Can somebody tell me how the Labour party are going to organise either a referendum or GE before March next year?
Or dont they understand the UK does not control its fate as it has already signed it.

This Labour mob have moved to cloud cuckoo land. Just where are they going to get the money for all these pies in the sky?

Thommo wrote:

Teague wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Teague wrote:Something that's going to most likely, ruin the country (for the next 50 years according to Mogg)...

He didn't say that.

What did he say then?

I'm constantly puzzled by the recent trend hereabouts of people making claims with no source objecting to corrections on the grounds it has no source. Anyway, what he said in his interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy was:

Jacob Rees-Mogg wrote:The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.

Well, for one who said anything about me objecting? I asked a simple question with absoloutely no objection anywhere there at all. What a crazy post of yours to make such a claim.

Here's what was actually said;

Rees-Mogg: “We will know at some point, of course we will. But it’s a question of timescale.”

Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.”

Guru-Murthy: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 86f48e3566

If you go there, you'll see everyone else understanding what was said where you faield to do so.

That sure looks like an objection Teague. If you're saying I interpreted your comment incorrectly, that would suggest you aren't in fact objecting.

And no, it doesn't matter what Huff Po readers think he said. We can simply refer to what he said. He did not say Brexit will ruin the country for the next 50 years, you've just quoted the reality. It's frankly alarming if you can't see the difference between the two.

One says things will be be very bad for 50 years. The other says that it might take 50 years to get the full benefit. It doesn't say things will be bad for 50 years, or even 10 years, at most it simply doesn't rule it out. It would take an incredible act of wilful misunderstanding to not get that Mogg thinks Brexit will be good in the long term, but isn't clear on exactly how long it will take to be good, or what will happen in the period before that. He's clearly very positive about the whole thing, and definitely not sure that it will "ruin" the country for any period at all, let alone 50 years*.

*And to be clear, I'm only summarising what he so obviously thinks, I'm not aligning myself with his view.

Scot Dutchy wrote:This Labour mob have moved to cloud cuckoo land. Just where are they going to get the money for all these pies in the sky?

Maybe they could add BACK the 2% welfare break on taxes they gave to corporations a few years ago.

Thommo wrote:That sure looks like an objection Teague. If you're saying I interpreted your comment incorrectly, that would suggest you aren't in fact objecting.

And no, it doesn't matter what Huff Po readers think he said. We can simply refer to what he said. He did not say Brexit will ruin the country for the next 50 years, you've just quoted the reality. It's frankly alarming if you can't see the difference between the two.

One says things will be be very bad for 50 years. The other says that it might take 50 years to get the full benefit. It doesn't say things will be bad for 50 years, or even 10 years, at most it simply doesn't rule it out. It would take an incredible act of wilful misunderstanding to not get that Mogg thinks Brexit will be good in the long term, but isn't clear on exactly how long it will take to be good, or what will happen in the period before that. He's clearly very positive about the whole thing, and definitely not sure that it will "ruin" the country for any period at all, let alone 50 years*.

*And to be clear, I'm only summarising what he so obviously thinks, I'm not aligning myself with his view.

Well then where you failed to comprehend my post asking you a simple question you also failed on the point I made in my previous post. Context matters and quite clearly, based on the conversation I posted that you didn't and we can see what was meant when he said that.

For goodness sake. Got up on the wrong side of bed or something?

I answered your question, so clearly I understood it. And no, if you think "comprehension" or "context" involves assigning meanings not found in words and that clearly do not represent the views of the speaker I really can't help you.

Which is of course why I simply said "he didn't say that" in the first place - he didn't. More fool me for getting drawn into another one of these ludicrous contortions. I know I shouldn't be surprised by these antics after so many years, but I have to admit I'm still surprised every time someone suggests that the context of a comment like “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.” is certainty of what the economic consequences will be right now.

Thommo wrote:For goodness sake. Got up on the wrong side of bed or something?

I answered your question, so clearly I understood it. And no, if you think "comprehension" or "context" involves assigning meanings not found in words and that clearly do not represent the views of the speaker I really can't help you.

Which is of course why I simply said "he didn't say that" in the first place - he didn't. More fool me for getting drawn into another one of these ludicrous contortions. I know I shouldn't be surprised by these antics after so many years, but I have to admit I'm still surprised every time someone suggests that the context of a comment like “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.” is certainty of what the economic consequences will be right now.

No I got up fine thanks. I can still shoot down your post with a smile on my face and move on instantly. You made a claim against me when it was the most simple question ever asked "What did he say"

He was asked a question

Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

He chose to say 50 years in that.

Teague wrote:No I got up fine thanks. I can still shoot down your post with a smile on my face and move on instantly.

You don't seem to have moved on, and you certainly haven't shot down anything. It seems like you're still here posting absolute bollocks that borders on the illiterate.

If you can't understand the difference between "If you take a pension when you're 30 you won't feel the benefit for the next 30 years" and "If you take a pension when you're 30 it will ruin your life for the next 30 years" then the only advice to be offered would be to limit yourself to repeating what people actually say, rather than substituting terms you see as equivalent, but are far from it - even after it's pointed out to you that the two mean very different things.

