The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[jjlynn27]

amusingduck said:

Cherry picked . It's the way you tell them. You painted half of the picture, I added the other half. Apparently I'm the one cherry picking .

No doubt that if the 1999-2015 figure was 12%, and the 2009-2015 figure was 2%, you'd have listed the recent figures and defended them as more relevant

FWIW, I would not describe 12% as 'oft-outvoted" or "muted".

I picked the figure that is appropriate to debunk the lie. If the lie was 'oft-outvoted from 2009 to 2015' then I'd reply with '12.3% is not oft-outvoted, not even close, stop lying'.

It makes very little difference in practice. Neither number is anywhere close to what normal person would describe as 'oft-outvoted'.

[Tuna]

Mrr T said:

Tuna said:

Depends where the disagreements lie, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many things that just get voted through as uncontroversial, and some that are fundamental changes in EU legislation. If we're disagreeing on the bendiness of bananas, then I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. If it's on matters such as trans-national taxation or allocation and control of military forces, perhaps it matters.

Both of which are not covered by current treaties so would require a new treaty which would require a unanimous vote of all members and referendums in a number of EU countries including under current legislation the UK.

And both given purely as examples as *like you* I don't actually know what it was that we disagreed on. Or are you going to suggest that those points of difference were entirely in the realm of fruit straightness? Note that I'm saying we don't know, nothing more.

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

Stop lying.

You call them lies.

Kellyanne Conway would call them alternative facts.

We just know them as ... turbofacts (TM).

[fido]

CaptainSlow said:

vonuber said:

Is that because of a large number of UK MEPs not bothering to turn up to vote yet still trousering the expenses?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Haha. Love it when the Remoaners roll off items from their 'fact sheet'. Well at least we've got off the Red Bus (No. 350).

[Murph7355]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Indeed, a good example of which is placing yourself in a position of being a supplicant to a predictably protectionist USA who even with a bit of kind hand holding still show you who's the boss when it comes down to it on trade & on the other side, being beholden to a bunch of religious fundamentalists who are about to experience up to 4000 job losses.

If you're a leaver, best get used to the phrase 'Bitterly disappointed' as it's coming your way, fast.

I read your posts regularly. I'm already used to the term

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

Even if you cherry pick the dates

...

In the circumstances that seems a little bit rich, even for you

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

jjlynn27 said:

Even if you cherry pick the dates

...

In the circumstances that seems a little bit rich, even for you

Rich beyond wildest dreams.

[turbobloke]

Eddie Strohacker said:

If you're a leaver, best get used to the phrase 'Bitterly disappointed' as it's coming your way, fast.

That's rich.

So many remoaners are still 'bitterly disappointed' at losing the referendum.

Disappointment came their way fast on the morning after the vote. and coming to terms with defeat is taking a long time.

Preaching from remoaners on this score is truly rich and we're so lucky to get some.

As a leaver, on the day we quit the EU I won't be disappointed.

[Mrr T]

Tuna said:

Mrr T said:

Tuna said:

Depends where the disagreements lie, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many things that just get voted through as uncontroversial, and some that are fundamental changes in EU legislation. If we're disagreeing on the bendiness of bananas, then I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. If it's on matters such as trans-national taxation or allocation and control of military forces, perhaps it matters.

Both of which are not covered by current treaties so would require a new treaty which would require a unanimous vote of all members and referendums in a number of EU countries including under current legislation the UK.

And both given purely as examples as *like you* I don't actually know what it was that we disagreed on. Or are you going to suggest that those points of difference were entirely in the realm of fruit straightness? Note that I'm saying we don't know, nothing more.

OK I agree we do not know but I was just pointing those where 2 examples on which the UK would not have lost under QMV. I also do not believe it would have been about straight bananas. I believe that down to the Codex Alimentarius Commission not the EU.

[DapperDanMan]

turbobloke said:

Eddie Strohacker said:

If you're a leaver, best get used to the phrase 'Bitterly disappointed' as it's coming your way, fast.

That's rich.

So many remoaners are still 'bitterly disappointed' at losing the referendum.
Have you conducted a scientific survey or are you just pulling that out your ass

Disappointment came their way fast on the morning after the vote. and coming to terms with defeat is taking a long time.
I was dissapointed for an hour or two but I went to the beach and the warm gulf water eased the pain (warmer each year as well)

Preaching from remoaners on this score is truly rich and we're so lucky to get some.
Remoaners isn't a word you know

As a leaver, on the day we quit the EU I won't be disappointed.
No because you spent the last 40 years bhing about the European project

How's the LPG business going?

[Eddie Strohacker]

turbobloke said:

That's rich.

So many remoaners are still 'bitterly disappointed' at losing the referendum.

Disappointment came their way fast on the morning after the vote. and coming to terms with defeat is taking a long time.

