stepdown

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we can talk about EU trade talk options now if > you like?.and I say with genuine conviction, let?s > disagree, I?ve absolutely no problem with > disagreement. But not every post has to refute or > discredit absolutely everything being responding > to. I acknowledge that the idea if a > ?frictionless? transition is an absolute > pipedream, so there?s no need to convince me of > that, im personally interested in what the > potential positive and negative risks of various > options may be.... > ? > As a starting point?..does the UK have an > opportunity to accelerate development of its tech > sector dependent on the rules the trade talks come > up with? I fear you're right that the opportunity for a friction-less trade deal has passed, following a Norway model would require far too much integration now that "sovereignty" has become the primary aim of Brexit. As far as how the tech sector stands to benefit from the trade deal, we don't know. The EU published draft negotiation guidelines this week but there hasn't yet been any similar detail from the UK government, details here: https://davidallengreen.com/2020/02/a-tale-of-two-texts-what-the-united-kingdom-should-have-published-yesterday-but-did-not/

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But here is who I think you are. As TheCat is constantly goading us to speculate on their intelligence, I don't think it's particularly helpful to stoop to that level. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > even someone as stupid as me had the > time to click on the link and read it.... TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it's much > easier to just call us all stupid and ill-informed > than actually open your mind a little. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the anti-brexit mob pouncing on any > whiff of negative news so they can gleefully pin > it on Brexit with a big dose of 'See...I told you > they're all stupid'....

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is my OPINION that most of you on here citing > all this detail which you've recently googled > about regulatory and legislative process, knew > absolutely F. All about much of this prior to the > referendum. You have no facts to back up this opinion, but it highlights the real issue here. You are busy re-litigating the referendum when things have moved on beyond the simple "PRINCIPLE of sovreignty" and into the detail. Compromises will have to be made, things other people have been discussing for years now. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure let me just Google some so I can appear informed.... That's how you learn! Nobody was born with an innate knowledge of the EU, but you're now not just refusing to engage with the debate in good faith you're refusing to even inform yourself. There's no defense for that.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there were circa 2.5 hours between my posts to > read the referenced links Quite telling that you keep insisting there was sufficient time between your posts to read the link rather than actually claiming you read it. You didn't read it, did you? I didn't "attack" you, I mocked the imaginary scenarios and contradictions in your posts, that's not "aggressive" behaviour.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If my comments are so vacuous, then why do they > clearly upset you so much? You're projecting, those exclamation marks should be read as exasperation rather than upset or anger. I'm exasperated because you are "not willing to properly enter the discussion" and continue to resort to making arguments in bad faith.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you u wonder why I'm not willing to properly > enter the discussion? I'm not interested in people > like you twisting and deliberately misrepresenting > nearly every word of something you disagree with. I did not twist your words, I quoted you verbatim. There is nothing in there to disagree with, it's vacuous.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought it was rather fitting. I suppose resorting to insults does seem to fit with somebody unwilling or unable to provide a shred of evidence for their assertions on animal welfare.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you'd all make excellent politicians That doesn't even merit being called out as an ad hominem, it's just an insult.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im not questioning the 'fact checking' of the > website being referenced...as to be honest I > haven't yet clicked on the link. Good to see you won't be commenting on something you can't be bothered to read, and that you're at least being honest about it. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But suffice to say that I can imagine the derision > and bile that would spew forth on these pages if > any Leavers posted a 'factcheck' from a site > called ihatetheEU.com...... Oh, no, that restraint didn't last long! Your usual tactic of attacking a "lack of decorum and respect" is now being used on imaginary "derision and bile"! Innovative! TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'facts' (or 'incomplete facts as the case may be > on this occasion). It gets better! You start questioning the fact checking of the site immediately after posting that you won't be questioning the fact checking of the website you haven't even clicked on! Classic!

Grove boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's this supposed to mean? Is it more snobbery > and sneering? This place seems to rife with it! I just meant that doormen are far more likely to encounter "fuckwittery and bile" in the course of their job, you probably see far more of it than the average person. Comments aren't snobbery or sneering just because you don't understand them.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the Lounge after all, anything goes... True, you're hardly alone on derailing threads!

Grove boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do the door for an establishment on Rye lane, > the fuckwittery and bile from pissed and coked up > revellers is a regular thing. To be fair, there is a very obvious selection bias here, doormen hardly get involved with a representative sample of discussions.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cap'n, you need to get out of that culture warrior > whataboutery bubble, this is where your > contrariness for the sake of being contrary let's > you down. You can hardly clutch your pearls over partisanship when you just posted a video mocking Priti Patel in a thread about EU trade talks.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Stepdown - Thankyou for irrefutablly (and > unfortunately very predictably) proving my entire > point..... > > Best of luck to you. In the interests of "decorum and respect", thank you for the compliment of my post being irrefutable and for making such a concise post after admitting that you "purposefully avoided actually debating the issues". Best of luck to you too.

