I think it can be helpful to explore a delusion to see whether it even holds up under its own premises.Originally Posted by Hazir
I think it can be helpful to explore a delusion to see whether it even holds up under its own premises.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, I think that what he just agreed to flew right over his head.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It it your experience that he’s consistent in anything besides his willingness to move the goal posts while insisting they never moved?
Congratulations America
I'll thank you not to explore my delusions with the intention of undermining them
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes.
Seems like the rumor mill in the sovereign United Kingdom is gearing up to prepare Her Majesty's subjects for some serious U-turning.
I think I should dig up my prediction of how this would work out from four years ago.
Congratulations America
Or a compromise.
Which is exactly how I've been saying this would end.
If it makes you happy to call all UK red lines being erased a compromise, a compromise. Other than that you're not really escaping from the ECHR, and probably not even the ECJ, you will sign up to the LPF, you will scrap the offending parts of your internal market bill, in return for which you will accept a much stronger mechanism to keep you in line, your state aid rules will not be set in violation of EU rules and to end this all, virtually nothing will change in fishing rules in your waters.
In the second part of the negotiations, about services, which you need much much more than we do, we'll make sure that freedom of movement is re-instated.
Brexit is turning out quite a bit better for us than it is for you. Good luck with the claims of Nissan and Toyota. It seems they are really angry and going to keep you to your word.
Congratulations America
Leaving the ECHR has never been an ambition, so that's certainly not a red line.
Leave the ECJ is.
LPF so long as it is mutually agreed and neutral arbitration - and we can take EU member states to arbitration just as much as vice-versa - is entirely reasonable.
The offending parts of the internal market bill are totally moot if there's a deal. Of course they'll go if there's a deal.
State aid rules not violating mutually agreed principles is fine. Not dynamically meeting EU rules.
Of course fishing quotas will change.
You're quite the little dreamer.
Congratulations America
Well once a final deal (if one is reached, I expect it will be) is agreed then we should be able to see who was right.
I expect for Fish there will be a transitionary agreement so that the UK quotas go up over a period of approximately 3 years.
You seem to think we're going to allow you to mess with the quota that our fishers bought over the years.
Congratulations America
Your fishermen haven't bought the quotas, that's not the issue. The issue is our quotas are artificially low due to the way the CFP is calculated and that has always been the case.
The problem on this topic is that the word quota has two different meanings and you are making the error of looking at the wrong one.
From the Us Elections thread:
See how you're switching from putting the blame on years of anti-EU propaganda, where the blame lies with the people spouting the propaganda to blaming the people who are targeted by that propaganda. So you can be all victim like.
The dickheads are the ones who were going: "Oh will you look at this ridiculous rule the EU forces upon us, you can't make this shit up!"
Well, yes you can, because you just did. Just to get someone to ruffle the newspaper and mutter about the inhumanity of it all (it all being the EU)
The general public (us) can be excused for not digging to the bottom of each claim in order to figure out which ones are true, they have jobs, kids and other stuff occupying their time, and that is what the dickheads are well aware of. You bombard the public with disinformation, and it will stick. Because you have already created an atmosphere similar to what's happening in America with MAGA.
One of the dickheads plastered a lot of propaganda on the side of a bus for instance
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...us-in-cornwall
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I'm not blaming either. Neither the people who made an argument nor the people who voted for it are to "blame". There is no "victim" here.
If there's any dickheads its the ones who lost the argument. The ones who couldn't find any good way to refute what was being said.
The bus is a good example. Vote Leave put up that we pay £350m a week to the EU (which is factually the correct gross term, but not the net term). Critics then argued that it is "only" about £250m a week that is paid net. Queue weeks of arguments that "the UK is paying £350m a week", "no it is paying £250m a week" and the public correctly hears the entirely factual message that we are paying a lot of money to the EU.
