Brexit

Sendraks · **#3161** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 2:17 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Cameron is person most responsible for Brexit. He couldn't possibly come back.

Agreed. Entirely a product of his weakness as a leader of his own party.

Thommo · **#3162** by **Thommo** » Sep 25, 2018 2:17 pm

Teague wrote:Most grown ups are quite adequate of reading things people write without having an issue. Nice Ad hom btw

Your posts are littered with ad homs. This paragraph contains one. You just got done spewing a litany of them, and a litany of insults in your previous post. It's hard to imagine you can't see that, and I'm sure you know what they say about pots and kettles.

I'm not even sure what you intend to convey with this either. Yes, we had a long dispute about what Mogg said, but ultimately, you finished by confirming that you meant every word of your attribution to him, before vowing not to read or respond to any further posts from me.

Teague wrote:We have the bext deal. The next best deal would be a slightly worse deal than what we have now. Then all the way down to May's Chequers plan and then a "no Deal Shit Sandwich".

That's your opinion. Poorly phrased, childish and hyperbolic. But OK, you're entitled to it.

Teague wrote:When the IRA start bombing london again let's hook up so we can dance around the bodies of the newly fallen.

That's also your opinion, in incredibly poor taste as it may be. I don't quite see what you think it has to do with me, but we're probably all better off if we leave it that way. I would much rather discuss the actual consequences of the quotes I just linked, the possibilities for how Brexit would play out, or really anything else than this endless overblown rhetoric if we can, so I really hope we can do that instead of more of... this.

Teague · **#3163** by **Teague** » Sep 25, 2018 2:56 pm

Thommo wrote:
Teague wrote:Most grown ups are quite adequate of reading things people write without having an issue. Nice Ad hom btw

Your posts are littered with ad homs. This paragraph contains one. You just got done spewing a litany of them, and a litany of insults in your previous post. It's hard to imagine you can't see that, and I'm sure you know what they say about pots and kettles.

I'm not even sure what you intend to convey with this either. Yes, we had a long dispute about what Mogg said, but ultimately, you finished by confirming that you meant every word of your attribution to him, before vowing not to read or respond to any further posts from me.

Teague wrote:We have the bext deal. The next best deal would be a slightly worse deal than what we have now. Then all the way down to May's Chequers plan and then a "no Deal Shit Sandwich".

That's your opinion. Poorly phrased, childish and hyperbolic. But OK, you're entitled to it.

Teague wrote:When the IRA start bombing london again let's hook up so we can dance around the bodies of the newly fallen.

That's also your opinion, in incredibly poor taste as it may be. I don't quite see what you think it has to do with me, but we're probably all better off if we leave it that way. I would much rather discuss the actual consequences of the quotes I just linked, the possibilities for how Brexit would play out, or really anything else than this endless overblown rhetoric if we can, so I really hope we can do that instead of more of... this.

LOL hey if you want to started with Ad homs then don't start crying when they get thrown back at you!

Scot Dutchy · **#3164** by **Scot Dutchy** » Sep 25, 2018 3:10 pm

Sendraks wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cameron is person most responsible for Brexit. He couldn't possibly come back.

Agreed. Entirely a product of his weakness as a leader of his own party.

While agreeing with you just would the Brexiteers have done to avoid the new tax on offshore accounts coming in on the first of January.

Sendraks · **#3165** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 3:27 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
While agreeing with you just would the Brexiteers have done to avoid the new tax on offshore accounts coming in on the first of January.

I don't know. No doubt they'd have tried to find ways to weasel out of it. It is what weasels do.

GrahamH · **#3166** by **GrahamH** » Sep 25, 2018 3:32 pm

JRM has shortened his time horizon:

Jacob Rees-Mogg's Economists for Free Trade event had only one economist, and that was the least ridiculous thing about it
…

And yet, here was Rees-Mogg, on hand to explain that a no-deal Brexit – that event commonly considered by any even vaguely involved to be a total catastrophe – would in fact be worth £1.1 trillion to the UK economy over the next 15 years.

…

Now, according to Rees-Mogg, the prime minister’s Chequers plan is, “to be snivelling and fearful, to kowtow, to go down on bended knee. To serve homage.”

Mainly, it’s to have some say in the governing of your continent.
This was, even within the dire context of the present day, a truly low point of post-shame politics.

Absolutely nobody thinks this stuff is true, which goes some way to explaining why Mr Rees-Mogg stared into the middle distance throughout, then launched a sixth-form style attack on “Project Fear”, and how things have not turned out as badly as was foreseen two-and-a-half years ago, chiefly because of a great international economic boom on which Britain missed out.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 33021.html

Sendraks · **#3167** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 3:49 pm

JRM isn't appealling to those with an interest in actually looking at the detail of Brexit, he's appealling to those who bought into Farage's bollocks. I still don't think they're enough in number to swing an election for him if the economy goes south.

mrjonno · **#3168** by **mrjonno** » Sep 25, 2018 4:01 pm

GrahamH wrote:
mrjonno wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
If it was a choice between a remainer Cameron, brexiter loonies Corbyn and May I guess it would have to be Cameron

Cameron is person most responsible for Brexit. He couldn't possibly come back.

Didn't say he would be my 1st choice for PM but everything since has been even worse,

May is not as bad as Trump but the most likely next PM is going to Boris Johnson or even Rees-Mogg. You haven't seen real pain yet.

GrahamH · **#3169** by **GrahamH** » Sep 25, 2018 4:12 pm

Sendraks wrote:JRM isn't appealling to those with an interest in actually looking at the detail of Brexit, he's appealling to those who bought into Farage's bollocks. I still don't think they're enough in number to swing an election for him if the economy goes south.

