Printable View
The article confirms that the UK did not send the equivalent of £350m a week to the EU, which means the claim on the bus was a lie. Your compulsive defense of this lie is incredibly weird and incredibly shameful. It's like you've totally lost what little character you had left.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
...Quote:
The claim that the UK sends £350 million per week to the EU is wrong.
edit: as a sidenote, this place feels exactly as I remember it. :)Quote:
instant discount
Except for whatsherface, where is she?
That article confirms the £350m per week is the gross payment. Any time this was brought up it was acknowledged that this was the gross figure, but it is worth noting too that the article doesn't just dispute the gross figure used it also disputes the figure claimed by Remain campaigners that we would "just" save £5 billion for bull they pulled out of their arse . . . yet nobody is calling Remainers liars for the fact they got their sums wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Assuming it is a fact they got their sums wrong. If they knew they got their sums wrong, they're liars. If they didn't know, they're incompetent.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
See, that was easy.
The article confirms that the UK did not send the equivalent of £350m a week to the EU. The Pink Book confirms this as well. The ONS has clarified the matter so that no doubt can remain as to whether or not the UK sent anything equivalent to that sum. In short, the claim on the bus was a lie. You seem to be incapable of deciding whether your asinine defense of that lie is that the claim was wrong but based on official info (it was not), or that the claim was not wrong (it was, based on official info as well as independent fact-checking). It is incredibly telling how insistent you are on defending lies, and this is why it's so funny when you say critical things about Trump, Fox News, the GOP etc.—anyone can see that you, Johnson, the English press and the Tories are the same wrt respect for the truth, wrt xenophobia, wrt democratic norms, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The article explicitly characterizes it (accurately, afaict) as speculation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Speculation is not the same as lying, and it's quite telling that RB can't even tell what a lie is anymore.Quote:
The claim that the amount we could save is as low as £5 billion is speculation
TBH if you're at the point of quibbling about whether or not the money is transferred to the UK and then the EU transfers back the amount specified by the rebate or if they UK just transfers the money minus what the rebate would be, then it's pretty clear the argument you were trying to make was garbage anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
350 million is not the amount that is available for new spending once we leave the EU, ~250 million is. That is the part that was a lie.
In other words:
https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...ake-it-out.jpg
That kind of argumentation requires shared understanding and consensus truth, an ability to read between the lines and good faith engagement. Trivially, there's no real reason why £350m per week couldn't be available for spending on the NHS even if the UK had sent only £250m per week to the EU—the allocation is a political question rather than a question of accounting. Of course, even from that perspective it ended up being a lie, but at least they built 60 new hospitals :downcast:
You realize that Merkel does not say what you think she's saying? But carry on deluding yourself.
I do not want to start a free trial. Found the thing on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/..._brexit_talks/
I don't know what it is Rand you informed people thusly and there's no clarification in the post either. I don't care either way.Quote:
Translated section of her speech on brexit for those interested: "During this time, the decisive course for our future relationship with the United Kingdom also falls. Diverse relationships, not least numerous town twinning agreements, show that an agreement is in everyone's interest. The EU is united in its endeavor to achieve this in the short term. But unfortunately we also have to prepare ourselves in the event that no agreement is reached." It's not even her main point, which is largely about increased cooperation, especially in light of Covid, so it becomes an even weirder focus.
He's gloating because Merkel is trying—as the EU has throughout this process—to give the British govt. a way to climb down without losing face and sell—to the English public—the deal they're getting as a win. Just another example of the EU's almost excessive willingness to help incompetent English pols not shoot themselves in the dick.
This is a common situation wrt English press coverage of Merkel (and, indeed, any EU leader or official who makes any comment about Brexit in any language). RB will gloat about some poorly translated, misunderstood or deceptively presented throwaway remark that has sparked a lot of activity in English pro-Brexit circles, and then someone who speaks the language in question will have to overcome their crushing fremdschämen long enough to explain to him what was actually said, which has almost always amounted nothing having changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Yeah, well us Europeans are all nice-like like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
We feel bad that the UK had made such a mess of things, and realize that a large portion of the good English citizens didn't sign up for this. Hang in there fellers, your prime minister may be a babbling buffoon, but we won't turn our backs on you!
Gosh, I almost felt American there.
Like she said, a deal is in everyone's best interest; the EU has realized that whether or not a deal happens will depend to a great extent on the British govt's confidence in its ability to bullshit the public, so it's tried to give the govt. one face-saving solution after another, while safeguarding every major strategic EU and member state interest (recognizing that no deal will happen that isn't to the liking of even one single little member state).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Oh dear maybe I'm wrong. Peston has said there will be a deal, which given his track record means No Deal is now nailed on.
Twitter Link
For the record, because I don't think I've ever said it here, I think there's zero chance of "no deal".
I've never been particularly worried that we wouldn't be able to secure -some kind- of trade deal with the EU in this period. I've not been confident that it'll be a "great" deal, or even a "good" deal for us, but we'll get something.
I also don't think getting a deal should be seen as some kind of success or massive achievement. It should be the very basic, expected stuff post Brexit.
Surely whether it is "great" "good" or "bad" depends upon your point of view and priorities?
Doesn't everything?
Precisely.
To the extent that this is true, said perspectives and priorities must be clearly articulated—in as concrete and quantitative terms as possible—beforehand. However, to a very great extent, this is not true—at least, not if you believe in consensus reality and democracy. For example, an outcome that would see thousands of people broke, starving or dead would be bad, even if some people were to argue that it's worth it. An outcome that would leave the majority or a very large minority dissatisfied would be bad. An outcome where things that widely considered to be good—such as trade and prosperity—would be sacrificed would be bad, even if it were done in the hopes of some sort of future advantage; until that future advantage materializes—and unless it can neutralize the harm that has been done—the outcome would be bad. You can adjust the bar as you see fit, just as long as you make it clear exactly where it's set and why before the game starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Rare show of honesty:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1035344.html
Sorry, I'm probably being dense but what's the point you're trying to make? It went over my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Et voila
Twitter Link
Wasn't Huffelpiffle supposed to walk away from the negotiations today?
He said that before he spoke to von der Leyen recently when they jointly committed to intensifying talks.
We'll have to see now what happens following this EC Council meeting. If the EU want to be more realistic then a deal is achievable, if not then time to pull the plug.
Twitter Link
Woohoo! :D
I listened to that and it was the longest drawn out possible maybe I've ever heard a politician declare. What may have been lost in translation for brexitards (see previous message) is that De Pfeffel ditched his latest ultimatum.
He hasn't. He's said we're going for an Australian style deal.
Of course if you want to come to us begging for a deal then you know where we are and know what our terms are. Of course the EU made a big song and dance about removing the line about intensifying talks - and then as soon as Boris said that both Barnier and von der Leyen said they're going to be intensifying talks.
And then number 10 have gone further by saying the trade talks are over. The door isn't shut if you want to beg us for a deal but you will need to move if so.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Whatever, he didn't say it. The explanations to the contrary don't count.