotland complaining when we had 13 years of a Labour government from 1997 onwards? Why was that? Many people in England didn't vote for Labour during those 13 years but that is democracy and MP's are elected by the people. The ruling elite in the EU (the commissioners) are not elected by anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen.
You spent a long time on that "You didn't spend long on your reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen.
Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now!
They should feel secure and that was why Philip Hammond did it to give reassurance to business. Also with Corbyn in charge of the disaster zone that is the Labour party they don't have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020. Labour are now the lowest in the polls since they were in the early 1980's (thanks Owen Smith for highlighting that statistic from the Labour Hustings ) With another Conservative government elected in 2020, then the same level of funding (which i expect will be in their manifesto) will continue for the next term in parliament. "They have pledged 1 year of funding, that's it, that wont reassure anyone. If they had the balls and really believed that the economy will be better under Brexit then they would have pledged 10 years funding. That would have reassured people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen.
Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now!
They should feel secure and that was why Philip Hammond did it to give reassurance to business. Also with Corbyn in charge of the disaster zone that is the Labour party they don't have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020. Labour are now the lowest in the polls since they were in the early 1980's (thanks Owen Smith for highlighting that statistic from the Labour Hustings ) With another Conservative government elected in 2020, then the same level of funding (which i expect will be in their manifesto) will continue for the next term in parliament.
They have pledged 1 year of funding, that's it, that wont reassure anyone. If they had the balls and really believed that the economy will be better under Brexit then they would have pledged 10 years funding. That would have reassured people. "They can't pledge 10 years funding because this term in parliament only lasts until 2020 as you highlighted in your other post (make your mind up, lol). I suspect a key part of the Conservative manifesto before the next general election will be to continue with the same level of funding after we have left the EU, and as I said with the Labour party in disarray it looks at the moment like the tories are a sure thing to win in 2020. Then if they do win in 2020 they will only be able to pledge 5 years of funding until 2025 as we now have 5 year fixed term parliaments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No different from the tory party in London ruling Scotland, we never elected them. Yet there they sit, ruling all Didn't hear anyone in Scotland complaining when we had 13 years of a Labour government from 1997 onwards? Why was that? Many people in England didn't vote for Labour during those 13 years but that is democracy and MP's are elected by the people. The ruling elite in the EU (the commissioners) are not elected by anyone. " well , if being ruled by a bunch of folks less popular than hitlers mother that are from a different country is democracy , as a grea advocate of democracy you will be delighted at being lorded over by all those lovely democrats in europe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain’s farmers have had no reliable assurances from the brexit campaign about what type or level of agricultural support would be provided in the event of ‘brexit’, now many farmers fear the future as they wont be in the single market and many of their workers have to leave as they cant stay when the 2 years is up. I cant see any workers from the uk take such jobs to be in the fields, so how would the british farmers support itself? This will mean prices of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries will cost even more. I watched press preview on sky news last night, and on it the new chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said farming subsidies will be continued to be paid by the British government at the same level they are now once we leave the EU. He also said 'EU funding' will continue to be paid by the British government at the same current level in other industries such as medical research, etc, once we have left the EU. Remember this 'EU funding' was always British taxpayers money in the first place, it was just paid to the EU and then recycled and given back to us and called 'EU funding'. So now the British government will take control of that money and cut out the EU middle man, and the government will just pay the subsidies themselves. Seems like a better and more efficient way to do it in my opinion. Philip Hammond also said the UK government will have some extra £8.5 billion pounds every year in savings to play with from our EU membership fee once we have left. Philip Hammond was also VERY clear that the UK is leaving the EU and we will have fully left before the year 2020. So now we have both the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond (who were both Remainers in the referendum campaign) insisting that Brexit means Brexit and the UK will have left the EU before the end of this government in 2020. Everyone in the cabinet is on the same page on this, and all committed to Brexit. Anyone on here who is still in denial about leaving the EU had better get used to it because it WILL happen.
Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now!