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would have loved > to see those smug expressions wiped off of your > faces in a real debate... Feel free to provide one. FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > y'know, instead of > attacking DulwichFox? I mean... low blow. We can only play the hand we're dealt.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very kind. Thanks. So, you've found a post that you feel able to respond to. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been berated on this thread for not engaging > on points around the actual debate we should be > having. To be fair...in more recent times, that's > true. I have purposefully avoided actually > debating the issues, preferring to focus on > highlighting the lack of decorum and respect by > various posters. What's the point in saying what > one thinks in good faith when some poster are just > hovering over their keyboards salivating at the > idea of tearing apart what is said rather than > taking a balanced view And you admit you're not arguing in good faith... TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (case in point - the > disgraceful pedantic responses to Dulwich Fox on > this thread, basically accusing him of being a > racist despite him clearly saying he deplores > racism and supports attempts to stamp it out - but > then trying to twist his words to make him look > silly). Nobody in this thread called him racist, nobody had to twist his words to make them look silly. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure this will prompt a 'Go on then, explain > it to me' type response. But the truth is that > these people don't WANT to have a differing > perspective explained to them. They just want to > tear people down for going against their > narrative. Hence my comment that 'name me ONE good > thing about brexit' is actually a negative comment > which exposes the posters bias - IF you TRULY > can't name just ONE potentially positive outcome > about such a massive, complicated issue. Then the > truth is that you just don't WANT to know. There > are numerous articles and studies on line (not all > written by frothing brexiteers) which lay out > reasonable potential advantages.But it's much > easier to just call us all stupid and ill-informed > than actually open your mind a little. > > On the various brexit threads on this forum over > the past 3 years I have set out (in detail) why I > voted Leave, I have cited differing priroties and > differing levels of risk tolerance for short term > economic pain for longer term benefits as I see > them (Go on then...go and check my post history). > But I see very little point in continuing to do so > on this forum until the dominant tone moves away > from a pedantic need to tear down anyone who might > dare to think that Leaving the EU is something > that could work (Note, I didn't say that it 100 > percent will be a land of milk, honey and unicorns > - in fact it's not really leavers that say this > sort of thing, it's mostly the usual suspects who > hate the idea of leaving that project such ideas > on to others, to build their strawmen). Then, with no sense of irony you build a straw man to argue against before immediately accusing others of doing so. Nobody has accused you of being stupid, despite your inane arguments. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even the Guardian yesterday published 2 op ed > articles (one by its senior economics editor) > outlining the possible positive aspects of how > economic reform could take place in Britain > post-brexit. But the most vocal posters on here > just don't want to hear it. And to be fair to > them, a couple have basically said as much, > suggesting that they have no wish to agree to > disagree and no desire to 'be reasonable'. Fair > enough, but if that's the case then I'll continue > to fight that battle (I.e. A desire for > reasonablness) before even attempting to enagage > on the actual issues on this forum. > > 3, 2, 1.....cue responsive bile mocking how > 'utterly clueless' (or some variation of that) my > comments are....... ...and there is nothing in here that relates to the discussion either, it just sets up another straw man against "vocal posters". It is not "conductive" as you say, whatever that means, and deserves to be mocked.

Grove boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > stepdown Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > If you're going to make up a straw man to argue > > against, maybe don't quote the post you're > > replying to? It makes it a bit too obvious you > > haven't tried to respond to their actual point, > > other than your excellent "I know you are, but > > what am I?" rebuttal. > > > What agenda do i have? I never said you have an agenda, I said you didn't respond to the actual point being made: Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you think the eu is going to be LESS any of > those things in the coming years outside the eu, > you have a rude awakening ahead

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you'll happily discuss how you think brexit is > a bad idea? Not really conductive is it? How is > advocating EU membership in anyway useful? It's > not an option at this stage. Revoking Article 50 has always been an option, just never one that could command a majority in the house of Commons. Similar in that respect to all the other options that were presented, we just disagree that it's the best option. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair enough. That's actually an worthwhile > discussion. And yet you don't engage with it at all, instead focusing all your attention on the brief preamble. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you think the lack of a plan 4 years later has > anything to do with remain leaning MP's trying > every means possible to disrupt brexit? No, like I said I think it's "because there are a whole host of competing incentives for all the different factions that made up the leave vote". I think it has everything to do with: Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once leavers can agree what they want then perhaps > then they can ask Remainers to get on board > > As things stand they are still a very loose > coalition of competing ideologies, which will lead > to open hostilities as soon as the hard choices to > be made come to pass

Grove boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't have an agenda? We voted out three years > ago yet you're still banging on. It's kind of fun > seeing the bile and ranting here and elsewhere > from remainers. How dare those pesky thick racists > piss on our chips! If you're going to make up a straw man to argue against, maybe don't quote the post you're replying to? It makes it a bit too obvious you haven't tried to respond to their actual point, other than your excellent "I know you are, but what am I?" rebuttal.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once leavers can agree what they want then perhaps > then they can ask Remainers to get on board > > As things stand they are still a very loose > coalition of competing ideologies, which will lead > to open hostilities as soon as the hard choices to > be made come to pass @TheCat I notice you didn't respond to this and chose instead to only engage with the ad-hominems.

Your nested quotes are getting a bit out of control there, pk.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'go on then, name me one good thing about brexit' That you think asking for a single example of a benefit is not "constructive engagement" shows you don't really understand how "rationale debate" works. TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure some will reply to this thread and say why > should they have to come up with solutions when they > didn't want it all in the first place; and therin > lies the frustration, and the genesis of the > 'remaoner' tag. I will happily discuss why I think membership of the EU is the best option going forward. Failing that, staying in the single market would be my preference, but it is unlikely to satisfy leave voters now that the Overton window has shifted so far towards a hard Brexit. On the other hand, there is still no plan years after the vote. It's because there are a whole host of competing incentives for all the different factions that made up the leave vote. By contrast the remain "solutions" are incredibly clear.

...you do realise that it can be removed just as easily as it was put in, right?

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Government have enacted that decision. It's taken this long to negotiate our withdrawal, we are still in the dark as to what the future relationship will be. To think that people engaging in that process are "wasting their time" is pretty short-sighted.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Food standards are not minor matters Stepdown. Never said they were, but I think the chlorinated chicken issue is, we only impart importance on it because indirectly it allows for lower welfare standards for poultry. The point I was attempting to make was that characterising EU legislation as "all pretty benign and helpful and low level" wasn't fair and that just because it was being replaced with UK legislation didn't mean it was "low level non contentious stuff". I agree all the points you raise are important, they'll also become contentious in the US trade deal negotiations.