Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    No it would be like you giving your money away to someone else to invest on the stock market being better than you spending it on coke and hookers.
    Yeah.
    Wisdom is personal

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
      Which merely, though unsurprising, just reflects badly on your own level of intelligence.
      You are saying that despite of Frost explicitly stating that he chooses to ignore facts that do not agree with his preconceptions instead relying on his views and opinions (i.e. feelings)?
      Very poor comprehension of what David Frost actually said.
      I comprehended him just fine. I'm just objective about it, not a true believer like some seem to be.
      If those doubts persist, we are ready to trade on Australia-style terms if we can’t agree a Canada type FTA. We understand the trade-offs involved – people sometimes say we don’t but we do"
      There is no Australia-style terms. You might even say that stating so is yet again just using a more benign sounding goodfact to replace the 'no-deal' realfact.
      Finally, that is also why we are not prepared to compromise on some fundamentals of our negotiating position."
      No is saying that they would need to. But then the UK has to be realistic about what it is aiming towards. The EU officials are not worried about being re-elected. They are not interested in political horse trading. So the methods used by the UK domestically do not work.
      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

      Comment


      • I suspect a UK forlorn hope that the Commonwealth will save, it underpins the references to Canada-style deals and – in particular – the phantasm of the non-existant "Australia" one.

        Or it might as well be a "Philippines-style" deal or something.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
          You are saying that despite of Frost explicitly stating that he chooses to ignore facts that do not agree with his preconceptions instead relying on his views and opinions (i.e. feelings)?
          What are you blathering about. I can understand why the reference to Edmund Burke would fly over your head.


          I comprehended him just fine. I'm just objective about it, not a true believer like some seem to be.
          What is a 'true believer'? If its someone who thinks leaving the EU is better than remaining than he is merely one in seventeen and a half million.
          Rather than being objective you are merely typical of those who thinking that those wanting to leave the EU are displaying "irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."


          No is saying that they would need to. But then the UK has to be realistic about what it is aiming towards. The EU officials are not worried about being re-elected. They are not interested in political horse trading. So the methods used by the UK domestically do not work.
          The EU negotiators merely have to worry about the legacy they leave behind, of a damaged and decreasingly popular institution when/if they make a muck-up of the negotiations.
          Last edited by Gooner; 19 Feb 20, 04:31.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            I suspect a UK forlorn hope that the Commonwealth will save, it underpins the references to Canada-style deals and – in particular – the phantasm of the non-existant "Australia" one.

            Or it might as well be a "Philippines-style" deal or something.

            Well you're showing a tad more perspicacity than your Nordic chum, but you clearly haven't read the speech.

            "But, in brief, all these studies exaggerate – in my view – the impact of non-tariff barriers, they exaggerate customs costs, in some cases by orders of magnitude. Even more importantly, they also assume that this unproven decline in trade will have implausibly large effects on Britain’s productivity. Yet there is at least as much evidence that the relationship is the other way around – that it is actually productivity which drives trade."

            Boom! No deal - no fear!

            Comment


            • In David Frost's opinion

              Look it is the duty of a diplomat to come up with rationalizations for his governments chosen political policies.

              So when your government was Pro-EU he was spouting pro-EU babble, now your chosen government policy is Brexit he raises arguments for that...

              It is his job, he does it well, but it doesn't mean much of anything, imho.

              Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

              Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                Well you're showing a tad more perspicacity than your Nordic chum, but you clearly haven't read the speech.

                "But, in brief, all these studies exaggerate – in my view – the impact of non-tariff barriers, they exaggerate customs costs, in some cases by orders of magnitude. Even more importantly, they also assume that this unproven decline in trade will have implausibly large effects on Britain’s productivity. Yet there is at least as much evidence that the relationship is the other way around – that it is actually productivity which drives trade."

                Boom! No deal - no fear!
                That is what he says. But not because of the evidence he has. Only because he BELIEVES. He has deep faith in that. Not any facts or such. Which is exactly what i meant. He doesn't have evidence that those would exaggerate anything - he just believes that they are. He is also in denial with regards what the reports are stating for the effect - he simply rejects it. He say that there 'is as much evidence' but he can not provide any, not even refer to any apart from what would be at best described as 'hearsay'.

                And for a true believer that is probably enough. I however do not trust beliefs or opinions. I want facts. And his speech is completely devoid of any. He is not providing anything apart from his own deep beliefs. Which he is fully entitled to have them of course but he should not expect his own opinions, beliefs or thought patterns (which is all he provided) to matter to any one else.
                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                  That is what he says. But not because of the evidence he has. Only because he BELIEVES.
                  You believe that people can predict the future?

                  Of course the UK can prosper better without a trade deal. We have a £90 billion quid trade deficit with the EU, for a start.

                  A lot/most depends on the decision taken by the UK government, but

                  "I think looking forward, we are going to have a huge advantage over the EU – the ability to set regulations for new sectors, the new ideas, and new conditions – quicker than the EU can, and based on sound science not fear of the future. I have no doubt that we will be able to encourage new investment and new ideas in this way <>
                  "There are other broader advantages to running your own affairs. One obvious one is that it is much easier to get people involved in making decisions. Another, less obvious advantage, is the ability to change those decisions. My experience of the EU is that it has extreme difficulty in reversing the bad decisions it takes. Yet every state gets things wrong. That’s clear. Course correction is, therefore, an important part of good government. Britain will be able to experiment, correct mistakes and improve. The EU is going to find this much, much more difficult."

