[Politics] Brexit

[Lincoln Imp]

Fair enough, perhaps when we enter the woods the dooming can start, or not as the case may be, surely until then the constant barrage of "suspected" doom can be put on the shelf. You may have plenty of time to revel in the demise of our green and pleasant land, i'm sure it will bring a satisfied smile to your face.
If things go ok, then we shall be free and decisions made in THIS country.

I find it interesting that you get all uppity about someone misrepresenting your views on how long a post-Brexit downturn would last but are quite happy to suggest that I and anyone else not buying into the narrative of minimal Brexit economic effect dislike our country, want it to fail and will have satisfied smiles as Britain sinks beneath the waves. Double standards.

 

[Baldseagull]

You believe wrong. That was never ever part of any of the doom-mongers statements. There was just no qualifications on their statements. George Osbourne does his Emergency Budget when we invoke article 50? (oh he can't - lol). We go into immediate recession when we invoice article 50? Intereast Rates hike when we invoke article 50? Obummers 'back of the line' starts when we invoke article 50? and so on and so on and so on...........

Did you hear one of those statements I certaintly didn't and I watched and read a lot. It was all if we 'Leave'.

No, I did hear David Cameron say that he would immediately invoke article 50 though, I am glad he did not by the way.
But have it your way mate, I am sure you will be just fine, if we ever do it.

 

[Soulman]

I find it interesting that you get all uppity about someone misrepresenting your views on how long a post-Brexit downturn would last but are quite happy to suggest that I and anyone else not buying into the narrative of minimal Brexit economic effect dislike our country, want it to fail and will have satisfied smiles as Britain sinks beneath the waves. Double standards.

Strange how when a different opinion to yours is aired you accuse the poster of being "uppity" or "angry" or to calm down. I am fine, just post my opinion like it or not.

 

[Baldseagull]

You said it was a certainty:
You're saying it will happen and that it's a certainty, yet you're trying to argue that you didn't say it was a fact. Do you speak English?

Oh, so it's not a certainty anymore then

Yes, I speak English, a fact would be something that has happened and has verifiable, undeniable proof.
A certainty is something that definitely will happen.

I am certain we will enter recession, due to separating from the E.U., if we go ahead with it, yes I know what all the players are saying at the moment, and that is the direction we are going but there is time for a reversal.
A recession is usually cited as 2 quarters of "negative growth", I think we will go into recession for longer than that and that it will take years to get back to the level we were at.

 

[Triggaaar]

a fact would be something that has happened and has verifiable, undeniable proof.

A certainty is something that definitely will happen.

Yet another thing you are mistaken about. Facts are not only about things that have already happened. It is a fact of life that you will die one day.

I am certain we will enter recession, due to separating from the E.U., if we go ahead with it

And you are mistaken. It is not a certainty, as you acknowledge when you added caveats such as "The only way we will avoid recession is if government abandons the austerity program completely, and borrows beyond our means, possibly a bit of quantative easing on top". If that is a way to avoid recession, then it's obviously not a certainty that there will be a recession.

I think we will go into recession for longer than that and that it will take years to get back to the level we were at.

That on it's own is, IMO, a fair point. Pretending that it's a certainty though, takes away from your point, as we all (well most of us I would think) know it's not a certainty.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's not ironic. If the experts predicted doom and gloom, and now those same experts say it's probably not going to be so bad, that's good news.

Invoking article 50 won't suddenly remove us from the EU. Markets have already reacted to the fact we're leaving. International companies that might invest here have already reacted to the fact we're leaving. They're not going to keep ploughing money into the UK and then suddenly stop when article 50 is triggered, that's just the formal legal start of the process, but it's clear the decision to leave has already been taken, and investors have responded.

Not that I'd be surprised if there is a recession in the coming years, I always thought there was a good chance of that, I'm just not as pessimistic as many remainers.

Please don't ask me if I speak English in one post, and in the next ask me to explain irony.

Invoking article 50 is a non reversible position, from where we are now we can still remain. No one is pulling out yet, just not investing so much and perhaps shelving some growth plans. When we get to the point of no return, the money will start moving out.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yet another thing you are mistaken about. Facts are not only about things that have already happened. It is a fact of life that you will die one day.

And you are mistaken. It is not a certainty, as you acknowledge when you added caveats such as "The only way we will avoid recession is if government abandons the austerity program completely, and borrows beyond our means, possibly a bit of quantative easing on top". If that is a way to avoid recession, then it's obviously not a certainty that there will be a recession.

That on it's own is, IMO, a fair point. Pretending that it's a certainty though, takes away from your point, as we all (well most of us I would think) know it's not a certainty.

Without spending too much time on semantics, there are only 2 certainties in life, death and taxes, and that is a fact.

I am regretting posting "The only way we will avoid recession is if government abandons the austerity program completely, and borrows beyond our means, possibly a bit of quantative easing on top"
Because I don't believe they can do enough of this to stave it off completely.

