Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss." Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc." Did you read the article? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More melodrama over Brexit. 6 billion is nothing compared to what our government sends abroad to other countries out of our tax money. Covid has costed us anywhere inbetween 310 to 410 billion quid according to parliament documents. While Brexit may very well be challenging for some, our biggest problem that affects is is the fuel cost, frozen tax rates, and high interest. Perhaps focus more on where tax money is actually going instead of parroting the same narrative as the media. They aren't your friend and they aren't there to 'inform' you." £6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More melodrama over Brexit. 6 billion is nothing compared to what our government sends abroad to other countries out of our tax money. Covid has costed us anywhere inbetween 310 to 410 billion quid according to parliament documents. While Brexit may very well be challenging for some, our biggest problem that affects is is the fuel cost, frozen tax rates, and high interest. Perhaps focus more on where tax money is actually going instead of parroting the same narrative as the media. They aren't your friend and they aren't there to 'inform' you." Well I think that’s quite a silly thing to say in that it is a direct effect upon everyone’s personal income rather than part of the process of governing a country. It’s false equivalence and shows a gross misunderstanding of the difference between personal and public finance. I think a far better response would have been to admit that under the tories 12 years of government we now have the highest national debt ever, the highest tax burden in 70 years, a stagnating economy, the lowest wage growth in 12 years. Maybe you are doing ok but I and many of my friends are not seeing the point of carrying on working when the most we can hope for is that we will be able to stand still (if we are lucky!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More melodrama over Brexit. 6 billion is nothing compared to what our government sends abroad to other countries out of our tax money. Covid has costed us anywhere inbetween 310 to 410 billion quid according to parliament documents. While Brexit may very well be challenging for some, our biggest problem that affects is is the fuel cost, frozen tax rates, and high interest. Perhaps focus more on where tax money is actually going instead of parroting the same narrative as the media. They aren't your friend and they aren't there to 'inform' you." The UK aid budget is around £11bn. Annual cost to the economy of brexit estimates vary. But all seem way higher. One one hand. Some of the aid budget actually does good. On the other hand £ billions have been flushed down the brexit toilet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc." Aliens, Corbyn, etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc." Or maybe it was magic beans? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans?" There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans? There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives? "Yes what are the Tufton St lot up to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans? There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives?
Yes what are the Tufton St lot up to?"I am not sure, but they have had 2 years to find something | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans? There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives? "Someone posted up that a German bloke they know said it was going great. What more do you want? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans? There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives?
Someone posted up that a German bloke they know said it was going great. What more do you want?"True, but I know a German bloke who said Brexit is shite, who do I believe ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. " They did, although the real life consequences of leaving the EU were written off as "project fear". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc. Aliens, Corbyn, etc. Or maybe it was magic beans? There seems to be a number of studies that highlight the disadvantages of Brexit, why aren’t there any reporting on the positives?
Someone posted up that a German bloke they know said it was going great. What more do you want?
True, but I know a German bloke who said Brexit is shite, who do I believe ? "It doesn't matter which fictional German bloke we choose to believe, as long as we don't look at any real life information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was in the Guardian..more lefty bollocks??" It's from Centre for Economic Performance. So it's real life information, which as you correctly point out is considered "lefty bollocks" to people who think brexit was a good idea.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was in the Guardian..more lefty bollocks??" Do you prefer righty bollocks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. " Everyone? A number of prominent leave campaigners stated that leaving the EU would reduce food prices | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. " They didn’t. I know plenty of leave voters who believed the lies they were told by prominent brexiters. Of those who will still admit to voting leave (they forget I remember) all have buyers remorse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. " Now that is really funny, was it sarcasm ? Have you ever been to another country like the USA and bought clothes, food, car, petrol, eat out ??? Even with shite exchange rates it's cheaper lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More melodrama over Brexit. 6 billion is nothing compared to what our government sends abroad to other countries out of our tax money. Covid has costed us anywhere inbetween 310 to 410 billion quid according to parliament documents. While Brexit may very well be challenging for some, our biggest problem that affects is is the fuel cost, frozen tax rates, and high interest. Perhaps focus more on where tax money is actually going instead of parroting the same narrative as the media. They aren't your friend and they aren't there to 'inform' you. The UK aid budget is around £11bn. Annual cost to the economy of brexit estimates vary. But all seem way higher. One one hand. Some of the aid budget actually does good. On the other hand £ billions have been flushed down the brexit toilet." of which 3bn is currently being spent in the UK. We are comparing an annual number with what looks to be two years. But it's not nothing. It's also an odd argument. Brexit isnt quite as bad as the effects of a war happening in Europe. Or once in a life time pandemic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. " a) impacts are cumulative. These will all add up. And b) people are fighting to get any type of payrise. If you earn 20k pa the first 1pc of any payrise is being swallowed up by this cost. It feels small beans only because inflation is 10pc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. Now that is really funny, was it sarcasm ? Have you ever been to another country like the USA and bought clothes, food, car, petrol, eat out ??? Even with shite exchange rates it's cheaper lol" USA yes, but test of the world no. Petrol I did not say - I said food and fashion retail This isn’t my opinion it’s factual our food and fashion retail and been underpriced since the 80s if you look at the percentage of income we spent s on food in the 80s through to 2020s it sharply declined. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. " So you would be utterly unconcerned if I came and stole £210 from your wallet on 1st January every year? If I did that to every one of your friends and relatives? If I stole that money from your grandparents? Tell you what, if £210 is so little to you, why don't you donate it now to a homeless charity? Do a photo of you holding the receipt, publish it on your profile. I'll open that challenge up to everyone of the posters that keep saying they don't mind being worse off from brexit. Put your money where your mouths are. Donate to homeless, or refugees, or hungry children, or any good cause where people are in great need. Post that you're really happy to have less money for yourself, lets see photos of those charity receipts on your profiles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. So you would be utterly unconcerned if I came and stole £210 from your wallet on 1st January every year? If I did that to every one of your friends and relatives? If I stole that money from your grandparents? Tell you what, if £210 is so little to you, why don't you donate it now to a homeless charity? Do a photo of you holding the receipt, publish it on your profile. I'll open that challenge up to everyone of the posters that keep saying they don't mind being worse off from brexit. Put your money where your mouths are. Donate to homeless, or refugees, or hungry children, or any good cause where people are in great need. Post that you're really happy to have less money for yourself, lets see photos of those charity receipts on your profiles." . Maybe this test should be the other way found. Most rational people accept that food inflation is world wide problem and not specific to the UK. If you actually believe that you saved £210 per annum which would equate to £2100 over ten years simply follow your own advice and give these savings to charity . EU countries have exactly the same food price inflation and cost pressures as the UK. Try completing a tax return in any EU country and you will realise how lucky we are in the UK . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. " £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. So you would be utterly unconcerned if I came and stole £210 from your wallet on 1st January every year? If I did that to every one of your friends and relatives? If I stole that money from your grandparents? Tell you what, if £210 is so little to you, why don't you donate it now to a homeless charity? Do a photo of you holding the receipt, publish it on your profile. I'll open that challenge up to everyone of the posters that keep saying they don't mind being worse off from brexit. Put your money where your mouths are. Donate to homeless, or refugees, or hungry children, or any good cause where people are in great need. Post that you're really happy to have less money for yourself, lets see photos of those charity receipts on your profiles.. Maybe this test should be the other way found. Most rational people accept that food inflation is world wide problem and not specific to the UK. If you actually believe that you saved £210 per annum which would equate to £2100 over ten years simply follow your own advice and give these savings to charity . EU countries have exactly the same food price inflation and cost pressures as the UK. Try completing a tax return in any EU country and you will realise how lucky we are in the UK . " Did you read the article or are you constructing an argument that suits your position? The study sought to isolate the effect of Brexit. How successfully may be debatable but the point is this is in addition to the problems that everyone else is having. Try getting medical treatment in Germany and you may realise how much of a problem we have in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was in the Guardian..more lefty bollocks??" Did you read the article? It has been reported widely so is the same information not lefty bollocks when written somewhere else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is no surprise . Since the 1980s food and other items like fashion retail in the uk have been very underpriced and even reduced and exiting the EU brings prices back in line with other countries. Everyone knew this would happen. " Did you want to pay more for these "underpriced" goods than our neighbouring countries then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds Discuss. Yeah, it has nothing to do with covid, a war in Europe etc." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. So you would be utterly unconcerned if I came and stole £210 from your wallet on 1st January every year? If I did that to every one of your friends and relatives? If I stole that money from your grandparents? Tell you what, if £210 is so little to you, why don't you donate it now to a homeless charity? Do a photo of you holding the receipt, publish it on your profile. I'll open that challenge up to everyone of the posters that keep saying they don't mind being worse off from brexit. Put your money where your mouths are. Donate to homeless, or refugees, or hungry children, or any good cause where people are in great need. Post that you're really happy to have less money for yourself, lets see photos of those charity receipts on your profiles." No one has stlen anything per se. I think if you wanna 'debate' this you should at least get your figures right, from what I read it's £210 over 2 years, paid for weekly or monthly, dependant on how you do your food shop. £2/week on our food bills is actually nothing compared to what we are experiencing right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it?" Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'?" I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? " I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives." And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences." Do you know off any rigorous, fully worked through calculated research papers that show any benefits of Brexit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know off any rigorous, fully worked through calculated research papers that show any benefits of Brexit " This is the first Brexit analysis paper I've read, so no, I don't know of any that put an opposing view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know off any rigorous, fully worked through calculated research papers that show any benefits of Brexit This is the first Brexit analysis paper I've read, so no, I don't know of any that put an opposing view." Fair enough, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The benefit of Brexit is obvious. The food in my freezer is now an investment that I'll soon be able to sell at a profit."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. " No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences." You are providing opinion. Which is fine, but you do insist on implying that what you do is in some way thought out and rigorous. Your "back-of-an envelope" assertion is pretty meaningless as your figures are pulled out of the air. You are literally doing the thing that you are complaining about. The study was conducted by the LSE. I am, strangely enough, going to choose to believe that they are significantly more knowledgeable than you are in their understanding and use of the figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know off any rigorous, fully worked through calculated research papers that show any benefits of Brexit This is the first Brexit analysis paper I've read, so no, I don't know of any that put an opposing view." The OBR provided an analysis of the costs of Brexit some time ago. Perhaps that is worth reading and critiquing? https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/ The ONS trade figures can also be looked at https://www.cityam.com/eu-membership-vs-lost-exports-and-trade-forget-extra-nhs-cash-brexit-costs-britain-173m-per-week/ The OECD has done some work https://www.oecd.org/economy/the-economic-consequences-of-brexit-a-taxing-decision.htm The FT has looked at the data https://www.ft.com/content/e39d0315-fd5b-47c8-8560-04bb786f2c13 So has Bloomberg and other financial publications. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-11-22/what-s-happening-in-the-world-economy-second-thoughts-over-brexit?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=mobile_web_share I understand that you do not think much of the London School of Economics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences." from looking at it the have down full analysis. They have taken their results on that data (which has a mix of eu and non EU imports, with c 75pc being eu) and said that if a food type purely came from Eu then the effect would be as stated above. Their approach is all there in the paper. Not quite sure what you are expecting more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives." "And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences." "You are providing opinion. Which is fine, but you do insist on implying that what you do is in some way thought out and rigorous. Your "back-of-an envelope" assertion is pretty meaningless as your figures are pulled out of the air. You are literally doing the thing that you are complaining about." I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I wasn't making assertions, or providing figures, I was quoting the LSE paper. They literally use the phrase "back-of-an envelope" to describe their own figures, and then say that their calculation "implies ... more inflation". If you're happy with that standard of evidence, then you're easier to please than I am. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs." Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences. You are providing opinion. Which is fine, but you do insist on implying that what you do is in some way thought out and rigorous. Your "back-of-an envelope" assertion is pretty meaningless as your figures are pulled out of the air. You are literally doing the thing that you are complaining about. I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I wasn't making assertions, or providing figures, I was quoting the LSE paper. They literally use the phrase "back-of-an envelope" to describe their own figures, and then say that their calculation "implies ... more inflation". If you're happy with that standard of evidence, then you're easier to please than I am." I know you were quoting as I looked at the paper. Having done some maths in some data, they arrived at a Brexit inflation number for food. But they recognised that food came 3/4 from EU and 1/4 from non EU. And so backsolved what the inflation on EU food was. It was that last hit that was "back of the envelope". It does assume that all food inflation from brexit was on EU food imports. That's my reading. Correct me if I'm wrong. Bit it was the final step that came from simple maths rather than the whole process. Your quite suggested the paper was a quick sum. That's not the impression I got from the paper. It looked like they had done the work you required. I'm curious why you think this isn't backed by data and calculations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised." Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More melodrama over Brexit. 6 billion is nothing compared to what our government sends abroad to other countries out of our tax money. Covid has costed us anywhere inbetween 310 to 410 billion quid according to parliament documents. While Brexit may very well be challenging for some, our biggest problem that affects is is the fuel cost, frozen tax rates, and high interest. Perhaps focus more on where tax money is actually going instead of parroting the same narrative as the media. They aren't your friend and they aren't there to 'inform' you. £6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household " £210 per household sounds like a lot of money. Over 2 years it's just over £2 a week. No doubting Brexit is a clusterfuck though, can't argue with that.
Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. And you're right, if someone is attempting to show that Brexit has ruined the economy, then proof of a £2 a week hit per household is not a persuasive argument. It gets even less so when you read the paper and see that it says: "Given the mean EU import share for food products is 0.75, a back-of-the-envelope calculation implies that a product with full EU import exposure would experience 4.9% more inflation in 2020 and 8.1% higher inflation over 2020 and 2021 in comparison to a product with no EU import exposure. Thus, Brexit increased average food prices by approximately 3% annually in 2020 and 2021". I don't know about you, but I prefer my research papers to have actual, rigorous, fully worked through calculations. I also expect the researchers to prove their findings, not just report their inferences. You are providing opinion. Which is fine, but you do insist on implying that what you do is in some way thought out and rigorous. Your "back-of-an envelope" assertion is pretty meaningless as your figures are pulled out of the air. You are literally doing the thing that you are complaining about. I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I wasn't making assertions, or providing figures, I was quoting the LSE paper. They literally use the phrase "back-of-an envelope" to describe their own figures, and then say that their calculation "implies ... more inflation". If you're happy with that standard of evidence, then you're easier to please than I am." I stand corrected. However, you are still implying that it was poor quality work. It isn't, is it? It just requires some educated judgement based on experience that they have and we don't. Aircraft flight dynamics are "back-of-an-envelope" too until a certain level of detail is available. The Spitfire was back-of-an envelope by today's standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? " Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. " Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple " is that the same Tories that the people voted on ? Albeit it's not a majority TBF. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple " How could any political party have made a success of brexit? It was specifically designed to damage the British economy (amongst other things). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple How could any political party have made a success of brexit? It was specifically designed to damage the British economy (amongst other things)." Rubbish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household " 6 billion is nothing in relation the country. What would personally hurt you more, missing out on £210 per year or missing out on between £10,000 and £14,000 per year? (6 billion vs 310 to 410 billion). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple How could any political party have made a success of brexit? It was specifically designed to damage the British economy (amongst other things). Rubbish " Which bit is "rubbish"? The outlandish suggestion that brexit could have been made a success for British people. Or that brexit was planned, designed and executed to bring maximum profit and power to those at the top at our expense (otherwise known as what actually happened in real life). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household 6 billion is nothing in relation the country. What would personally hurt you more, missing out on £210 per year or missing out on between £10,000 and £14,000 per year? (6 billion vs 310 to 410 billion)." what are those numbers ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household 6 billion is nothing in relation the country. What would personally hurt you more, missing out on £210 per year or missing out on between £10,000 and £14,000 per year? (6 billion vs 310 to 410 billion).what are those numbers ?" If £210 is the cost per household on spending by the government of 6 billion, and 310 billion is about 51 times as much and 410 billion would be about 68 times as much. Just reiterating that splitting 6 billion across households is actually nowhere near s bad as higher spending. It's all about having perspective but too many folk tunnel vision and can't see the woods for the trees. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple How could any political party have made a success of brexit? It was specifically designed to damage the British economy (amongst other things). Rubbish " The whole idea of brexit was utter bollocks, there is no possibility of any type of brexit which could make the United Kingdom better off. There were plenty of ways of it making a tiny minority of already rich people much richer, at the expense of everyone else in the country being worse off, which is exactly what we have seen. Brexit was a con trick promoted by the rich few, appealing to the ill informed, the gullible and the xenophobic many. Brexit was intended to take back control - take control away from ordinary people and hand it all to the corrupt government and their backers. Brexit was and is nothing but a crime against the ordinary people of the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household 6 billion is nothing in relation the country. What would personally hurt you more, missing out on £210 per year or missing out on between £10,000 and £14,000 per year? (6 billion vs 310 to 410 billion).what are those numbers ? If £210 is the cost per household on spending by the government of 6 billion, and 310 billion is about 51 times as much and 410 billion would be about 68 times as much. Just reiterating that splitting 6 billion across households is actually nowhere near s bad as higher spending. It's all about having perspective but too many folk tunnel vision and can't see the woods for the trees." ah right, the COVID spending. But COVID is a one in a hundred year event. Whereas Brexit costs are incurred each and every year. So if we spread COVID over 100 years that's 3bn pa. And Brexit food redtape is 3bn pa. So, on average, Brexit food inflation will costs us the same as the same as a pandemic. It's a bit of a mathsy way of looking at it, but I think it stacks up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? Because once you have joined the tribe and crowed over winning, derided people with derogatory names for being on the other side and told them how stupid they are, it is difficult to accept that the reality may not be quite what you thought. People will accept a lot of hardship for the sake of their ego. Hang on, it's anyone who voted Brexit that's being accused of being stupid, not the other way round. Let's get this clear. There's fuck all wrong with the ideal of Brexit (the majority told you that) but the Tories have failed to deliver. It's that simple " You think that this current Government is incompetent, dishonest and stupid. This is the Government that completely believed in Brexit to the extent that it purged everyone who supported it from any position of power. Who could have delivered the Brexit that you wanted and what is your version because there are 17.4 million versions. It was never defined so the crap version that we have is the version you voted for. You can decide if that decision was stupid or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£6 billion is nothing? It equates to £210 per household 6 billion is nothing in relation the country. What would personally hurt you more, missing out on £210 per year or missing out on between £10,000 and £14,000 per year? (6 billion vs 310 to 410 billion).what are those numbers ? If £210 is the cost per household on spending by the government of 6 billion, and 310 billion is about 51 times as much and 410 billion would be about 68 times as much. Just reiterating that splitting 6 billion across households is actually nowhere near s bad as higher spending. It's all about having perspective but too many folk tunnel vision and can't see the woods for the trees." Why do you believe that the only consequence of Brexit is higher food prices? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? " The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. " Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. " It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is." That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. " I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this?" Yeah of course. I have absolutely zero expectations that I will ever influence anyone's opinion by posting on here. It's just a bit of fun to have banter with people defending brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this? Yeah of course. I have absolutely zero expectations that I will ever influence anyone's opinion by posting on here. It's just a bit of fun to have banter with people defending brexit. " Maybe im too serious but most of what I see online isn't banter imo. Most of these discussions are 'remainers' talking amongst themselves  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is." I can understand that point of view. I think unfortunately there are still loose ends to tie up. The NI protocol for instance. This means that fully implementing brexit will be a big topic for the next GE. If I understand correctly, some of the deal with the EU has not been implemented due to the on going row over the NI protocol. SKS has said he will sort this out, but the EU have said no to renegotiating. So either he is bluffing or he will just accept whatever the EU says. He also says we will have much closer ties with the single market to reduce barriers but without freedom of movement or rejoining. What is not explained i how he will do this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. I can understand that point of view. I think unfortunately there are still loose ends to tie up. The NI protocol for instance. This means that fully implementing brexit will be a big topic for the next GE. If I understand correctly, some of the deal with the EU has not been implemented due to the on going row over the NI protocol. SKS has said he will sort this out, but the EU have said no to renegotiating. So either he is bluffing or he will just accept whatever the EU says. He also says we will have much closer ties with the single market to reduce barriers but without freedom of movement or rejoining. What is not explained i how he will do this. " or the EU is bluffing. FoM and SM aren't inextricably tied. So I suspect he is saying this is his aim rather than he wi deffo do it. I've not seen his position in full tho. But fair to ask for details. Just hold all parties to the same standards. Imo part of the pickle is because the Tories (and other leavers) have failed to have a plan. Just a dream. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. I can understand that point of view. I think unfortunately there are still loose ends to tie up. The NI protocol for instance. This means that fully implementing brexit will be a big topic for the next GE. If I understand correctly, some of the deal with the EU has not been implemented due to the on going row over the NI protocol. SKS has said he will sort this out, but the EU have said no to renegotiating. So either he is bluffing or he will just accept whatever the EU says. He also says we will have much closer ties with the single market to reduce barriers but without freedom of movement or rejoining. What is not explained i how he will do this. or the EU is bluffing. FoM and SM aren't inextricably tied. So I suspect he is saying this is his aim rather than he wi deffo do it. I've not seen his position in full tho. But fair to ask for details. Just hold all parties to the same standards. Imo part of the pickle is because the Tories (and other leavers) have failed to have a plan. Just a dream. " I disagree, the Tories had a clear plan. Just so happens that the wellbeing and prosperity of the UK and British people weren't a part of that plan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. I can understand that point of view. I think unfortunately there are still loose ends to tie up. The NI protocol for instance. This means that fully implementing brexit will be a big topic for the next GE. If I understand correctly, some of the deal with the EU has not been implemented due to the on going row over the NI protocol. SKS has said he will sort this out, but the EU have said no to renegotiating. So either he is bluffing or he will just accept whatever the EU says. He also says we will have much closer ties with the single market to reduce barriers but without freedom of movement or rejoining. What is not explained i how he will do this. or the EU is bluffing. FoM and SM aren't inextricably tied. So I suspect he is saying this is his aim rather than he wi deffo do it. I've not seen his position in full tho. But fair to ask for details. Just hold all parties to the same standards. Imo part of the pickle is because the Tories (and other leavers) have failed to have a plan. Just a dream. I disagree, the Tories had a clear plan. Just so happens that the wellbeing and prosperity of the UK and British people weren't a part of that plan." you give them more credit than I do them ! I suspect they didn't plan to become unelectable (even of some pocketed a bit of short term cash). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. I can understand that point of view. I think unfortunately there are still loose ends to tie up. The NI protocol for instance. This means that fully implementing brexit will be a big topic for the next GE. If I understand correctly, some of the deal with the EU has not been implemented due to the on going row over the NI protocol. SKS has said he will sort this out, but the EU have said no to renegotiating. So either he is bluffing or he will just accept whatever the EU says. He also says we will have much closer ties with the single market to reduce barriers but without freedom of movement or rejoining. What is not explained i how he will do this. or the EU is bluffing. FoM and SM aren't inextricably tied. So I suspect he is saying this is his aim rather than he wi deffo do it. I've not seen his position in full tho. But fair to ask for details. Just hold all parties to the same standards. Imo part of the pickle is because the Tories (and other leavers) have failed to have a plan. Just a dream. I disagree, the Tories had a clear plan. Just so happens that the wellbeing and prosperity of the UK and British people weren't a part of that plan.you give them more credit than I do them ! I suspect they didn't plan to become unelectable (even of some pocketed a bit of short term cash). " They've been re-elected twice since the referendum. And I think they will breeze it again in two years time. They did more than "pocket short term cash". Lots of them made millions and don't have to pay tax on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aircraft flight dynamics are "back-of-an-envelope" too until a certain level of detail is available. The Spitfire was back-of-an envelope by today's standards." The spitfire was indeed back-of-an-envelope design. But that's acceptable if there's a war on and you need something fast. Flight dynamics hasn't been back-of-an-envelope since the invention of finite element analysis. Since mass computing arrived, there is no place for guesses and approximations in aircraft design. Economics is a complex field, with dozens of confounding variables. I think that the LSE are over-reaching if they are trying to pull an accurate figure out of the last 2 years worth of data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aircraft flight dynamics are "back-of-an-envelope" too until a certain level of detail is available. The Spitfire was back-of-an envelope by today's standards. The spitfire was indeed back-of-an-envelope design. But that's acceptable if there's a war on and you need something fast. Flight dynamics hasn't been back-of-an-envelope since the invention of finite element analysis. Since mass computing arrived, there is no place for guesses and approximations in aircraft design. Economics is a complex field, with dozens of confounding variables. I think that the LSE are over-reaching if they are trying to pull an accurate figure out of the last 2 years worth of data." I'd agree that we can draw confident conclusions from two years of data. What we have today is a best estimate based in the only data we can have to date. It's directionally interesting compared to brexiteer predictions. If red tape is increasing costs that's useful to have early sight of. We can a) dig deeper and b) decide if action is needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aircraft flight dynamics are "back-of-an-envelope" too until a certain level of detail is available. The Spitfire was back-of-an envelope by today's standards. The spitfire was indeed back-of-an-envelope design. But that's acceptable if there's a war on and you need something fast. Flight dynamics hasn't been back-of-an-envelope since the invention of finite element analysis. Since mass computing arrived, there is no place for guesses and approximations in aircraft design. Economics is a complex field, with dozens of confounding variables. I think that the LSE are over-reaching if they are trying to pull an accurate figure out of the last 2 years worth of data." Well done on your Google again. When you have incomplete data you use your experience and knowledge to provide the best answer possible. You have no idea if the LSE is overreaching or not, because you don't have the knowledge or the experience. Who has actually disagreed with their assessment? Demanding impossible accuracy gives you nothing at all. If that's what you prefer, then ignore the information and pretend it doesn't exist and continue in ignorance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this?" Do half sensible people also recognise that you have to recognise a problem or multiple problems to resolve them? Will denying their existence or pretending that they are inconsequential help? Also, I don't understand why listing the problems is termed as "gloating" or "doing down your country" or "wanting us to fail"? It's a method of avoiding dealing with the issue because the real matter can be discarded as "personal attacks". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this? Do half sensible people also recognise that you have to recognise a problem or multiple problems to resolve them? Will denying their existence or pretending that they are inconsequential help? Also, I don't understand why listing the problems is termed as "gloating" or "doing down your country" or "wanting us to fail"? It's a method of avoiding dealing with the issue because the real matter can be discarded as "personal attacks"." How many times have i said 'Brexit is a shitshow'? Pretty sure that equates to recognising problem and not denying or pretending these problems don't exist. I'm not actually avoiding any issues because let's face it I have no say in the outcome of these issues. You and I both know how it works round here. You don't have to agree with my take on it, but it's mine, I'll stick with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this? Do half sensible people also recognise that you have to recognise a problem or multiple problems to resolve them? Will denying their existence or pretending that they are inconsequential help? Also, I don't understand why listing the problems is termed as "gloating" or "doing down your country" or "wanting us to fail"? It's a method of avoiding dealing with the issue because the real matter can be discarded as "personal attacks". How many times have i said 'Brexit is a shitshow'? Pretty sure that equates to recognising problem and not denying or pretending these problems don't exist. I'm not actually avoiding any issues because let's face it I have no say in the outcome of these issues. You and I both know how it works round here. You don't have to agree with my take on it, but it's mine, I'll stick with it." You do keep writing it and then implying the opposite. That's what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked those very direct questions. English doesn't allow the use of the formal form to indicate a non-personal address. So, what do you think in general terms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised." What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well done on your Google again." Is it really that hard for you to believe that I might know what I'm talking about? I'm happy to detail how finite element analysis works, and how it helps to determine aircraft control surface fluctuations in dynamic instability conditions, and why it really took off when the computing revolution happened. Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well done on your Google again. Is it really that hard for you to believe that I might know what I'm talking about? I'm happy to detail how finite element analysis works, and how it helps to determine aircraft control surface fluctuations in dynamic instability conditions, and why it really took off when the computing revolution happened. Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google?" In fairness, you do also accuse people of not knowing what they're talking about, and argued with me for ages because I didn't specify the wavelength of light when describing why CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet. I'm not saying you do, or don't know what you're talking about. Just that if you accuse others, it's reasonable for others to accuse you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well done on your Google again. Is it really that hard for you to believe that I might know what I'm talking about? I'm happy to detail how finite element analysis works, and how it helps to determine aircraft control surface fluctuations in dynamic instability conditions, and why it really took off when the computing revolution happened. Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google?" Yes, it is very hard to believe. Less hard to believe that you now no longer wish to discuss the actual point made about the use of data to produce the best information available. I don't actually give two hoots about if you know anything about finite element analysis. As the topic is about economics I'm more interested to know why feel you are better placed to assess the validity of economic data than the LSE. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. Why does the reality of brexit polarise people? The gloating on a daily basis is what polarises people. 'We told you so, you were conned' has never and will never work when trying to get anyone to see the error of their ways. Ah I see. It could be argued that brexit itself was more divisive than people pointing out the reality of brexit. I suppose the broader point is, we need to have politicians with a realistic view of brexit so we can work together to mitigate the damage it's doing. But right now we have the likes of Starmer having to pretend that brexit was a good idea and that he can polish this turd in order to try to win back voters. Which is a fucking pathetic place for the country to be in. It could be argued that, and that would be a solid argument. However, the actual Brexit debate is now done. From what I can see it now the 'I told you so' keeping us divided. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I rarely see anyone starting threads about how good brexit is. That's because brexit isn't good. You'd think the brexit debate is done. But enough people still think it's a good idea to make out politicians have to pretend to "get behind it" etc. Until the country can face up to what we've done. There is no moving forward. I do get what you're saying but those people who you're trying to get to see it won't. Certainly whilst people continue with the negative reporting on a daily basis, it will only push them to dig their heels in even further. Surely any half sensible personal understands this? Do half sensible people also recognise that you have to recognise a problem or multiple problems to resolve them? Will denying their existence or pretending that they are inconsequential help? Also, I don't understand why listing the problems is termed as "gloating" or "doing down your country" or "wanting us to fail"? It's a method of avoiding dealing with the issue because the real matter can be discarded as "personal attacks". How many times have i said 'Brexit is a shitshow'? Pretty sure that equates to recognising problem and not denying or pretending these problems don't exist. I'm not actually avoiding any issues because let's face it I have no say in the outcome of these issues. You and I both know how it works round here. You don't have to agree with my take on it, but it's mine, I'll stick with it. You do keep writing it and then implying the opposite. That's what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked those very direct questions. English doesn't allow the use of the formal form to indicate a non-personal address. So, what do you think in general terms?" Could you point out with absolute positivity where I have implied the opposite? As I've stated already 'Brexit is a shitshow'. That clearly implies i recognise it as a shitshow. Do I need to be clearer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation?" Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'." I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to?" I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side'" One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side'" There are multiple threads on the cost of living crisis. War in Ukraine, the cost of energy, food banks , inflation of everything. Would having a thread specifically about food inflation caused for non-Brexit related reasons be of interest? Is it topical? Would that bridge the gap and make those who support it feel better about their choices. Would that mean that they make some compromises on how Brexit has been enacted so far? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?" One question? I counted 4 