                  The EU negotiators know this and they are evidently so scared about it, they are pushing their agenda of 'regulatory alignment' They will lose.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                    What are you blathering about.
                    Only that Frost is not providing anything apart from his opinions or beliefs and even openly flaunts at studies he actually have which contradict his opinions choosing rather to reject the studies than to reconsider his position. Which for more scientifically minded is rather strange.
                    What is a 'true believer'? If its someone who thinks leaving the EU is better than remaining than he is merely one in seventeen and a half million.
                    With true believer i only referred to people who buy that stuff he was speaking. He is only selling his opinions and views. Not anything factual or concrete. Which means that following his and his opinions requires belief in him or his cause despite of the lack of factual evidence supporting it.
                    Rather than being objective you are merely typical of those who thinking that those wanting to leave the EU are displaying "irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."
                    No. Not anywhere close. I personally don't really care. The UK had the right to leave - and they exercised it. Nothing wrong in that. In fact had the EU tried to prevent that then i would have been furious at the EU. It has not tried to do so. I do however believe that people were misled. The simply truth is that the Brexit will not fix the things some of the demagogues promised it would. Not for the least because several of the issues were not even related to the EU but on the UK's own government.

                    Wanting to leave is fine and you had your legal right to express your opinion on it, and that i do fully respect. I however would prefer to see some actual concrete reasons for that choice, especially such which can be traced solely on the EU and which actually do survive scrutiny. I for one can not imagine ever voting with as flimsy reasons as which have been offered even here. Maybe I'm more media literate than some, but i do understand what the information bubbles are and how they work and affect us - and i deliberately exert quite a of bit of effort just to avoid them. Which is harder and harder these days.
                    The EU negotiators merely have to worry about the legacy they leave behind, of a damaged and decreasingly popular institution when/if they make a muck-up of the negotiations.
                    The Brexit has increased the EU popularity and people's knowledge of its benefits as well as of its functions quite a bit. I doubt the EU has had more support at any time than after the Brexit.
                    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                      In David Frost's opinion

                      Look it is the duty of a diplomat to come up with rationalizations for his governments chosen political policies.
                      He supported the EU when it was his job, he supprts Leaving out of conviction.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                        You believe that people can predict the future?
                        Only you have stated so. He however is deliberately ignoring the reports he has got and then whines and complains that he hasn't got such reports which he would prefer. Which implies that he wants reports that align with his opinions instead of being objective. In other words he would like to be able to predict future with supporting reports so your argument does not work.
                        Of course the UK can prosper better without a trade deal. We have a £90 billion quid trade deficit with the EU, for a start.
                        Which does not quite work like that.
                        "I think looking forward, we are going to have a huge advantage over the EU – the ability to set regulations for new sectors, the new ideas, and new conditions – quicker than the EU can, and based on sound science not fear of the future. I have no doubt that we will be able to encourage new investment and new ideas in this way <>
                        He is 'thinking', he is 'having no doubts' and so on. Which he is entitled to. But which i do not trust without supporting facts.
                        The EU negotiators know this and they are evidently so scared about it, they are pushing their agenda of 'regulatory alignment' They will lose.
                        Remains to be seen.
                        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                          He supported the EU when it was his job, he supprts Leaving out of conviction.
                          I suggest to study the memoires of Palmerston or Talleyrand to learn about the conviction of diplomats.


                          Or start here

                          https://books.google.be/books?id=ZAS...erston&f=false
                          Last edited by Snowygerry; 19 Feb 20, 07:44.
                          Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                          Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                            Only you have stated so. He however is deliberately ignoring the reports he has got and then whines and complains that he hasn't got such reports which he would prefer. Which implies that he wants reports that align with his opinions instead of being objective. In other words he would like to be able to predict future with supporting reports so your argument does not work.
                            Those doom laden forecasts, not reports, on what would happen to the UK economy after the UK voted to leave, you consider facts?


                            "The new Treasury-led Brexit forecasts have to be read in the context of their record at predicting what would happen in the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote.

                            The HMT prediction for GDP 3 months after the referendum was that “the UK economy would fall into recession” and contract up to -1%. It grew +0.5% in this period.

                            The Treasury told us: “The analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into a recession, with four quarters of negative growth.” The reality has been positive growth every single quarter since.

                            HMT forecast that in the two years following a Leave vote GDP would fall between -3% and -6%. GDP grew by 1.9% in 2016 and 1.8% in 2017, with better than expected growth in the final quarter. There is now no recession forecast.

                            On unemployment, they infamously said it would rise by between 500,000 and 820,000 in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Unemployment fell again last week to a four-decade low.

                            And the Treasury said government borrowing would rise by up to £39 billion immediately after the vote. Instead borrowing for the financial year to date is down 12% on the same period last year. That’s the lowest year-to-date total since 2007.



                            He is 'thinking', he is 'having no doubts' and so on. Which he is entitled to. But which i do not trust without supporting facts.

                            Remains to be seen.
                            Well, duh, all forecasts remain to be seen.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                              ..
                              Rather than being objective you are merely typical of those who thinking that those wanting to leave the EU are displaying "irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."
                              Considering that you advocated a non existant Australia-like deal some page ago, it quite clearly demonstrate the "irrational" part...






                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                I suspect a UK forlorn hope that the Commonwealth will save, it underpins the references to Canada-style deals and – in particular – the phantasm of the non-existant "Australia" one.

                                Or it might as well be a "Philippines-style" deal or something.
                                Kind of a reversal. When the UK joined the EC it actually abandoned the Commonwealth. DeGaulle said " we will let you join but not the Dominions" in the 60's. When Britain joined the EC in 73 without taking the Dominions it caused a painful dislocation of trade for Aus/NZ/Can

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X