Strokes Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 I’ll never get bored of your stupidity @Webbo 1
Buce Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 1 hour ago, Strokes said: I’ll never get bored of your stupidity @Webbo Me neither. It makes me feel so superior. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 14 hours ago, Strokes said: Hold your horses, it might not be so bad...........oh wait is the express ok to use, something about bikinis.....oh well. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/879163/Brexit-Britain-135-billion-windfall-after-EU-divorce Good news! Although the fact that every article on their website is about how great Brexit is going to be, leads me to believe that they're not taking a completely impartial view on this. http://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/ Also, they detail how they see the gains to the economy - but I couldn't find their list of any potential economic costs to Brexit!? Plus the figures on reliant on massive deregulation. So it's chlorinated Turkey for Xmas dinner next year! Still, nice to actually see the Brexiteers coming up with some actual figures rather than just the nonsense we've had for the past 18 months. It's all based on huge assumptions about the future though. Brexit: It's still a shit idea but we're probably not all going to starve to death! GDP (%) Cash (£ pa) Cash Per UK Household (£ pa) Free Trade Gain 4 80 billion 2960 Deregulation Gain 2 40 billion 1480 Immigration Gain 0.2 3.5 billion 148 Budget Gain 0.6 11.1 billion 518 Total 6.8 135 billion 5106
Strokes Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Good news! Although the fact that every article on their website is about how great Brexit is going to be, leads me to believe that they're not taking a completely impartial view on this. http://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/ Also, they detail how they see the gains to the economy - but I couldn't find their list of any potential economic costs to Brexit!? Plus the figures on reliant on massive deregulation. So it's chlorinated Turkey for Xmas dinner next year! Still, nice to actually see the Brexiteers coming up with some actual figures rather than just the nonsense we've had for the past 18 months. It's all based on huge assumptions about the future though. Brexit: It's still a shit idea but we're probably not all going to starve to death! GDP (%) Cash (£ pa) Cash Per UK Household (£ pa) Free Trade Gain 4 80 billion 2960 Deregulation Gain 2 40 billion 1480 Immigration Gain 0.2 3.5 billion 148 Budget Gain 0.6 11.1 billion 518 Total 6.8 135 billion 5106 I feel the same about the guardian. If you are bothered about chlorinated turkey then don't buy it, with the way food is marked up now, we know what the bird had for its last supper. So i'm pretty sure we will be able to pick cheap chlorinated or more expensive non chlorinated. Edited 15 November 2017 by Strokes
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: I feel the same about the guardian. If you are bothered about chlorinated turkey then don't buy it, with the way food is marked up now, we know what the bird had for its last supper. So i'm pretty sure we will be able to pick cheap chlorinated or more expensive non chlorinated. What has the Guardian got to do with anything here? I thought we'd finished with What-about-ism? So you're in favour of de-regulation. This will essential reduce our ability to trade with the EU even further... I don't think the report you quoted mentioned that either. As I said, the EFT outline the benefits of Brexit. But they don't mention any of the costs of Brexit. And your response is "well what about the Guardian?" Does it ever cross your mind that you might have been tricked by Russian bots into believing in Brexit - but you've no real idea why you believe in it!!? Geniune question Sir.
Guest MattP Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 I was definitely tricked into voting for Brexit by outside interference into the referendum from a foreign country. It was that time Vladimir Putin stood on a stage with David Cameron live on the BBC, threatening that we wold go to the front of the queue for a trade deal if we voted to leave. I think that's what happened anyway.
Guest Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 23 minutes ago, Strokes said: I feel the same about the guardian. If you are bothered about chlorinated turkey then don't buy it, with the way food is marked up now, we know what the bird had for its last supper. So i'm pretty sure we will be able to pick cheap chlorinated or more expensive non chlorinated. As Ken Clarke said yesterday, the government had a working group.looking at which EU regulations it would want to get rid of as part of the coalition government (when he was in the cabinet). They found no EU regulations that the UK would want to get rid of. Why is cheap crap meat being imported a good thing? Is it likely to be marked as such within pies and other pre-made goods? What is the US decide that it wants a US-first deal and wants its companies to be able to sue our government if we force chlorinated chickens to be marked differently, including within pre-made goods, potentially affecting sales?
Guest Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: I was definitely tricked into voting for Brexit by outside interference into the referendum from a foreign country. It was that time Vladimir Putin stood on a stage with David Cameron live on the BBC, threatening that we wold go to the front of the queue for a trade deal if we voted to leave. I think that's what happened anyway. Some questions: There are over 700 seperate trade agreements that the EU has with countries around the world. We will need to get them all replaced overnight. Is this likely? If WTO terms are so fantastic, why does no country on earth trade primarily on WTO terms? What happened to the idea that reaching a trade agreement with the EU child happen virtually overnight, as pushed by vote leave? Finally, given that a no deal scenario (which you have said you'd happily take) would likely lead to the pound falling even further and business leaving the UK, increasing the price of imports, why would the UK be in a strong position negotiating with other countries who know we are desperate to do deals?
