So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

7 hours ago, P.K. said:

Feel the complex.

 

16 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Feel the complex.

Are you an automatic reply program?

[woolley]

23 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

But there in lies one of the fundamental issues with Brexit...facts don't matter to Leave.

There is countless hours of footage of interviews with people who have voted to Leave and when they are fact checked it all resorts to "sovereignty" or "getting our borders back" nonsense.

 

You have just proved the point concisely. Sovereignty is the most important factual issue in this debate bar none, for now and for the future, but to you it is "nonsense". Your mind is closed. You merely choose the facts you wish to consider and ignore the rest. Those you do consider are usually the minutiae of trade regulations which will obviously be perpetuated as it is in nobody's interest for them not to be, and not the likely wider geopolitical situation in the coming decades which seems to be beyond the scope of this debate in your eyes. This is to be seen hour by hour in PK's interminable posts about "no deal". Also, of course, "facts" in relation to the future are merely speculation as none of us have a crystal ball and this applies to both sides. We can only use our best endeavours and experience of human nature to see the way the wind is blowing across Europe, and it doesn't look pretty for the status quo.

[woolley]

28 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

A fact is a fact but people do misuse the term and try and present opinion as fact or pseudoscience as fact.  The whole flat earth nonsense is a good example as are a lot of other pieces where there is some desire to present a "balanced view" and they bring in any old loon to argue the opposite.

OK MM1980. I concede that you have a point here. Perhaps "balance" was the wrong word. Obviously some subjects, like the one you cite about the flat earth cobblers, are not deserving of balance. But where we have a serious political debate with principled, intelligent arguments on both sides, it is very galling to witness the loaded coverage, with an unremittingly grim spin about the prospects of the UK being applied to every single item, by people who are clearly indignant that anyone should have the temerity to vote to live in a country untrammeled by the EU.

[P.K.]

16 minutes ago, woolley said:

You have just proved the point concisely. Sovereignty is the most important factual issue in this debate bar none, for now and for the future, but to you it is "nonsense". Your mind is closed. You merely choose the facts you wish to consider and ignore the rest. Those you do consider are usually the minutiae of trade regulations which will obviously be perpetuated as it is in nobody's interest for them not to be, and not the likely wider geopolitical situation in the coming decades which seems to be beyond the scope of this debate in your eyes. This is to be seen hour by hour in PK's interminable posts about "no deal". Also, of course, "facts" in relation to the future are merely speculation as none of us have a crystal ball and this applies to both sides. We can only use our best endeavours and experience of human nature to see the way the wind is blowing across Europe, and it doesn't look pretty for the status quo.

Sovereignty facts:

According to Leave 75% of UK legislation was driven by the EU.

According to the HoC library it was just 13%.

That 13% was about meeting EU standards in items like food provenance.

But using the word "sovereignty" instead of "legislation" summed up "queen and country", "patriotism" etc etc just as it was intended to do....

[woolley]

1. The 13% is wrong. It is much higher. Even if it were not, any percentage above zero is too much. The real figure is somewhere between the 13% and 75%, and the reach is much wider than food provenance

2. You can put the popcorn away. There will be no repeat of last night. I am taking the advice of the sage and eloquent Mr Quilp and winding my neck in.

Hope that helps.

[manxman1980]

8 minutes ago, woolley said:

1. The 13% is wrong. It is much higher. Even if it were not, any percentage above zero is too much. The real figure is somewhere between the 13% and 75%, and the reach is much wider than food provenance

This is an example of where there should be an easy measurable fact.  Either the legislation is introduced by the UK Government or it is introduced by the EU.

How can we not agree on the figures here?

 

[P.K.]

21 hours ago, woolley said:

1. The 13% is wrong. It is much higher. Even if it were not, any percentage above zero is too much. The real figure is somewhere between the 13% and 75%, and the reach is much wider than food provenance

2. You can put the popcorn away. There will be no repeat of last night. I am taking the advice of the sage and eloquent Mr Quilp and winding my neck in.

Hope that helps.

You know better than the HoC library? 

A sage and eloquent Mr Quilp?

Don't know that one....

I do know of one Mr Quilp who is referred to as "shouty man" by some on here who makes out he's some sort of self-taught psychoanalyst. Laughable I know.

Could they in some way be related?

Edited February 16, 2019 by P.K.

[woolley]

6 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

This is an example of where there should be an easy measurable fact.  Either the legislation is introduced by the UK Government or it is introduced by the EU.

How can we not agree on the figures here?

 

Actually, no. It is much more complex than that.

See thee: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

[P.K.]

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07092

[Barrie Stevens]

Last I looked Tynwald Library had quite a collection of EU/EEC/EC laws, rules and regs adopted and passed by Tynwald so as to stay in line and cooperate...Not just UK. Look closer to home...

[P.K.]

An overall success rate of less than 20% led to “air miles” Fox being brought to the Commons to answer an urgent question on his department’s failures. Fox was thoroughly unrepentant – earlier promises clearly mean nothing to him – and urged everyone to celebrate his achievement in having signed six deals that were almost as good as the ones we already had as members of the EU. He also seemed utterly bewildered that Japan and South Korea were using Brexit as an opportunity to try to get the UK to agree to worse terms. Ken Clarke gently pointed out that could have something to do with us having less clout outside the EU. Fox disagreed. He thought it more likely the EU had nobbled the Japanese, urging them to make his life more difficult. The House of Commons stupidity bar has never been lower.

[Freggyragh]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-11-06/a-240-billion-a-month-market-leaves-london-because-of-brexit

[Non-Believer]

It's ok. JRM and Co have shipped their operations out too. They'll be safe.

[woody2]

20 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

Someone I know works in the pet shipping business and for the most part its wealth types and "celebrities" sending their dogs or cats to Canada, Australia and Dubai.  

But maybe 50% of their business is shipping ex-pats pets back and forth between Europe and the UK.

Everyday they get at least a dozen phone calls asking how Brexit is going to affect pet shipping, to which they get the same response...we don't know, because the Government doesn't know.  And the Government won't know until an agreement is reached, and it doesn't look like an agreement will be reached.

Yet another little self inflicted shot in the foot for the Brexit supporting immigrant (because ex-pat is a bollocks term).

poorly run businesses should go to the wall.......

 

[woody2]

18 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Couple of points to make about your post;

1. Whilst we do not yet know what the impact of Brexit will be we do know that the uncertainty around Brexit is currently the biggest challenge to businesses.  Companies who ship to China/Japan are already being impacted because whatever they ship now will arrive post brexit and they have no idea what tariffs will or won't apply.  We also know that champions of Brexit such as Jacob Rees-Mogg have said that it may be 50 years before we see the real benefit of Brexit;

2. As for there being no balance in reporting surely that should be the case where facts are concerned?  I do not understand the current obsession in the media with bringing together two parties who disagree especially where one is using facts and the other beliefs and opinions with nothing to back it up.  This is misleading.  I think someone has already said it on here but a journalist on being told that it is raining should stick their head outside and check rather than report that person A says it is raining but person B says it isn't.  

wto...... next.........