They should feel secure and that was why Philip Hammond did it to give reassurance to business. Also with Corbyn in charge of the disaster zone that is the Labour party they don't have a hope in hell of winning a general election in 2020. Labour are now the lowest in the polls since they were in the early 1980's (thanks Owen Smith for highlighting that statistic from the Labour Hustings ) With another Conservative government elected in 2020, then the same level of funding (which i expect will be in their manifesto) will continue for the next term in parliament.
They have pledged 1 year of funding, that's it, that wont reassure anyone. If they had the balls and really believed that the economy will be better under Brexit then they would have pledged 10 years funding. That would have reassured people.
They can't pledge 10 years funding because this term in parliament only lasts until 2020 as you highlighted in your other post (make your mind up, lol). I suspect a key part of the Conservative manifesto before the next general election will be to continue with the same level of funding after we have left the EU, and as I said with the Labour party in disarray it looks at the moment like the tories are a sure thing to win in 2020. Then if they do win in 2020 they will only be able to pledge 5 years of funding until 2025 as we now have 5 year fixed term parliaments. "Of course they can pledge more than unto 2020, look at projects like Hinkley Point, or HS2, or Trident, they go over multiple parliaments. Look at other spending commitments such as the triple lock on pensions, that goes over multiple parliaments. Then there are other commitments such as Pension Credit, Tax Credits, disability benefits etc. no one says they are only committing to them for a single parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes what an AMAZING pledge he has made! The government has already said that they wont trigger article 50 before 2017. That will take is to 2019 until we leave the EU. So the chancellor has pledged funding from 2019 until 2020!!!!! One whole year of funding, wow, amazing! I'm sure everyone feels a lot more secure now!" First you Remoaners moan that there was no pledge to maintain scientific funding and now we have that pledge you keep on moaning. Even President of the Royal Society - a fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists - and Nobel laureate, Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, welcomed the funding announcement. Why can't you? Remoaners moaned about how Farmers will lose out and now we have a pledge to maintain equivalent CAP payments. The National Farmers' Union said the Treasury's announcement was "positive" for farming. Its president Meurig Raymond said: "I hope that this short-term certainty will help to deliver longer-term confidence and this is exactly what farm businesses need now." Why can't you? And what part of this Government cannot bind any future Government and so can only plan up to 2020 don't you quite understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Of course they can pledge more than unto 2020, look at projects like Hinkley Point, or HS2, or Trident, they go over multiple parliaments." These are capital spending commitments authorised by Act of Parliament. And as such they can be changed by Parliament at any time. " Look at other spending commitments such as the triple lock on pensions, that goes over multiple parliaments. Then there are other commitments such as Pension Credit, Tax Credits, disability benefits etc. no one says they are only committing to them for a single parliament." Oh dear... you really are in difficulty here. As you say these are Spending commitments that can only be authorised by the Finance Bill of the new Government renewed at every annual Budget. And a current Government cannot bind a future Government on spending as it may have a completely different economic policy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next...." getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice "The last time 'the yanks' told us to go to war in Syrai we told them to f**k off .... just saying. But hey if you think being ruled by Brussels is 'Independence' and is a better option then leave. 'Jog on' as some of my mates are saying. Many of us English are now prepared to wave you, led by the likes of Sturgeon, Salmond and Whinney, byebye as you sail off into the North Sea ...
Here is a thought for you: I put up with 13 years of Labour Government neither me or millions like me in England voted for. It was only you Jocks that kept Blair and Brown in power for so long. Mind Brown did rewarded his own constituency with £Billions of carrier work while Blair took us into an illegal war .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice
The last time 'the yanks' told us to go to war in Syrai we told them to f**k off .... just saying.
But hey if you think being ruled by Brussels is 'Independence' and is a better option then leave. 'Jog on' as some of my mates are saying. Many of us English are now prepared to wave you, led by the likes of Sturgeon, Salmond and Whinney, byebye as you sail off into the North Sea ...
Here is a thought for you: I put up with 13 years of Labour Government neither me or millions like me in England voted for. It was only you Jocks that kept Blair and Brown in power for so long. Mind Brown did rewarded his own constituency with £Billions of carrier work while Blair took us into an illegal war ...."england had great delight in the most evil woman on earth ruling scotland from london so it would only be nice and fair and democratic to repay in kind with having iron broon and the used car salesman at the helm , but the south got their own back by having dodgy davie in his i love panama hat and his mate cleggie the cardboard cut out running our country for us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Of course they can pledge more than unto 2020, look at projects like Hinkley Point, or HS2, or Trident, they go over multiple parliaments. These are capital spending commitments authorised by Act of Parliament. And as such they can be changed by Parliament at any time. Look at other spending commitments such as the triple lock on pensions, that goes over multiple parliaments. Then there are other commitments such as Pension Credit, Tax Credits, disability benefits etc. no one says they are only committing to them for a single parliament. Oh dear... you really are in difficulty here. As you say these are Spending commitments that can only be authorised by the Finance Bill of the new Government renewed at every annual Budget. And a current Government cannot bind a future Government on spending as it may have a completely different economic policy!"
Spot on there, and it's ridiculous for some to say Trident is a sure thing for the future, if a Corbyn Labour government ever got into power first item on his agenda would be to scrap the trident project or he would just have British subs sailing around the world with no missiles on board. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice "....and if the EU goes ahead with its EU army project like Jean Claude Juncker wants, Scottish troops could be sent into battle by Brussels and you wouldn't have any say in the matter. So you have 2 choices, be at the whim of Westminster or Brussels. There is a 3rd choice to be fully independent, that means leave the United Kingdom and leave the EU, Now that would be real independence. There is no independence as part of the EU, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice
The last time 'the yanks' told us to go to war in Syrai we told them to f**k off .... just saying.
But hey if you think being ruled by Brussels is 'Independence' and is a better option then leave. 'Jog on' as some of my mates are saying. Many of us English are now prepared to wave you, led by the likes of Sturgeon, Salmond and Whinney, byebye as you sail off into the North Sea ...
Here is a thought for you: I put up with 13 years of Labour Government neither me or millions like me in England voted for. It was only you Jocks that kept Blair and Brown in power for so long. Mind Brown did rewarded his own constituency with £Billions of carrier work while Blair took us into an illegal war ....
england had great delight in the most evil woman on earth ruling scotland from london so it would only be nice and fair and democratic to repay in kind with having iron broon and the used car salesman at the helm , but the south got their own back by having dodgy davie in his i love panama hat and his mate cleggie the cardboard cut out running our country for us "You are not too good at factual history are you? In 1979 Scotland returned 22 Tory out of 67 MPs to Westminster. It sent 21 in 1983 and 10 in 1987. All of whom supported Maggie. The best peacetime Prime Minister this country ever had. Again you Jocks make me smile about being governed by people you didn't vote for. That is how Democracy works and if you are taken in by the smoke and mirrors of the SNP please don't come bleating to us when you realise how they have destroyed Scotland's finances. Of course up until now they have been able to blame us evil English for everything while quietly pocketing our £15 Billion. Well this year its YOU Jocks who will be paying. That is about £3,000 for every man, woman and child. Enjoy .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice "You've just pin pointed why we let Scotland remain in the UK. Cannon fodder  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and from the depths of the heather of deepest Scotlandshire emerges the Dinosaur of 'Independence'. Again... Call me dim but why is rule from Brussels which costs you money and sovereignty a better option than being ruled from Westminster under which Scotland was paid some £15 Bn last year? Especially as Devolution has given Scotland control over everything bar Foreign Policy and Defence? As an Englishman and Unionist all my life I am now sad at hearing fellow English people saying 'OK jog on we can't afford you.. £13 Bn saved from the Eu and £15 Bn saved from Scotland'. Next.... getting ruled by europe costs us money and sovereignty , quite possible , ruled by england costs us sovereignty and life,every time the yanks tell london to join in another illegal war Scotland gets to spill its blood to keep london happy with no way of stopping it its a no brainer , lose money or lose human beings at the whim of westminster , its an easy choice
The last time 'the yanks' told us to go to war in Syrai we told them to f**k off .... just saying.