I suspect 52% of the those who voted are not interested in looking into the detail of Brexit either.

Sendraks · **#3170** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 4:20 pm

GrahamH wrote:I suspect 52% of the those who voted are not interested in looking into the detail of Brexit either.

I suspect you're wrong and more importantly, I suspect you have zero data to support the assumption that the 52% of the votefor leave are in no way interested in the detail.

GrahamH · **#3171** by **GrahamH** » Sep 25, 2018 4:40 pm

Sendraks wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I suspect 52% of the those who voted are not interested in looking into the detail of Brexit either.

I suspect you're wrong and more importantly, I suspect you have zero data to support the assumption that the 52% of the votefor leave are in no way interested in the detail.

I don't have hard data, and of course I exaggerate in using the whole 52%, but I have seen a lot of leavers talking about leaving the EU and they just don't talk about the details. Some of the leading figures of the campaign dismissed experts as irrelevant. Brexit is a dream of a Great Britain getting it's own way, not about realities of economics. This is what I hear.
The one economist in Mogg's Economists for Free Trade event seems to paint with a pretty broad brush.

Have you seen many leavers taking a close interest in the details? Any you can point us to?

There is The IEA's new report on Brexit which purports to a serious pro-Brexit analysis that should get right down to deatails. I haven't read it, but some initial reports suggest that maybe it comes up very short. If their own experts can't get to grips with the details why do you think the voters can?

its conclusions cannot bear any weight.
This is not a question of politics or economics, but maths.
First, this work breaks all the rules of basic data hygiene and model designs. The peculiar way the model is fitted together means it could never produce a reliable or stable output that could be relied upon.
Second, the model's whole weight sits on assumptions that are odd or indefensible.
For example, all else being equal, it assumes making it cheaper to lay people off will lead to a rise in health spending and a rise in domestic banks' supply of credit. That, in turn will lead to a rise in output.
But also: the IEA's maths relies - in a fundamental way - on a misunderstanding of how GDP is calculated and what drives health spending.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45625724

So please do point me to your hard data on the leave voters deeply interested in the details.

Sendraks · **#3172** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 4:49 pm

GrahamH wrote:
I don't have hard data, and of course I exaggerate in using the whole 52%, but I have seen a lot of leavers talking about leaving the EU and they just don't talk about the details.

So have I but, those "a lot" are usually the outspoken minority.

GrahamH wrote:So please do point me to your hard data on the leave voters deeply interested in the details.

I never claimed to have any such data. My observation was as I set out it in my previous post and as you've stated that it was an exaggeration, there isn't much left to discuss. I see no evidence to support the notion that all of the 52% who voted to leave would a) do so the same way again or b) are disinterested in the details or consequences of Brexit.

I could point to the latest yougov polls on how people think Brexit is going but a) they're not polls of all of the 52% people who voted leave and b) I don't have a great deal of confidence in polls.

GrahamH · **#3173** by **GrahamH** » Sep 25, 2018 5:04 pm

Sendraks wrote: I see no evidence to support the notion that all of the 52% who voted to leave would a) do so the same way again or b) are disinterested in the details or consequences of Brexit.

I didn't expect anyone to be so literalist as to think I meant all of the 52%. It was a pointer to a lot of voters. With no basis for reassurace that a large proportion of them are significantly interested in the details, particularly the ecconomics that's a significant concern if we ponder how they might react to some ecconomic difficulties post-Brext.

Sendraks · **#3174** by **Sendraks** » Sep 25, 2018 5:07 pm

GrahamH wrote:
I didn't expect anyone to be so literalist as to think I meant all of the 52%.

Ah well, perhaps you should put that as a caveat on your comments in future so I don't accidentally interpret what you write as what you actually mean.

GrahamH · **#3175** by **GrahamH** » Sep 25, 2018 5:51 pm

Don't you have contact with politicians? If I remember that right I wonder how do you cope if you take things so literally when politics is so full of half truths and hyperbole?

OlivierK · **#3176** by **OlivierK** » Sep 25, 2018 9:30 pm

It's at those times when being precise with language is most important.

It's seems an odd request that Sendraks should treat you as being as full of half-truths and hyperbole as a professional politician, but who am I to judge?

Fallible · **#3177** by **Fallible** » Sep 26, 2018 7:18 am

Most grown ups are quite adequate of[...]

What?

LucidFlight · **#3178** by **LucidFlight** » Sep 26, 2018 7:44 am

As a grown-up, I am quite adequate... erm... of things, as well. Very adequate indeed. In fact, I'm adequate at... probably as many as 52% of things.

GrahamH · **#3179** by **GrahamH** » Sep 26, 2018 8:27 am

OlivierK wrote:It's at those times when being precise with language is most important.

It's seems an odd request that Sendraks should treat you as being as full of half-truths and hyperbole as a professional politician, but who am I to judge?

Very funny, but not constructive. Remember where we are. This is a public internet forum and it would aid communication to tone down the pedantry and go with the common sense interpretation of posts.

I'm certainly not asking to be treated like a politician, and if you read my post either with common sense or literal interpretations that should be clear. To labour the point, since you value precision so highly, I think sendraks probably has the skills to read what people mean even when the text is not perfectly precise.

Sendraks · **#3180** by **Sendraks** » Sep 26, 2018 8:37 am

GrahamH wrote: and go with the common sense interpretation of posts.

Which is what I did. Common sense based on the available evidence i.e. what you wrote.
Apparently our working definitions of common sense differ. Which one is correct? Presumably your's. :coffee:

Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Who is online