Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[sidicks]

mx5nut said:

So the short answer is you think the Department for Exiting the European Union is not to be trusted.

Enough said, I think.

Is it really about trust or is it about the validity of their assumption?!

I’m saying nothing until I’ve seen the report. To make firm judgements (as Electric Soup has) without that knowledge, is idiotic!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 1st February 12:40

[ElectricSoup]

sidicks said:

mx5nut said:

So the short answer is you think the Department for Exiting the European Union is not to be trusted.

Enough said, I think.

Is it really about trust or is it about the validity of their assumption?!

I’m saying nothing until I’ve seen the report. To make firm judgements (as Electric Soup has) without that knowledge, is idiotic!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 1st February 12:40

Oh, the irony! Why did you vote Leave then? Idiot yourself.

[sidicks]

ElectricSoup said:

Oh, the irony! Why did you vote Leave then? Idiot yourself.

No irony required, your approach is purely down to - “this must be ‘realistic’ because someone else said so (even if you have no idea what they actually said)”. Seemingly oblivious to how wrong similar projections have been in the past!

Good luck with that!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 1st February 13:03

[ElectricSoup]

sidicks said:

ElectricSoup said:

Oh, the irony! Why did you vote Leave then? Idiot yourself.

Why do I need to review someone else’s report to make a judgement, which incorporates numerous factors?

Your approach is purely done to - this is realistic because someone else said so (even if you have no idea what they actually said). Good luck with that!

So you don't trust the DExEU. Means you don't trust brexit. Fair enough.

[sidicks]

ElectricSoup said:

sidicks said:

ElectricSoup said:

Oh, the irony! Why did you vote Leave then? Idiot yourself.

Why do I need to review someone else’s report to make a judgement, which incorporates numerous factors?

Your approach is purely done to - this is realistic because someone else said so (even if you have no idea what they actually said). Good luck with that!

So you don't trust the DExEU. Means you don't trust brexit. Fair enough.

No, it really doesn’t.

[barryrs]

Gov Source said:

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

How anyone can draw conclusions from whats been made available is beyond me.

[ElectricSoup]

sidicks said:

ElectricSoup said:

sidicks said:

ElectricSoup said:

Oh, the irony! Why did you vote Leave then? Idiot yourself.

Why do I need to review someone else’s report to make a judgement, which incorporates numerous factors?

Your approach is purely done to - this is realistic because someone else said so (even if you have no idea what they actually said). Good luck with that!

So you don't trust the DExEU. Means you don't trust brexit. Fair enough.

No, it really doesn’t.

I see no other conclusion.

[ElectricSoup]

barryrs said:

Gov Source said:

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

How anyone can draw conclusions from whats been made available is beyond me.

The sound of straws being reached for.

[sidicks]

ElectricSoup said:

I see no other conclusion.

I’m sure you don’t.

[jjlynn27]

barryrs said:

Gov Source said:

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

How anyone can draw conclusions from whats been made available is beyond me.

Can you draw conclusion that 'Gov Source' is telling the truth? Did you believe DD's dog ate my extraordinarily detailed analyses?

[barryrs]

jjlynn27 said:

Can you draw conclusion that 'Gov Source' is telling the truth? Did you believe DD's dog ate my extraordinarily detailed analyses?

Hardly!

My only conclusion is that anyone who thinks this incomplete leaked report is a slam dunk reason to remain in the EU is a moron.

[ElectricSoup]

barryrs said:

jjlynn27 said:

Can you draw conclusion that 'Gov Source' is telling the truth? Did you believe DD's dog ate my extraordinarily detailed analyses?

Hardly!

My only conclusion is that anyone who thinks this incomplete leaked report is a slam dunk reason to remain in the EU is a moron.

Did you see part 2 today:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-leake...

There's more.

[barryrs]

So why is buzzfeed drip feeding us reports about a report they have read and not the report itself?

It just comes across as clickbait for advertising revenue.

[Alex]

mx5nut said:

Alex said:

ElectricSoup said:

2. Probably - otherwise the DExEu and the EU would have modelled others.

Not if their agenda is to keep us in the EU.

You think the agenda of the Department for Exiting the European Union is to keep us in the European Union?

Wow.

This very question was raised in parliament today.

[zippy3x]

sidicks said:

To make firm judgements (as Electric Soup has) without that knowledge, is idiotic!

Really, I thought it had generally been accepted that it is "democracy"

[Sway]

Earlier today I said:

A long (and yes, rather self indulgent) post on my understanding around international trade, deliberately leaving out my thoughts on EU trade, and reasons why I don't think there is much in the way of downside risk.

I then said:

still self indulgent arse said:

I'm about to leave for work, so if desired, once there (not like I'm going to do anything actually involving effort once there, come on now, PBCD here) I'll give a similar personal analysis and explanation for the potential and opportunities for UK imports and internal markets, and another post relating to my detailed views regarding the considerations and impacts that'll be considered by both sides within the negotiations, and why I think that a comprehensive FTA covering goods and services is almost inevitable.

Unfortunately, life has gotten in the way a tad. Quite a few people indicated they'd be interested, so I am working on the two I offered, and one that was requested regarding Target2 and why I believe it offers the largest level of downside risk within the entire context of the debate.

However, slightly disappointingly, despite the attempt to give enough of the thought process, rationale and reasoning around my views on non-EU trade (after a few pages of posters calling out why they could only see a bad outcome ref non-EU trade) for those that disagree to tear my opinion apart, no one seems to want to actually debate the points.

Regardless, as I'm not going to get the chance to post the other three today, I've messaged the mods to request a new thread with different rules. An actual debate, where arguing isn't permitted, that creates each week a poll on the key topic of the week for the 'house' to vote. I'm not holding out a huge amount of hope, but there is a glimmer of a chance that this board can at least have a section of civility. If I get the green light, I'll kick off that thread with enough for the board to get it's teeth stuck into...

Edited by Sway on Thursday 1st February 20:32

[b2hbm]

Sway said:

I've messaged the mods to request a new thread with different rules. An actual debate, where arguing isn't permitted, that creates each week a poll on the key topic of the week for the 'house' to vote. I'm not holding out a huge amount of hope, but there is a glimmer of a chance that this board can at least have a section of civility. If I get the green light, I'll kick off that thread with enough for the board to get it's teeth stuck into...

FWIW I'd be delighted if we could have a thread such as you describe where any post that didn't contribute to the debate was instantly removed. Taking it further any post with even a hint of insult to either side would go as well. No problem with people disagreeing or debating but it'd be great to lose the one-line cynical replies which just clutter up the thread.

I'm fully aware that both sides end up resorting to the one-line tactics and yes, I am aware this post doesn't contribute to the debate, but if it helps to get a thread as described, it will be worth "cluttering up the thread"

[Sway]

Cheers, that's broadly what I've tried to articulate to the 'powers that be'.

Effectively, a level of really tight moderation, as per a debating society in real life. One warning for indescretion, time out if not heeded. No assumptions of opposition position, no name calling, clean slate for everyone, debate the point using logic, data and rationale - not sarcasm, virtue signalling, etc.

I'll update once I've got a response. Hopefully those who would like to debate instead of argue (which I would hope would be the majority) would all be welcome - I know personally it'll take some adjusting as I think the last couple of years has seen civility die a death of a thousand cuts, but I think people may recognise I'm a bit of an optimist.

Fortunately, as hinted at earlier, I have more time than usual at the moment, despite being massively busy at work so have volunteered to be the referee whilst also trying to participate constructively.

[sidicks]

Sway said:

Cheers, that's broadly what I've tried to articulate to the 'powers that be'.

Effectively, a level of really tight moderation, as per a debating society in real life. One warning for indescretion, time out if not heeded. No assumptions of opposition position, no name calling, clean slate for everyone, debate the point using logic, data and rationale - not sarcasm, virtue signalling, etc.

I'll update once I've got a response. Hopefully those who would like to debate instead of argue (which I would hope would be the majority) would all be welcome - I know personally it'll take some adjusting as I think the last couple of years has seen civility die a death of a thousand cuts, but I think people may recognise I'm a bit of an optimist.

Fortunately, as hinted at earlier, I have more time than usual at the moment, despite being massively busy at work so have volunteered to be the referee whilst also trying to participate constructively.

You might remember that I tried to start such a thread towards the end of last year - the introduction proposed that there should no no insults, just posts explaining one’s own opinion etc, hoping that it would somehow be ‘self-policing’.

Laughably, the mods took it down within minutes because “we don’t want that sort of thread” (or words to that effect)!

In the meantime, I’ve been banned from one of the Brexit threads for calling someone an idiot while other people appear to be able to get away with all sorts of abuse and vitriol. The moderation is laughable sometimes!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 1st February 23:32

[B'stard Child]

Sway said:

Cheers, that's broadly what I've tried to articulate to the 'powers that be'.

Effectively, a level of really tight moderation, as per a debating society in real life. One warning for indescretion, time out if not heeded. No assumptions of opposition position, no name calling, clean slate for everyone, debate the point using logic, data and rationale - not sarcasm, virtue signalling, etc.

I'll update once I've got a response. Hopefully those who would like to debate instead of argue (which I would hope would be the majority) would all be welcome - I know personally it'll take some adjusting as I think the last couple of years has seen civility die a death of a thousand cuts, but I think people may recognise I'm a bit of an optimist.

Fortunately, as hinted at earlier, I have more time than usual at the moment, despite being massively busy at work so have volunteered to be the referee whilst also trying to participate constructively.

I tried a long (quantifed as long by the fact that a week in politics is a long time) while back to have a voluntary agreement to discuss things in a more even manner

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

It didn't work and only got to two pages - maybe it demonstrated that I wasn't alone in thinking NP&E was getting worse but none of the worst offenders signed up (FCR basically said he'd like to but couldn't cos he has a 30 sec fuse if I remember right)

I did try a name and shame approach recently

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I'm amazed it got to 3 pages