But hey if you think being ruled by Brussels is 'Independence' and is a better option then leave. 'Jog on' as some of my mates are saying. Many of us English are now prepared to wave you, led by the likes of Sturgeon, Salmond and Whinney, byebye as you sail off into the North Sea ...
Here is a thought for you: I put up with 13 years of Labour Government neither me or millions like me in England voted for. It was only you Jocks that kept Blair and Brown in power for so long. Mind Brown did rewarded his own constituency with £Billions of carrier work while Blair took us into an illegal war ....
england had great delight in the most evil woman on earth ruling scotland from london so it would only be nice and fair and democratic to repay in kind with having iron broon and the used car salesman at the helm , but the south got their own back by having dodgy davie in his i love panama hat and his mate cleggie the cardboard cut out running our country for us
You are not too good at factual history are you? In 1979 Scotland returned 22 Tory out of 67 MPs to Westminster. It sent 21 in 1983 and 10 in 1987. All of whom supported Maggie. The best peacetime Prime Minister this country ever had.
Again you Jocks make me smile about being governed by people you didn't vote for. That is how Democracy works and if you are taken in by the smoke and mirrors of the SNP please don't come bleating to us when you realise how they have destroyed Scotland's finances. Of course up until now they have been able to blame us evil English for everything while quietly pocketing our £15 Billion. Well this year its YOU Jocks who will be paying. That is about £3,000 for every man, woman and child. Enjoy ...."is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. " I thought we had all got past the racist shit but hey ho ... So where was my 'vile racist comment'? Who insulted the people of Scotland and where? If my argument was so 'incompetent' argue the point back if you can. When you call someone a 'racist' a) make sure they are making hateful comments against someone of a different race purely because they are different and b) do not play the racism card to try win an argument. You just lose it straight away. It is utterly incompetent to attack the person rather than the points raised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. I thought we had all got past the racist shit but hey ho ... So where was my 'vile racist comment'? Who insulted the people of Scotland and where? If my argument was so 'incompetent' argue the point back if you can. When you call someone a 'racist' a) make sure they are making hateful comments against someone of a different race purely because they are different and b) do not play the racism card to try win an argument. You just lose it straight away. It is utterly incompetent to attack the person rather than the points raised." Calling a Scot - a "Jock" is no different from calling someone of black skin the "N" word and you know that only too well, yet you continue to do it. Very easy to do this on a forum, but to walk into a bar in Scotland and do it would be an entirely different story You offend and you know only too well that you offend, that is why you continue to do it. You should hold your head in shame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. I thought we had all got past the racist shit but hey ho ... So where was my 'vile racist comment'? Who insulted the people of Scotland and where? If my argument was so 'incompetent' argue the point back if you can. When you call someone a 'racist' a) make sure they are making hateful comments against someone of a different race purely because they are different and b) do not play the racism card to try win an argument. You just lose it straight away. It is utterly incompetent to attack the person rather than the points raised. Calling a Scot - a "Jock" is no different from calling someone of black skin the "N" word and you know that only too well, yet you continue to do it. Very easy to do this on a forum, but to walk into a bar in Scotland and do it would be an entirely different story You offend and you know only too well that you offend, that is why you continue to do it. You should hold your head in shame" You are utterly and completely wrong in your portrayal of the use of the word 'Jock' as in any way 'racist'. You are making yourself look completely stupid. I do NOT do it to offend as no Scot I know would ever take any such offence. And listen up: I have walked into Scottish pubs and bought drinks for 'Jocks' and had some great banter. You are the only Scot I have come across who has taken offence so I think its YOU who needs to get out more and maybe stop shovelling the 'racist' shit here. It is YOU who knows what he is doing and it is YOU doing it to cause offence. But I actually don't give a flying one mate ....