Teague wrote:You made a claim against me when it was the most simple question ever asked "What did he say"

On the back of an incorrect assertion that Mogg had said the country would be ruined for 50 years. You were requiring me to guess at what you were referring to, when it should have been you who was clear what you were referring to.

You made a choice when asking that question to put the burden of your claim onto me, and I was simply highlighting that choice (admittedly not in an encouraging way) as I met it. You could have provided your source instead of asking what he said.

I interpreted that choice (quite correctly as you're making abundantly clear) as you objecting that, in fact, your original claim was correct and that Mogg had said Brexit would ruin the country for 50 years. In fact he did not say it, but you're now conflating the concept of him having said it, with your belief that he meant it. In reality, neither is true, it was just typical political prevarication because he doesn't want to have it thrown back in his face in a few years if he makes an inaccurate forecast and stakes his seat in the house of commons on it (as Guru-Murthy was obviously trying to trap him into doing).

Teague wrote:He was asked a question

Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

He chose to say 50 years in that.

Yeah, he said 50 years. He didn't say "ruin the country". This is not a subtle conceptual distinction, it's remedial English.

Teague wrote:Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

He chose to say 50 years in that.

Good, excellent, you agree with Thommo''s correction that Rees-Mogg didn't say that Brexit would ruin the country for 50 years.
Now the conversation can move on.

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”

He chose to say 50 years in that.

Good, excellent, you agree with Thommo''s correction that Rees-Mogg didn't say that Brexit would ruin the country for 50 years.
Now the conversation can move on.

We can move on with both of you being wrong, again.

Teague wrote:We can move on with both of you being wrong, again.

Quote us where we're wrong. Nothing you've provided supports this statement..

Teague wrote:Something that's going to most likely, ruin the country (for the next 50 years according to Mogg)...

Rees-Mogg didn't say this. It has been shown, by yourself, that he didn't say that.
Given this, either you're being wilfully obtuse, delusion or just plain lying at this point.
Ultimately I can't force you to accept reality but, everyone else reading this thread can see it.

Honestly, you were right first time. Let's just move on.

They were talking about the effects of Brexit. Most if not every prediction is a negative one. Mogg said, responding to a question on how long would it take so see benefit, said 50 years

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.”

Guru-Murthy: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

So given most predictions are utter chaos what part of "ruined" do neither of you get?

The part where it's his opinion and not yours. The part where he said it and not you.

Teague wrote:And what a gutless POS she is too. Something that's going to most likely, ruin the country (for the next 50 years according to Mogg)

The claim here is in two parts:
1. That Brexit will be ruinous (by most predictions)
2. That we won't know the balance of cost/bnefit for 50 years (according to JRM)

It follows that if Brexit is ruinous JRM for one will be all for pressing on regardless and keeping the faith for the next 50 years.
I don't read Teague as claiming that JRM was saying that the country would be ruined.


If JRM were in charge there is a real risk he would "ruin the country for the next 50 years" although he would certainly see things in a very different light.

Thommo wrote:
One says things will be be very bad for 50 years. The other says that it might take 50 years to get the full benefit.

Strictly speaking JRM is agnostic about the short-term (< 50 year)economic prospects . He says “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.” That isn't a strong statement that "the full benefit" will come. JRM has left the door open for 50 years, good or bad.

The Labour party is not going anywhere:

Corbyn and his fanboys have spent so much time ‘democratising’ things they’ve forgotten they know nothing about Brexit

Let’s forgive the casual obliteration of everything they claim to stand for and focus instead on the sheer mind-bending mess that would be the McDonnell referendum

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
One says things will be be very bad for 50 years. The other says that it might take 50 years to get the full benefit.

Strictly speaking JRM is agnostic about the short-term (< 50 year)economic prospects . He says “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.” That isn't a strong statement that "the full benefit" will come. JRM has left the door open for 50 years, good or bad.

If you judge by that one statement, sure. If you know anything about Jacob Rees-Mogg's views (or arguably the meaning of the word "opportunity"), not so much.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
One says things will be be very bad for 50 years. The other says that it might take 50 years to get the full benefit.

Strictly speaking JRM is agnostic about the short-term (< 50 year)economic prospects . He says “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.” That isn't a strong statement that "the full benefit" will come. JRM has left the door open for 50 years, good or bad.

If you judge by that one statement, sure. If you know anything about Jacob Rees-Mogg's views, not so much.

I know he is a staunch Brexiteer full of professed optimism for a bright future he may just live to see. What seems to be lacking from all the brexiteers is any tangible vision of how this glorious future is to be achieved or what it might look like. So I find it particularly interesting that, when pressed, he doesn't promise or forecast anything positive, he literally says “We won’t know the full economic consequences..."
In 25 years time we won't know if we are en route to riches or ruin. He is expressly declining to suggest we will be any better or, or not much worse off than we are today. In any case he wants us to keep the faith and carry on regardless because decades of decline will not mean Brexit was a mistake. "“We won’t know..."

Maybe this is his reaction to the bus debacle. Perhaps he wants to under-promise and hopes to over-deliver rather than vice versa.