The pro-EU side didn't dispute that we were net paying a lot of money to the EU because they couldn't, we do. So instead they just quibbled about it being a different large number to the large number claimed which just had the effect of giving the original claim a Streisand Effect multiplier. The reasonable pro-EU argument I would have thought is not to quibble about how much we are paying to the EU (swapping one large number for another large number is rather meaningless) but instead to make the claim that it is more than worth it. But the pro-EU side ceded that argument and resorted to nitpicking about how much net the EU cost us instead.
I feel those who deliberately mislead the public are bigger dickheads than those who are unable to debunk those claims.
But that's a personal difference. I see you're fine with misinformation being spread as long as it's serves your goal. That's your prerogative.
edit: heh, good thing I checked: "So arguably a more accurate reflection of the cost to Britain of EU membership might be £8.5bn last year, or about £160m (as opposed to £350m [RED: also as opposed to 250]) a week. And once more, that adjusted figure does not take into account any of the economic and financial benefits to Britain of being in the single market."
it's your fault Dilnot! You dickhead!As such, Dilnot added: “Without further explanation I consider these statements to be potentially misleading and it is disappointing that this figure has been used without such explanation.”
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Except claims of deliberately misleading the public are bollocks.
Oh I'm sure Boris did so unintentionally.
Whoops, I went and misled the public! Silly me and my butterfingers!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
This is of course horseshit and a disgraceful example of revisionism, given that the lie was refuted and the argument that the payment was more than worth it was made.
Last edited by Aimless; 10-12-2020 at 10:47 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It was not a lie it was a petty argument between the gross and net figure. Both figures were correct.
The argument that the payment was worth more was much, much less prominent than the whinging about using the gross figure instead of the net figure and the corresponding Streisand Effect for bringing attention to the figures.
Did the bus read: "We send the EU 350 million a week"?
Did you send the EU 350 million a week?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Gross, yes.
How does that work Rand? So, you send 350 million to the EU, and they in turn send the difference back? Explain that to me.
So this is bollocks?
The same kind of problem occurs with Vote Leave’s claim that “Britain sends £350m a week to the EU”. First, the figure does not take account of Britain’s rebate, worth nearly £100m a week (which also means some of Britain’s “membership fee” never actually leaves the UK). Second, roughly half of what Britain does pay comes straight back in EU spending in the UK.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Lets stop beating around the bush shall we?
If the claim had been: "Our membership fee is 350 million" it would not have been a lie. It would still have been misleading to only provide that information without mentioning the rebate or what the EU is spending back in the UK. So, truthful, but misleading.
And since the target demographic are the people who swallowed the myths about curvy bananas, lawnmowers, and even a script from the sitcom "Yes, minister", those who campaigned with that sort of information, knew how it would go down with a specific part of the British public. They would swallow that hook, line and sinker. They knew they were bullshitting them. Thus, they are dickheads.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Johnson lied on camera about lying on camera and RB had no problems with that, so I reckon it's pretty much established fact now that RB has no issues with liars or lies.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As long as they're gross liars.
Spoiler:
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Nuthin' but netAs long as they're gross liars.
Spoiler:
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes the £350m to the EU per week was the accurate gross figure.
Yes we got a rebate which reduces net payments, though there was never a guarantee that the rebate would continue. The EU and other states had repeatedly sought to reduce or abolish the rebate and it had been reduced in recent years too and there was ongoing talk of reducing or abolishing it which would make our gross figure the accurate net figure to use for membership if that happened.
Yes there was some of our own money handed back to people in this country, though without our control or authority on how it is spent, but that is another net fgure not the gross figure.
But the £350m per week was literally the gross figure in impartial published Government accounts. Taking the figure from the Government accounts seems a legitimate figure to use.
No Rand. You didn't send 350 mil to the EU per week.
I know it's the gross figure. But you didn't send the gross figure.
Go ahead and say: Yes we weekly sent 350 million to the EU. Go on. Not "it was the accurate gross figure", because that's not contested.
Edit: out of sheer curiousity, as for the second part, will the NHS see a 350 mil a week budget increase after Brexit?
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 10-12-2020 at 04:12 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Yes we did. Gross, yes we did.
It is the accurate figure in the accounts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote