advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect (2022 remastered edition)

Status
Not open for further replies.
your response...exceeded my wordcount threefold and some.
:)
Of opponents to brexit, let alone Johnson's version of it, none here are anything but deeply entrenched.
That's quite a statement. None?
My use of the word 'potentially' was deliberate and considered. Notwithstanding the future shape of of the EU itself, the consequences of brexit are negative unless its potential is thoroughly explored.
On the one hand, I appreciate your circumspection. On the other, I don't follow: the scope for exploration of potential seems narrow to me, unless we are blithe about the risks to the Union, and our relationship to our nearest trading bloc. What ought we to do, to fully explore the potential of Brexit?
I don't 'need to be told' anything by you (or anyone else here).
Bad phrasing on my part, and thanks for explaining that your take is that folk who say this often use it as a rhetorical precursor that seems to be given no weight in their actual reasoning.
The EU's imperfections are substantial. In a balanced debate on brexit, they deserve acknowledgement in more than just empty platitudes.
I'd agree with that. But to the ears of Brexit-supporters acknowledgements of the EU's faults by 'remainers' are always going to sound like platitudes if - even so - they are still against Brexit. Perhaps this is why so many people sound to you like they are 'deeply entrenched'?
 
:)
That's quite a statement. None?On the one hand, I appreciate your circumspection. On the other, I don't follow: the scope for exploration of potential seems narrow to me, unless we are blithe about the risks to the Union, and our relationship to our nearest trading bloc. What ought we to do, to fully explore the potential of Brexit?Bad phrasing on my part, and thanks for explaining that your take is that folk who say this often use it as a rhetorical precursor that seems to be given no weight in their actual reasoning.I'd agree with that. But to the ears of Brexit-supporters acknowledgements of the EU's faults by 'remainers' are always going to sound like platitudes if - even so - they are still against Brexit. Perhaps this is why so many people sound to you like they are 'deeply entrenched'?

None here, on the evidence of 6 years of anguished bickering about it.

The scope for the exploration of the potential gains from brexit? Goodness knows. There aren't any in my industry apart from for the big boys, as it pushes the cost differential even further to their advantage. In science and tech from escaping the EU's apparently stultifying 'precautionary principle' - albeit for the sacrifice of co-operation in terms of both finance and expertise - in agriculture and fisheries towards something more much more sustainable than the wretched CAP/CFP. I read recently that the UK is apparently already gaining ground in terms of the application of AI to agriculture. In services for more nimble regulation, with greater and more immediate relevance to changing markets. This is something for sectoral experts to work through. I'm just a shopkeeper, albeit one who believes in self-determination, and in the accountability of my political masters.

I see nothing much coming from this inept government, which seems intent upon steamrollering us with even more regulation and weasling top-down control than we had from the EU. But then this government only has two more years before it is laid accountable at the ballot box. And, dare I say, David Frost, love him or hate him, is at least out there demanding that it gets its act together and starts doing something.

I was never amongst those who celebrated brexit. I see it as a massive failure of diplomacy and foresight, and as the result of a stubborn adherence to a political ideology, a failure, above all, of the EU 'project', and it is the EU project with which I have greatest issue. Brexit, like the evisceration of Greece, the laying low of the Med-fringe economies, the spiteful austerity, the iniquitous enrichment of Germany, and the emboldenment of Putin's Russia, is merely a consequence.
 
I'd agree with that. But to the ears of Brexit-supporters acknowledgements of the EU's faults by 'remainers' are always going to sound like platitudes if - even so - they are still against Brexit. Perhaps this is why so many people sound to you like they are 'deeply entrenched'?

The EU's imperfections are substantial. In a balanced debate on brexit, they deserve acknowledgement in more than just empty platitudes.

When he pulls this out you could almost be forgiven for not remembering that the question put was simply:-

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union


2) Leave the European Union"

The clear inference being - would the UK be better placed in scenario 1) or 2). A vote on a known situation v one that was unknown.

Except now of course we know more. Would this balanced debate mean continuing to deny the very obvious impacts? If so, I don't call that balanced. What ever you think the EU faults are, the sudden loss of freedoms, reduction in trade, removal of standards and threats to UK stability are very real. Good job Leave were able to campaign on empty promises, fearmongering and not the reality eh?
 
This matter of Frost having supported remaining in the EU keeps getting gloatingly raised here, and undoubtedly in other remain redoubts. This valiant collective of Cnuts, who continue to furiously hold forth against the glacial meltwaters of sovereignty and self-determination with which they were overwhelmed no less than 6 years ago, can no more accept the wisdom of one who accepted the inevitability of those waters, and chose instead to try to direct them onto the potentially fertile fields laid waste by years of constraining bureaucracy and officialdom, than they can that their pipedream of a benign and democratic Europa of the People is a busted flush.
I have tried reading this several times now. It's beautiful, but even after airing, decanting, energetic swirling etc. I still can't make sense of it. Could some words be missing?
(Either that, or those sunny uplands that were sold on prospectus must be a lot more arctic than we have been led to believe.)
(Or it's just one more confirmation that I'm a bit thick.)
 
I have tried to read this several times now. It's beautiful, but even after airing, decanting, energetic swirling etc. I still can't make sense of it. Could some words be missing?
(Either that, or those sunny uplands that were sold on prospectus must be a lot more arctic than we have been led to believe).

Sounded more like the discomfort, resentment and bile resulting from the ongoing shambles that promised so much but is delivering predictable disaster, but you may be right. Perhaps more raw sewage has made the Harlow water supply than first thought.
 
When he pulls this out you could almost be forgiven for not remembering that the question put was simply:-

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The responses were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union


2) Leave the European Union"

The clear inference being - would the UK be better placed in scenario 1) or 2). A vote on a known situation v one that was unknown.

Except now of course we know more. Would this balanced debate mean continuing to deny the very obvious impacts? If so, I don't call that balanced. What ever you think the EU faults are, the sudden loss of freedoms, reduction in trade, removal of standards and threats to UK stability are very real. Good job Leave were able to campaign on empty promises, fearmongering and not the reality eh?
There was no inference. The question was straightforward and the 2 options very clear. Individuals then made their choice and voted accordingly.
 
There was no inference. The question was straightforward and the 2 options very clear. Individuals then made their choice and voted accordingly.

Presumably people didn't vote to worsen their situation, so the inference is clear. It's an inference Brian, because it's not stated in the question itself.
 
Loving the last sentence. As usual, you can't help yourself.

As I said, there is no inference, you continue to make assumptions.

What you 'presume' is not necessarily a fact. For example, Scotland will undoubtedly suffer economically on breaking up the UK, yet Scots are clamouring to be poorer.
 
I have tried reading this several times now. It's beautiful, but even after airing, decanting, energetic swirling etc. I still can't make sense of it.

It is a selection of the most familiar words Jacob Rees Mogg’s nanny hears whilst cowering handcuffed in the cupboard translated by an AI bot first into Vogon Poetry, and from there into a pastiche of Wordsworth. It is what it is, don’t try to read too much into it.
 
Loving the last sentence. As usual, you can't help yourself.

As I said, there is no inference, you continue to make assumptions.

What you 'presume' is not necessarily a fact. For example, Scotland will undoubtedly suffer economically on breaking up the UK, yet Scots are clamouring to be poorer.

There is a clear inference in the question. There is no presumption in anything in either post. As usual you look to argue black is white even when it's obvious, there is a word for that.

The last line is irrelevent, it maybe your opinion but the clear inference in asking even that question is that the answer would be in Scotland's best interest. Back in 2014 I would have said not. Post 2016, it has become much less clear cut, but the inference (that word again) in the SNP asking the question is clear, they feel it would be.
 
I notice none of the questioners ever come back to the points they raise or offer alternatives. When it becomes obvious they have entered a blind alley the question is forgotten about and another question or word salad is introduced. It is like an algorithm that is in an endless loop. I dip in every now and then to see if the record skips to the next track but the apologists and Brexit lovers just continue on. Every now and then a new Brexit man appears but when faced with facts disappears again and the difficult duo remain posting meandering nonsense whilst the situation continues to deteriorate. Comical really to see how shallow and empty headed people can be.
 
I notice none of the questioners ever come back to the points they raise or offer alternatives. When it becomes obvious they have entered a blind alley the question is forgotten about and another question or word salad is introduced. It is like an algorithm that is in an endless loop. I dip in every now and then to see if the record skips to the next track but the apologists and Brexit lovers just continue on. Every now and then a new Brexit man appears but when faced with facts disappears again and the difficult duo remain posting meandering nonsense whilst the situation continues to deteriorate. Comical really to see how shallow and empty headed people can be.
Someone’s got to carry the torch.

3NkllnG.jpg

TKtYUgh.jpg
 
There is a clear inference in the question. There is no presumption in anything in either post. As usual you look to argue black is white even when it's obvious, there is a word for that.

The last line is irrelevent, it maybe your opinion but the clear inference in asking even that question is that the answer would be in Scotland's best interest. Back in 2014 I would have said not. Post 2016, it has become much less clear cut, but the inference (that word again) in the SNP asking the question is clear, they feel it would be.

No presumption in your posts, you say. Your ‘presumption’ was when you started a sentence with ‘Presumably people didn’t vote to worsen their situation’ (#1169).
That looks like a presumption.

The last sentence in my earlier post is relevant, however, your own above is not. The point isn’t whether Scots are right to clamour for independence, the point is people are entirely able to vote to ‘worsen their situation’ and they may well have some reason to do so. I’m sure Scots believe they have good reason to want to leave the UK and it is well worth it.

I know you won’t concede any point so time to move on.

It’s all very clear, as was the question in 2016 and the 2 available options, which were as clear as it is possible to be.
 
the point is people are entirely able to vote to ‘worsen their situation’ and they may well have some reason to do so.

People are 'able' to do all sorts of things. If you can point to these people claiming they were happy to worsen their situation by casting either vote, I'll gladly concede the point.

That's not the same as claiming there would be no worsening, finding their option has indeed subsquently worsened their's and everyone else's situation, then trying to portray it as something more virtuous or high minded.
 
A positive effect, only yesterday.
I’ve found a part in the UK for a long delayed repair project: £ 20.
Good!
Once delivered to France, the part will set me back £ 50. It will stay in England then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top