Guest MattP Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: Some questions: There are over 700 seperate trade agreements that the EU has with countries around the world. We will need to get them all replaced overnight. Is this likely? If WTO terms are so fantastic, why does no country on earth trade primarily on WTO terms? What happened to the idea that reaching a trade agreement with the EU child happen virtually overnight, as pushed by vote leave? Finally, given that a no deal scenario (which you have said you'd happily take) would likely lead to the pound falling even further and business leaving the UK, increasing the price of imports, why would the UK be in a strong position negotiating with other countries who know we are desperate to do deals? Morning Todd, I'm off to Cheltenham for the Countryside Festival so I won't be on much but quick answers to these. 1) No, they don't need replacing overnight either, hence the transition period. 2) I'm not aware of anyone saying WTO terms are "fantastic" - can you name who has? 3) Vote Leave didn't say that from my memory, again can you name where Vote Leave said this? 4) I've not said I'd happily take No Deal. A weak pound though is actually quite a benefit for trade. You mist be getting me confused with someone else.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 14 minutes ago, MattP said: I was definitely tricked into voting for Brexit by outside interference into the referendum from a foreign country. It was that time Vladimir Putin stood on a stage with David Cameron live on the BBC, threatening that we wold go to the front of the queue for a trade deal if we voted to leave. I think that's what happened anyway. That is the most likely explanation. Seriously though - it doesn't bother you at all? Maybe not you personally - but others? You don't acknowledge the possibility of outside interference skewing the true "will of the British people"?
Innovindil Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 14 minutes ago, toddybad said: As Ken Clarke said yesterday, the government had a working group.looking at which EU regulations it would want to get rid of as part of the coalition government (when he was in the cabinet). They found no EU regulations that the UK would want to get rid of. Why is cheap crap meat being imported a good thing? Is it likely to be marked as such within pies and other pre-made goods? What is the US decide that it wants a US-first deal and wants its companies to be able to sue our government if we force chlorinated chickens to be marked differently, including within pre-made goods, potentially affecting sales? Because it's not crap and it's cheap. The **** sort of question is that? As for the "but muh mean muricans" question. We can say no. As we've always had the ability to do.
Guest MattP Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: That is the most likely explanation. Seriously though - it doesn't bother you at all? Maybe not you personally - but others? You don't acknowledge the possibility of outside interference skewing the true "will of the British people"? As I hope you took from my light hearted post, if anyone chooses to be bothered about it whilst not also being concerned by the visit we had from Barack Obama, the hypocrisy of it would be astounding wouldn't it? We already know there was foreign interference in the referendum, we saw it with our very own eyes from the USA, on the subject, I doubt a few Russian bots could seriously have that much influence, even if it did, it would be certainly nowhere near the influence on the people that his visit was intended to have on our own electorate, which was organised by our own government. Edited 15 November 2017 by MattP
Innovindil Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: That is the most likely explanation. Seriously though - it doesn't bother you at all? Maybe not you personally - but others? You don't acknowledge the possibility of outside interference skewing the true "will of the British people"? It will bother me when the remain side admit that outside influence could (and did) skew the amount of votes for remain. It's not a one way thing just because one side won and one lost.
Strokes Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 31 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: What has the Guardian got to do with anything here? I thought we'd finished with What-about-ism? So you're in favour of de-regulation. This will essential reduce our ability to trade with the EU even further... I thought you lot said we only sell services into the EU, that’s why we have nothing to offer the rest of the world. Food regulations won’t affect our trade with the EU if we don’t sell and if we can buy cheaper......whey hey!!!!!!! 31 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: I don't think the report you quoted mentioned that either. As I said, the EFT outline the benefits of Brexit. But they don't mention any of the costs of Brexit. And your response is "well what about the Guardian?" No my response to you saying you questioning their figure impartiality based on the fact they only have positive stories on brexit, I said I feel the same about the guardian. Never said what about and it isn’t a whataboutism whatever that made up thing is. 31 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Does it ever cross your mind that you might have been tricked by Russian bots into believing in Brexit - but you've no real idea why you believe in it!!? Geniune question Sir. No, I’m on record on here as far back as 2006 saying we should exit the EU. If that is true then they have put in a big shift and deserve their payday.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: As I hope you took from my light hearted post, if anyone chooses to be bothered about it whilst not also being concerned by the visit we had from Barack Obama, the hypocrisy of it would be astounding wouldn't it? We already know there was foreign interference in the referendum, we saw it with our very own eyes from the USA, on the subject, I doubt a few Russian bots could seriously have that much influence, even if it did, it would be certainly nowhere near the influence on the people that his visit was intended to have on our own electorate, which was organised by our own government. 2 minutes ago, Innovindil said: It will bother me when the remain side admit that outside influence could (and did) skew the amount of votes for remain. It's not a one way thing just because one side won and one lost. Yes fair points. Let me rephrase the question. Does it bother you that the Russians dis-honestly spread propaganda and untruths about the EU and Brexit? Or do you draw a moral equivalency between that, and Obama speaking openly and plainly, in his role as US President, about his beliefs about Brexit?