 

[Triggaaar]

Please don't ask me if I speak English in one post, and in the next ask me to explain irony.

I didn't. Are you stupid? See, that's a question. I didn't ask you to explain irony, I pointed out that something you stated as being ironic, wasn't ironic.

Invoking article 50 is a non reversible position, from where we are now we can still remain.

Although we could still remain, the odds of that happening are extremely low, given that the country has voted to leave and we have a new PM who keeps highlighting that Brexit means Brexit. So the money will have already moved based on us moving out. It will move again when more is known, or even predicted about the likely deals that we strike.

On a point of pedantry, article 50 is not actually a non reversible position. It is theoretically possible that we will not be happy with the terms offered by the EU, and that we offer to stay in, and they accept. Extremely unlikely of course, but it's also extremely unlikely that we won't trigger article 50.

No one is pulling out yet, just not investing so much and perhaps shelving some growth plans. When we get to the point of no return, the money will start moving out.

As explained, that's not going to be when we invoke Article 50. I wouldn't expect international businesses to pull out en-masse without knowing what the new deal would be. What would be the point, if we were to remain in the single market?

 

[Triggaaar]

Without spending too much time on semantics, there are only 2 certainties in life, death and taxes, and that is a fact.

You got it wrong, spend as much time as you like on it.

I am regretting posting "The only way we will avoid recession is if government abandons the austerity program completely, and borrows beyond our means, possibly a bit of quantative easing on top"
Because I don't believe they can do enough of this to stave it off completely.

But saying 'I don't believe they can do enough' means that while you think they won't, you don't discount the fact that they might. And if you don't discount that fact, then you realise that a recession is not a certainty.

What do you think are the main reasons that we will likely have a recession?

 

[Baldseagull]

I didn't. Are you stupid? See, that's a question. I didn't ask you to explain irony, I pointed out that something you stated as being ironic, wasn't ironic.

Although we could still remain, the odds of that happening are extremely low, given that the country has voted to leave and we have a new PM who keeps highlighting that Brexit means Brexit. So the money will have already moved based on us moving out. It will move again when more is known, or even predicted about the likely deals that we strike.

On a point of pedantry, article 50 is not actually a non reversible position. It is theoretically possible that we will not be happy with the terms offered by the EU, and that we offer to stay in, and they accept. Extremely unlikely of course, but it's also extremely unlikely that we won't trigger article 50.

As explained, that's not going to be when we invoke Article 50. I wouldn't expect international businesses to pull out en-masse without knowing what the new deal would be. What would be the point, if we were to remain in the single market?

Ok, if you cannot see the irony of someone pointing out that IMF predictions cant be relied upon because they have just given an improved forecast, at the same time as using that new forecast as evidence that everything is going to be just rosy, you need someone to explain irony to you. But perhaps you read my comments away from the context of the post I was replying to.

If I am mistaken about article 50 being the beginning of a process that cannot be stopped by us, would you do me the favour of directing me to where you learned it was not.
My understanding is that E.U. is not obliged to discuss the terms of any trade agreement with the UK until the UK is no longer a member, the 2 year process is just about disengaging, not about how we will then re-engage.

 

[Triggaaar]

Ok, if you cannot see the irony of someone pointing out that IMF predictions cant be relied upon because they have just given an improved forecast, at the same time as using that new forecast as evidence that everything is going to be just rosy, you need someone to explain irony to you. But perhaps you read my comments away from the context of the post I was replying to.

I was simply replying to this comment of yours: "No, I was trying to point out the irony of not believing the predictions of post Brexit economic recession, but being comforted by the current predictions from the same experts."

That is not ironic. There were many predictions by many experts. It is possible to have some faith in the experts whilst also thinking they were scaremongering, being quoted out of context*, or acting though self-interest etc. If those experts then revise their predictions to support what I originally thought, it is not ironic for me to take comfort from that.

* As an example, an expert who said that the UK economy would suffer a major downturn if we left the EU and didn't have access to the single market, and such a comment could easily be shortened, which would change its meaning.

If I am mistaken about article 50 being the beginning of a process that cannot be stopped by us, would you do me the favour of directing me to where you learned it was not.

You didn't state that it was the beginning of a process that could not be stopped by us, so that's not what I replied to. Do you seriously think you're going to pull the wool over my eyes by pretending that's what you said? We were talking about investors and the 'money', and you said "Invoking article 50 is a non reversible position, from where we are now we can still remain." I replied "It is theoretically possible that we will not be happy with the terms offered by the EU, and that we offer to stay in, and they accept." Obviously that would require them to accept, we could not stop it alone. Sheesh

My understanding is that E.U. is not obliged to discuss the terms of any trade agreement with the UK until the UK is no longer a member

Well no, they discuss the terms after article 50 has been invoked, while the UK is still a member. The UK stays a member until agreement is reached, or at least two years have passed, or more if that period is extended by mutual agreement.

the 2 year process is just about disengaging, not about how we will then re-engage.