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now "What did you read after: 'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?' If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google?" "Yes, it is very hard to believe." You must have a difficult life with all that suspicion making you doubt everyone and everything. "As the topic is about economics I'm more interested to know why feel you are better placed to assess the validity of economic data than the LSE." I didn't say that. I'm quite happy to agree that most people at LSE are better qualified to interpret statistical data than I am. What I tried to say earlier is that the report throws up too many red flags to just accept it at face value: 1. Both the LSE and University of Warwick have form for taking conclusions, and working backwards to find the evidence for them. Seeing both names in the author list is a worry 2. The authors admit in the paper that they have used back-of-the-envelope calculations in some parts. 3. They also admit that the results of their calculation only imply inflation, rather than taking the effort to prove it. You'll note that at no point have I said that the report is incorrect. I've just said that it isn't a very good argument that Brexit has ruined the economy. The 3 points I make above don't invalidate the report, they just make it a weaker argument. But if you think that it's a well-written and convincingly argued document, then we clearly have different standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google? Yes, it is very hard to believe. You must have a difficult life with all that suspicion making you doubt everyone and everything. As the topic is about economics I'm more interested to know why feel you are better placed to assess the validity of economic data than the LSE. I didn't say that. I'm quite happy to agree that most people at LSE are better qualified to interpret statistical data than I am. What I tried to say earlier is that the report throws up too many red flags to just accept it at face value: 1. Both the LSE and University of Warwick have form for taking conclusions, and working backwards to find the evidence for them. Seeing both names in the author list is a worry 2. The authors admit in the paper that they have used back-of-the-envelope calculations in some parts. 3. They also admit that the results of their calculation only imply inflation, rather than taking the effort to prove it. You'll note that at no point have I said that the report is incorrect. I've just said that it isn't a very good argument that Brexit has ruined the economy. The 3 points I make above don't invalidate the report, they just make it a weaker argument. But if you think that it's a well-written and convincingly argued document, then we clearly have different standards." I'm not at all suspicious. You've proven regularly that pedantry and winning some detail is what is most important to you. 1. "Got form" based on your wide experience of publications from those institutions, which is worth zero 2. They are not "admitting" anything. They are saying the uncertainty due to the data available. 3. Again, they are not "admitting" anything. They are indicating the level of uncertainty because it is, actually, not possible to definitively uncouple multiple simultaneous factors. If there was better data it would be used. If you don't like using the best information available, ignore it until it is perfect. They did not state that "Brexit ruined the economy". They indicated their best calculation of the effect that it had on food prices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged."I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those? I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness, you do also accuse people of not knowing what they're talking about ..." That's true, but I only do that when they've said something that can be shown to be incorrect. I've accused a couple of people of getting their information from Google, and in both cases I posted a link to the original source. I've never accused anyone of simply being too knowledgeable to be believable. "... argued with me for ages because I didn't specify the wavelength of light when describing why CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet." In a post long ago you said that 'CO2 absorbs sunlight and emits heat', which is incorrect. In the more recent thread you said almost the same thing, but then changed your definition of 'light' when I pulled you up on it. During both of those discussions, I wasn't trying to prove that I know more than you, I was trying to get you to stop claiming that the subject is easy to understand. "I'm not saying you do, or don't know what you're talking about. Just that if you accuse others, it's reasonable for others to accuse you." Agreed. I'm always happy when someone presents their evidence and proves me wrong. A day in which I learn something is a good day. It's not so useful to me if a person just asserts that I must be wrong, without explaining why they think that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you happy to explain why you think I must have got that from Google? Yes, it is very hard to believe. You must have a difficult life with all that suspicion making you doubt everyone and everything. As the topic is about economics I'm more interested to know why feel you are better placed to assess the validity of economic data than the LSE. I didn't say that. I'm quite happy to agree that most people at LSE are better qualified to interpret statistical data than I am. What I tried to say earlier is that the report throws up too many red flags to just accept it at face value: 1. Both the LSE and University of Warwick have form for taking conclusions, and working backwards to find the evidence for them. Seeing both names in the author list is a worry 2. The authors admit in the paper that they have used back-of-the-envelope calculations in some parts. 3. They also admit that the results of their calculation only imply inflation, rather than taking the effort to prove it. You'll note that at no point have I said that the report is incorrect. I've just said that it isn't a very good argument that Brexit has ruined the economy. The 3 points I make above don't invalidate the report, they just make it a weaker argument. But if you think that it's a well-written and convincingly argued document, then we clearly have different standards." Do you have examples of this back solving ? I'm adverse to being skeptical of sources as even science has confirmation bias. Is this back solving "institutional" or reserved to some subjects or authors ? From what I've read their analysis suggests there is a UK specific inflation post 2019. If (and I don't recall if they did this) they also show this wasn't present ore 2019, it would lend itself to support a hypothesis of it being Brexit related. Imo this is where any bias would come though... How hard did they work to look for other reasons. I don't have the paper to hand to check. I less agree with your other criticisms. Most data analysis leads to correlation not causation conclusions. I'd expect such a paper to shine the light on the possibility of a problem, and that leads others to go see if they can understand the causation. I'd not expect data scientists to then go talk to industry and seek to quantify and describe the components. The BoE critique is more a consequence of any issues with them assuming any UK specific inflation has to be Brexit and from eu food. If correct, the envelope is reasonable. If incorrect, it's not, but doesn't negate that they find UK specific inflation after 2019 .... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there."Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future? If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of."And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of.
And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget "I literally write the words: 'One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?' Now I understand, that you are asking for people to confirm to a behaviour that you don't know how to achieve either. You are proposing an ideal. It's asking the impossible isn't it? If you don't know what this looks like, how can anyone else? What is the "behaviour" that does not help? On this thread, what has been written that is "superior" or insulting or whatever else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of.
And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget
I literally write the words:
'One question. No confusion.
How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
Now I understand, that you are asking for people to confirm to a behaviour that you don't know how to achieve either. You are proposing an ideal.
It's asking the impossible isn't it? If you don't know what this looks like, how can anyone else?
What is the "behaviour" that does not help? On this thread, what has been written that is "superior" or insulting or whatever else?"Unless you can acknowledge multiple posts with multiple questions before reply I think we're done on this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of.
And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget
I literally write the words:
'One question. No confusion.
How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
Now I understand, that you are asking for people to confirm to a behaviour that you don't know how to achieve either. You are proposing an ideal.
It's asking the impossible isn't it? If you don't know what this looks like, how can anyone else?
What is the "behaviour" that does not help? On this thread, what has been written that is "superior" or insulting or whatever else?
Unless you can acknowledge multiple posts with multiple questions before reply I think we're done on this thread."This hasn't helped, has it? I cannot communicate more from the words that I wrote than what is contained within them. When I write that I was asking question, I was. If you are unable to describe the form of communication that would achieve the laudable goal that you are setting, how can anyone achieve it? Could you at least try? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of.
And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget
I literally write the words:
'One question. No confusion.
How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
Now I understand, that you are asking for people to confirm to a behaviour that you don't know how to achieve either. You are proposing an ideal.
It's asking the impossible isn't it? If you don't know what this looks like, how can anyone else?
What is the "behaviour" that does not help? On this thread, what has been written that is "superior" or insulting or whatever else?
Unless you can acknowledge multiple posts with multiple questions before reply I think we're done on this thread.
This hasn't helped, has it?
I cannot communicate more from the words that I wrote than what is contained within them. When I write that I was asking question, I was.
If you are unable to describe the form of communication that would achieve the laudable goal that you are setting, how can anyone achieve it?
Could you at least try?"I have already proposed my first step on the other thread, do we need multiple threads asking the same question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is and maybe I'm playing it down but £2/week. We all know Brexit is a shit show but really?? If you wanna find negatives, this is a pretty poor example. £4/week Perhaps nothing to you. Perhaps a concern to many others? Still £210 lost that could have been spent On something else. This is not the only negative. It's yet another. It's not a positive outcome though, is it? Do you need a maths lesson? Did i say it eas a positive outcome or did I say its poor example of the 'shitshow'? I do need a maths lesson on this occasion. However, that does not change your contention that £105/year is inconsequential to any individual or that the country having £2.5bn a year less to spend on other things doesn't matter. Do you think that is the case? I initially stated 'maybe I'm not seeing it for what it is' Do I think it's the case that £2.5b/year is inconsequential? No I don't. I was merely stating that £2/week isn't the best example of the negatives. No, that is another example of the negatives confined only to food costs. Another example maybe but do you genuinely believe that showing all negatives as constant as it's been on a daily basis, and yes it has been daily, really helps to bridge the gap and get people on the same side? I personally think it just further polarised. What are the positives that can be published to balance this out? If there are only negatives, should they not be published as this would be "biased" and " unbalanced"? Should those who voted to leave be saved embarrassment and reality? Would that prevent further polarisation? Have I stated there are positives? I also didn't state that negatives shouldn't be published. If you read what I actually wrote, I've stated 'I told you so' further divides us. It does absolutely zero, nada, zilch (3 words incase you don't understand 2 of them) to close tat divide. Unfortunately, all of your 'debates' are the same. You read what you think is written and come back with questions expecting some kind of 'gotcha moment'. I don't really understand what point you are making. You have said that Brexit is no good several times. I understand that. What I still do not understand is why you think that reporting on the negative effects of Brexit should not be done, or perhaps any negative should only be mentioned once. How often are other significant pieces of news treated in this way? The news agencies are reporting on what's happening, aren't they? If there's lots of negative Brexit news and it is being discussed they need to report it, don't they? If there was some positive Brexit news it may appear more balanced, but there is none. I still don't understand what you expect to happen. How should this news be reported to "bridge the gap" as you would like them to? I'll say it again. I didn't say negative effects shouldn't be reported. Try reading again. BTW, did you know that inflation has caused food prices to increase more than double of the 'brxit effect' in months. Of course you do but no one has started a thread on it. Why so? I'll give you the answer, because no one here can blame 'the other side' One question. No confusion. How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"? One question? I counted 4
Have I said anything about news reports? Or have I said about forum posts? Do we now count forums as news outlets?
Enjoy your night, we're off out now
What did you read after:
'How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
If you don't want to answer, just say rather than being so outraged.
I definitely see 3 more ? after that questions. Did you forget writing those?
I'm darling from outraged, you just refuse to understand what I'm saying, and refuse to answer any of my questions. As I said, all of your 'debates' are very much the same so we shall leave it there.
Actually, in that post, I asked you one question and one question only. Forget any of the others l. The substantive one where you explain how "bring together" those people who still do not accept any negatives of Brexit and predict a benefit 10-50 years in the future?
If you weren't triggered you could just explain your plan and not behave in exactly the same way as you are accusing others of.
And then you wrote another post before I replied asking 3 more questions
Did I say I knew how to bridge the gap or did I say the way some people are behaving does nothing to bridge the gap? I'm getting old and forget
I literally write the words:
'One question. No confusion.
How do you want this news reported such that it will "bridge the gap"?'
Now I understand, that you are asking for people to confirm to a behaviour that you don't know how to achieve either. You are proposing an ideal.
It's asking the impossible isn't it? If you don't know what this looks like, how can anyone else?
What is the "behaviour" that does not help? On this thread, what has been written that is "superior" or insulting or whatever else?
Unless you can acknowledge multiple posts with multiple questions before reply I think we're done on this thread.
This hasn't helped, has it?
I cannot communicate more from the words that I wrote than what is contained within them. When I write that I was asking question, I was.
If you are unable to describe the form of communication that would achieve the laudable goal that you are setting, how can anyone achieve it?
Could you at least try?
I have already proposed my first step on the other thread, do we need multiple threads asking the same question?"You decided to link the threads. How would you rewrite this OP to be less provocative and not be, apparently, saying "I told you so" to someone who voted to leave? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. " Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey." Of course not every prediction was accurate. But we knew there would be a huge detrimental and lasting effect on the British economy and on British businesses for absolutely zero benefits. All of which was backed up with details of how and why this would happen. Covid was the Brexit Tories dream come true. They did absolutely blame every problem directly caused by brexit on covid, and now the war in Ukraine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey. Of course not every prediction was accurate. But we knew there would be a huge detrimental and lasting effect on the British economy and on British businesses for absolutely zero benefits. All of which was backed up with details of how and why this would happen. Covid was the Brexit Tories dream come true. They did absolutely blame every problem directly caused by brexit on covid, and now the war in Ukraine. " It's well documented on here you blame everything on Brexit. You hate the fact that the UK voters decided to leave the EU. You dismiss covid and an on going war. There is no way of telling how the UK would be today without covid and the war. In fact if brexit had actually happened in 2016 as it should have there is no way of telling how the UK would be today either. Blame the remoaners for that delay. Your daily moaning of brexit in my opinion is unhealthy and you need move on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey." True , both sides lied and exaggerated, it proves that a binary referendum wasn’t the best way to setters the debate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey. Of course not every prediction was accurate. But we knew there would be a huge detrimental and lasting effect on the British economy and on British businesses for absolutely zero benefits. All of which was backed up with details of how and why this would happen. Covid was the Brexit Tories dream come true. They did absolutely blame every problem directly caused by brexit on covid, and now the war in Ukraine. It's well documented on here you blame everything on Brexit. You hate the fact that the UK voters decided to leave the EU. " False. I blame brexit for the impacts of brexit. Don't you? Do you not hate that voters were conned into voting to leave the EU? " You dismiss covid and an on going war. " 100% false and made up. Pretty weird. " There is no way of telling how the UK would be today without covid and the war. In fact if brexit had actually happened in 2016 as it should have there is no way of telling how the UK would be today either. Blame the remoaners for that delay. " Not even in the wildest dreams of the hardest hard-line brexit crazies thought we would leave in 2016. It was rushed as it was. So this is just a bizarre statement. " Your daily moaning of brexit in my opinion is unhealthy and you need move on. " Would it be healthier to ignore reality, pretend everything is rosy and not even attempt to mitigate against the brexit damage. I don't buy the argument that we should all pretend brexit is great just to save the feelings of those who voted for this clusterfuck. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey. Of course not every prediction was accurate. But we knew there would be a huge detrimental and lasting effect on the British economy and on British businesses for absolutely zero benefits. All of which was backed up with details of how and why this would happen. Covid was the Brexit Tories dream come true. They did absolutely blame every problem directly caused by brexit on covid, and now the war in Ukraine. It's well documented on here you blame everything on Brexit. You hate the fact that the UK voters decided to leave the EU. You dismiss covid and an on going war. There is no way of telling how the UK would be today without covid and the war. In fact if brexit had actually happened in 2016 as it should have there is no way of telling how the UK would be today either. Blame the remoaners for that delay. Your daily moaning of brexit in my opinion is unhealthy and you need move on. " And if I followed the yellow brick road would I be living it up in a land of milk and honey? Get real fella! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the issue with people being told "I told you so"? These people were explicitly told what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. They chose to believe the leave propaganda, which was demonstrated to be a crock of shit before the referendum. Now that "project fear" is reality, I don't see that some brexit banter on a swingers website is driving division. Brexit has achieved that already. Many of the Treasury's predictions on Brexit were wrong or exaggerated. Even prominent Remain campaigners, such as Lord Rose, have come out and said this. The whole situation was complicated and distorted by Covid, and then the Ukraine war. That still doesn't excuse lies such as £350 million and Turkey. Of course not every prediction was accurate. But we knew there would be a huge detrimental and lasting effect on the British economy and on British businesses for absolutely zero benefits. All of which was backed up with details of how and why this would happen. Covid was the Brexit Tories dream come true. They did absolutely blame every problem directly caused by brexit on covid, and now the war in Ukraine. It's well documented on here you blame everything on Brexit. You hate the fact that the UK voters decided to leave the EU. You dismiss covid and an on going war. There is no way of telling how the UK would be today without covid and the war. In fact if brexit had actually happened in 2016 as it should have there is no way of telling how the UK would be today either. Blame the remoaners for that delay. Your daily moaning of brexit in my opinion is unhealthy and you need move on. " Imagine thinking Brexit should have happened in 2016? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The political threads have become so stale and repetitive recently. Come on here and its groundhog day again." I enjoy the resurgence of the brexit threads. It's always fun seeing people slowly moving down from. There is no downside to brexit. To It'll take 50 years to see an upside. To Brexit being shit is the fault of "remoaners", Corbyn, the EU, Labour, Bercow etc. Absolutely everyone except those who voted for it. To. Yes it's shit, but what about Covid/Ukraine/other things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The political threads have become so stale and repetitive recently. Come on here and its groundhog day again. I enjoy the resurgence of the brexit threads. It's always fun seeing people slowly moving down from. There is no downside to brexit. To It'll take 50 years to see an upside. To Brexit being shit is the fault of "remoaners", Corbyn, the EU, Labour, Bercow etc. Absolutely everyone except those who voted for it. To. Yes it's shit, but what about Covid/Ukraine/other things." Yes, must be so exciting reading the same predictable posts daily. Well I guess we all have our secret pleasures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The political threads have become so stale and repetitive recently. Come on here and its groundhog day again. I enjoy the resurgence of the brexit threads. It's always fun seeing people slowly moving down from. There is no downside to brexit. To It'll take 50 years to see an upside. To Brexit being shit is the fault of "remoaners", Corbyn, the EU, Labour, Bercow etc. Absolutely everyone except those who voted for it. To. Yes it's shit, but what about Covid/Ukraine/other things. Yes, must be so exciting reading the same predictable posts daily. Well I guess we all have our secret pleasures." Small pleasures! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