Simi Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 Certainly seeing a lot of "whataboutism" demonstrated in here at the moment...
Guest MattP Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Yes fair points. Let me rephrase the question. Does it bother you that the Russians dis-honestly spread propaganda and untruths about the EU and Brexit? Or do you draw a moral equivalency between that, and Obama speaking openly and plainly, in his role as US President, about his beliefs about Brexit? Obama went back on everything he said the morning after we had voted to leave. All threats were dropped and he started talking about the special relationship again, I've not seen any of the Russian stuff so I have no idea how dishonest or to what extent it would be labelled as propaganda, but it would have to have been some serious bullshit to rank alongside what Barack said.
Strokes Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 On 14/11/2017 at 10:46, Fox Ulike said: What about when some Tory did something racist? Eh? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/tory-councillor-is-accused-of-making-racist-and-sexist-remarks-t/ Love this: Cllr Andrew Dransfield, vice-chairman of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority, allegedly shook the [black] fireman's hand and declared: "You're the first one I've seen. You know... ethnic minority. Now all we need is a woman. Are there any here?" Would this be a whataboutism from yesterday, just for clarification purposes?
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: I thought you lot said we only sell services into the EU, that’s why we have nothing to offer the rest of the world. Food regulations won’t affect our trade with the EU if we don’t sell and if we can buy cheaper......whey hey!!!!!!! No my response to you saying you questioning their figure impartiality based on the fact they only have positive stories on brexit, I said I feel the same about the guardian. Never said what about and it isn’t a whataboutism whatever that made up thing is. No, I’m on record on here as far back as 2006 saying we should exit the EU. If that is true then they have put in a big shift and deserve their payday. I don't know who 'you lot' are! I'm not sure why your feelings about the Guardian are relevant. I just asked if you knew why the article you quoted only included the financial benefits of Brexit, but completely ignored the costs!! ("Well what about the Guardian/ Jeremy Corbyn / the price of fish)" Are you a Russian bot?! Seriously. If the issue is as widespread as it might be - there could genuinely be some FT posters from the St Petersburg Troll House! If I had to put money on it, my tenner would be on you, Strokesavinsky!
Fox Ulike Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 Just now, Strokes said: Would this be a whataboutism from yesterday, just for clarification purposes? It was. Glad to see the penny has finally dropped.
Innovindil Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 10 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Yes fair points. Let me rephrase the question. Does it bother you that the Russians dis-honestly spread propaganda and untruths about the EU and Brexit? Or do you draw a moral equivalency between that, and Obama speaking openly and plainly, in his role as US President, about his beliefs about Brexit? Not really, no. Because in the end, the right decision was made (for me at least) I don't particularly care what grass the sheep were fed to make them follow, only that they baaaaa'd on cue.
Strokes Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: I don't know who 'you lot' are! I'm not sure why your feelings about the Guardian are relevant. I just asked if you knew why the article you quoted only included the financial benefits of Brexit, but completely ignored the costs!! ("Well what about the Guardian/ Jeremy Corbyn / the price of fish)" Are you a Russian bot?! Seriously. If the issue is as widespread as it might be - there could genuinely be some FT posters from the St Petersburg Troll House! If I had to put money on it, my tenner would be on you, Strokesavinsky! But I never said what about the guardian!!!!!!!! You questioned its legitimacy because it only displays one side of the argument, I said, that’s how I feel about the guardian. The words what about only appears in our converse, when you first typed them.
Guest MattP Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 Polls still barely moving. CON 41% LAB 41% LD 7% UKIP 4% ICM : (Nov 9-12)
Bellend Sebastian Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 All of you lot banging on about chlorinated chicken - have you ever tried chlorine? It's one of the most delicious gases I've ever tasted. Can't get enough of it, personally 1
Strokes Posted 15 November 2017 Posted 15 November 2017 25 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It was. Glad to see the penny has finally dropped. So when did you think we were finished with whataboutisms then, was it before or after you last did it?
Recommended Posts