Yes, that is the purpose of the article and the two year period, but let's not pretend that it's completely impossible for things to change if all sides mutually agree.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

These are EXACTLY THE SAME pollsters that predicted a 'tight race' in the last general Election. Polling is only about WHO they ask. Have you ever looked at how many people are asked? On average its about 3000 people asked. As a proportion of the UK population, a pathetically small .0000468% are actually asked. Any you think they could be right - in any way shape or form?

So purely by default, the havent a clue and are just a tool for the media to spout more crap to keep a subject going where they wouldnt have anything to say otherwise.

So, yes they are wrong, yet again. and will be again and again because they arent there to get FACTS but only to create and generate 'media time'.

I am sorry, but you are saying foolish things. We are talking about post-vote data, not the normal pre-poll surveying of voters' intentions. Can you give me an example of an exit poll being wrong?

 

[yxee]

I am sorry, but you are saying foolish things. We are talking about post-vote data, not the normal pre-poll surveying of voters' intentions. Can you give me an example of an exit poll being wrong?

Was the demographic study an exit poll? I very much doubt it.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Was the demographic study an exit poll? I very much doubt it.

Well they couldn't have gathered data on how different demographic groups voted before June 23. They would have got the information either on exit or later.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Strange how when a different opinion to yours is aired you accuse the poster of being "uppity" or "angry" or to calm down. I am fine, just post my opinion like it or not.

Classic swerving. Uppity is actually quite a gentle word. My point was not that you shouldn't post your opinion but that it is double standards to get cross/irritated/vexed/yourchoice when someone 'semi-humorously' attempts to misrepresent your opinion but then feel that it is quite all right to sling around hurtful remarks accusing people who disagree with you of being traitorous individuals who want their country to fail.

 

[beorhthelm]

My understanding is that E.U. is not obliged to discuss the terms of any trade agreement with the UK until the UK is no longer a member, the 2 year process is just about disengaging, not about how we will then re-engage.

this is a view apparently held by one EU official, with no traction elsewhere. Article 50 states that withdrawal is negotiated "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union". clearly that future relationship would take account of trade relations.

 

[Baldseagull]

this is a view apparently held by one EU official, with no traction elsewhere. Article 50 states that withdrawal is negotiated "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union". clearly that future relationship would take account of trade relations.

Yeah, I have read that, but the key part for me is we are out after 2 years, whether we have an agreement or not, unless the other 27 consent to allow us to remain for longer. Which sounds to me similar to there being no obligation to negotiate an agreement with us before we leave, except that there is an obligation to talk.

 

[Baldseagull]

I was simply replying to this comment of yours: "No, I was trying to point out the irony of not believing the predictions of post Brexit economic recession, but being comforted by the current predictions from the same experts."

That is not ironic. There were many predictions by many experts. It is possible to have some faith in the experts whilst also thinking they were scaremongering, being quoted out of context*, or acting though self-interest etc. If those experts then revise their predictions to support what I originally thought, it is not ironic for me to take comfort from that.

* As an example, an expert who said that the UK economy would suffer a major downturn if we left the EU and didn't have access to the single market, and such a comment could easily be shortened, which would change its meaning.

You didn't state that it was the beginning of a process that could not be stopped by us, so that's not what I replied to. Do you seriously think you're going to pull the wool over my eyes by pretending that's what you said? We were talking about investors and the 'money', and you said "Invoking article 50 is a non reversible position, from where we are now we can still remain." I replied "It is theoretically possible that we will not be happy with the terms offered by the EU, and that we offer to stay in, and they accept." Obviously that would require them to accept, we could not stop it alone. Sheesh

Well no, they discuss the terms after article 50 has been invoked, while the UK is still a member. The UK stays a member until agreement is reached, or at least two years have passed, or more if that period is extended by mutual agreement.

Yes, that is the purpose of the article and the two year period, but let's not pretend that it's completely impossible for things to change if all sides mutually agree.

I don't have the time to get into a pedantry battle with you today, and I am certain about that.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't have the time to get into a pedantry battle with you today

Yeah, let's gloss over the fact that you were wrong and just put it down to pedantry.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yeah, let's gloss over the fact that you were wrong and just put it down to pedantry.

Picking over whether a statement contains any irony or not, by showing me an example of how the sentence could be interpreted differently is pedantic.
Picking over wether we can reverse after invoking article 50, is pedantic.
Picking up on any small gap in my sentences that allows an alternate interpretation to the implied meaning, is pedantic.
This is like arguing with my teenage son, if he cannot win on the original topic, he drags it down the side streets if I am at all imprecise in my language, it is just smart arsery.