From the BBC back in 2009:
"Jock is widely used as a nickname for John, and represents an everyman - literally a John or Jane Doe, a John Q Citizen, a Scot, plain and simple, as well as a Scottish squaddie."
and:
"Nigel Buckland, a Welsh comedian who lives in Glasgow, believes concerns over the word Jock reflect regionalism, rather than racism.
He said: "That goes on everywhere, I don't think Jock, or Taff or Brummie or Scouser are pejorative terms, it's like when you call people 'guys' - it's a collective term and it just breaks things down."
And:
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as slang for a Scottish or northern English sailor or soldier, as well as for any Scotsman.
The OED also notes its first appearance as a "jeering appellation" for a north-country seaman, but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff."
And:
"The army connections are strong and indeed the Black Watch are proud to call themselves The Jocks."
And:
"Andrew Pierce, the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: 'Jock is just a term of affection in the same way Paddy is a term of affection for the Irish. I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff. I think if people are so worried now it shows that this onward, relentless march of the politically correct brigade has gone too far. People have been making jokes about the Jocks for as long as I've been on this planet and I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff than that."
And finally:
"There is something of the humorous and friendly about Jock and indeed in the early 1900s Harry Lauder had a music hall smash with his slightly saucy 'Stop Your Tickling Jock'..."
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. I thought we had all got past the racist shit but hey ho ... So where was my 'vile racist comment'? Who insulted the people of Scotland and where? If my argument was so 'incompetent' argue the point back if you can. When you call someone a 'racist' a) make sure they are making hateful comments against someone of a different race purely because they are different and b) do not play the racism card to try win an argument. You just lose it straight away. It is utterly incompetent to attack the person rather than the points raised. Calling a Scot - a "Jock" is no different from calling someone of black skin the "N" word and you know that only too well, yet you continue to do it. Very easy to do this on a forum, but to walk into a bar in Scotland and do it would be an entirely different story You offend and you know only too well that you offend, that is why you continue to do it. You should hold your head in shame You are utterly and completely wrong in your portrayal of the use of the word 'Jock' as in any way 'racist'. You are making yourself look completely stupid. I do NOT do it to offend as no Scot I know would ever take any such offence. And listen up: I have walked into Scottish pubs and bought drinks for 'Jocks' and had some great banter. You are the only Scot I have come across who has taken offence so I think its YOU who needs to get out more and maybe stop shovelling the 'racist' shit here. It is YOU who knows what he is doing and it is YOU doing it to cause offence. But I actually don't give a flying one mate ....
From the BBC back in 2009:
"Jock is widely used as a nickname for John, and represents an everyman - literally a John or Jane Doe, a John Q Citizen, a Scot, plain and simple, as well as a Scottish squaddie."
and:
"Nigel Buckland, a Welsh comedian who lives in Glasgow, believes concerns over the word Jock reflect regionalism, rather than racism.
He said: "That goes on everywhere, I don't think Jock, or Taff or Brummie or Scouser are pejorative terms, it's like when you call people 'guys' - it's a collective term and it just breaks things down."
And:
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as slang for a Scottish or northern English sailor or soldier, as well as for any Scotsman.
The OED also notes its first appearance as a "jeering appellation" for a north-country seaman, but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff."
And:
"The army connections are strong and indeed the Black Watch are proud to call themselves The Jocks."
And:
"Andrew Pierce, the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: 'Jock is just a term of affection in the same way Paddy is a term of affection for the Irish. I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff. I think if people are so worried now it shows that this onward, relentless march of the politically correct brigade has gone too far. People have been making jokes about the Jocks for as long as I've been on this planet and I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff than that."
And finally:
"There is something of the humorous and friendly about Jock and indeed in the early 1900s Harry Lauder had a music hall smash with his slightly saucy 'Stop Your Tickling Jock'..."
"I see you preferred to edit this bit out of your BBC quote "Clearly it doesn't rank alongside a whole range of more serious racial slurs, but as with all language it can also carry real venom depending on how it's used" A British Airlines pilot has taken the airline to a tribunal, saying he was victimised and called a "Jock". BA has said any reports of racist behaviour are taken extremely seriously and investigated as a matter of priority Again, feel free to walk into any pub in Glasgow, Fife or Perthshire and call anyone you don't know "a jock", would be interesting to see if you walk back out. You clearly are being racist and you know it, you are just trying to be smart and think you can justify your actions, this simply lowers the tone and is not called for. Again, is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people of Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. Many Scots deem this extremely racist including myself Please stop as there is no need for these disgusting comments and name calling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required. I thought we had all got past the racist shit but hey ho ... So where was my 'vile racist comment'? Who insulted the people of Scotland and where? If my argument was so 'incompetent' argue the point back if you can. When you call someone a 'racist' a) make sure they are making hateful comments against someone of a different race purely because they are different and b) do not play the racism card to try win an argument. You just lose it straight away. It is utterly incompetent to attack the person rather than the points raised. Calling a Scot - a "Jock" is no different from calling someone of black skin the "N" word and you know that only too well, yet you continue to do it. Very easy to do this on a forum, but to walk into a bar in Scotland and do it would be an entirely different story You offend and you know only too well that you offend, that is why you continue to do it. You should hold your head in shame You are utterly and completely wrong in your portrayal of the use of the word 'Jock' as in any way 'racist'. You are making yourself look completely stupid. I do NOT do it to offend as no Scot I know would ever take any such offence. And listen up: I have walked into Scottish pubs and bought drinks for 'Jocks' and had some great banter. You are the only Scot I have come across who has taken offence so I think its YOU who needs to get out more and maybe stop shovelling the 'racist' shit here. It is YOU who knows what he is doing and it is YOU doing it to cause offence. But I actually don't give a flying one mate ....
From the BBC back in 2009:
"Jock is widely used as a nickname for John, and represents an everyman - literally a John or Jane Doe, a John Q Citizen, a Scot, plain and simple, as well as a Scottish squaddie."
and:
"Nigel Buckland, a Welsh comedian who lives in Glasgow, believes concerns over the word Jock reflect regionalism, rather than racism.
He said: "That goes on everywhere, I don't think Jock, or Taff or Brummie or Scouser are pejorative terms, it's like when you call people 'guys' - it's a collective term and it just breaks things down."
And:
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as slang for a Scottish or northern English sailor or soldier, as well as for any Scotsman.
The OED also notes its first appearance as a "jeering appellation" for a north-country seaman, but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff."
And:
"The army connections are strong and indeed the Black Watch are proud to call themselves The Jocks."
And:
"Andrew Pierce, the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: 'Jock is just a term of affection in the same way Paddy is a term of affection for the Irish. I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff. I think if people are so worried now it shows that this onward, relentless march of the politically correct brigade has gone too far. People have been making jokes about the Jocks for as long as I've been on this planet and I thought the Scots were made of tougher stuff than that."
And finally:
"There is something of the humorous and friendly about Jock and indeed in the early 1900s Harry Lauder had a music hall smash with his slightly saucy 'Stop Your Tickling Jock'..."
I see you preferred to edit this bit out of your BBC quote
"Clearly it doesn't rank alongside a whole range of more serious racial slurs, but as with all language it can also carry real venom depending on how it's used"
A British Airlines pilot has taken the airline to a tribunal, saying he was victimised and called a "Jock". BA has said any reports of racist behaviour are taken extremely seriously and investigated as a matter of priority
Again, feel free to walk into any pub in Glasgow, Fife or Perthshire and call anyone you don't know "a jock", would be interesting to see if you walk back out.
You clearly are being racist and you know it, you are just trying to be smart and think you can justify your actions, this simply lowers the tone and is not called for.
Again, is it really necessary to have vile racist comments, please try to argue without insulting the people of Scotland, it just shows your incompetence in raising an argument by throwing racist insults and is simply not required.
Many Scots deem this extremely racist including myself
Please stop as there is no need for these disgusting comments and name calling"I have to agree. It the same as calling an Irishman a "Mick". It can be taken in great offence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