Preaching from remoaners on this score is truly rich and we're so lucky to get some.

As a leaver, on the day we quit the EU I won't be disappointed.

You do realise you're the other side of the coin of the remainers you sneer at so readily?

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp. The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

[anonymous-user]

Eddie Strohacker said:

You do realise you're the other side of the coin of the remainers you sneer at so readily?

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp. The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

All the bombardier issue shows us is that you can be subject to any problems with other countries trading relationships without being a party to that relationship yourself. Such is the nature of Globalisation.

Like all trading relationships, you have to play by the rules of the treaties you sign, so no doubt this USA-Canada issue will end up in the courts that oversee that agreement. This is why having an impartial court overseeing any treaty is important.

[Jinx]

Eddie Strohacker said:

You do realise you're the other side of the coin of the remainers you sneer at so readily?

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp. The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

You really need to read up on the Bombardier situation as it is not an example a trade deal gone south. The tariff imposition by the USA is though an example of actions the UK, as a sovereign nation, will be able to take after the completion of Brexit.

[confused_buyer]

Eddie Strohacker said:

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp. The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

You really need to check out the history of Airbus/Boeing spats and understand what the Bombardier thing is about. It is about two huge companies with a lot of political clout playing games. They didn't even begin to propose airliners as part of TTIP. Bombardier (and Canada) have been somewhat caught up in the middle of it all.

It is ironic really, whilst Boeing and Airbus are playing silly games and have been for 40 years they'll probably wake up one day and find the Chinese have nicked half of both their businesses.

[turbobloke]

Eddie Strohacker said:

turbobloke said:

That's rich.

So many remoaners are still 'bitterly disappointed' at losing the referendum.

Disappointment came their way fast on the morning after the vote. and coming to terms with defeat is taking a long time.

Preaching from remoaners on this score is truly rich and we're so lucky to get some.

As a leaver, on the day we quit the EU I won't be disappointed.

You do realise you're the other side of the coin of the remainers you sneer at so readily?

Massive irony and hypocrisy there, you rarely disappoint in that regard.

I haven't sneered at anyone unlike you and your tag team pal.

Eddie Strohacker said:

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp.

Your irony and hypocrisy couldn't be easier to grasp.

Eddie Strohacker said:

The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

Bombardier issues weren't on the referendum ballot paper. I voted Leave and we're leaving. I didn't vote for the GFC which we've come through, but many Americans did by your nonsensical line of reasoning; it wasn't on the ballot paper when they voted for Bill Clinton.

Businesses adapt and survive or they don't, mine did - to various challenges - how about yours?

As for the name-calling, it's unoriginal and the obvious sign of an argument loser. More of the same will cement your loser status at your own hand/keyboard.

[Funkycoldribena]

Eddie Strohacker said:

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp.

The only meaning you and the gang are struggling to grasp is that of democracy.

[CaptainSlow]

Jinx said:

Eddie Strohacker said:

You do realise you're the other side of the coin of the remainers you sneer at so readily?

But I'm a generous soul, so I'll help you out with meaning you're clearly struggling to grasp. The Bombardier shambles is a shining example of how you can expect us, a supplicant to be treated by the USA when it comes time to do a trade deal - although, according to that nice Mr. Davis, it's just about done already. So Turbospam, get ready for those salty tears of shaftedness, because they're on the way.

You really need to read up on the Bombardier situation as it is not an example a trade deal gone south. The tariff imposition by the USA is though an example of actions the UK, as a sovereign nation, will be able to take after the completion of Brexit.

Quite, so when in future France does a bit of state subsidy instead of a Gaulic shrug of the shoulders we'll have a little more power to enforce fair play.

[Eddie Strohacker]

confused_buyer said:

You really need to check out the history of Airbus/Boeing spats and understand what the Bombardier thing is about. It is about two huge companies with a lot of political clout playing games. They didn't even begin to propose airliners as part of TTIP. Bombardier (and Canada) have been somewhat caught up in the middle of it all.

It is ironic really, whilst Boeing and Airbus are playing silly games and have been for 40 years they'll probably wake up one day and find the Chinese have nicked half of both their businesses.

I've picked this from the avalanche of nonsense as the most considered reply. I am well aware of the issues involved, well aware this is not a direct Brexit issue & well aware the usual range of obtuse responses would be forthcoming & lo it came to pass.

I don't understand democracy, we're leaving you're a loser Zzzzz. So far so boring, although Turbospam going all snowflakey is fun, I can't deny. What you Brexit boys instinctively understand but can't quite bring yourselves to articulate is you've witnessed the US protectionist spasm in action & that would be the latest reminder of impediments to an all singing all dancing trade deal with our special friends over there who are led by an erratic serial bankrupt who can't pass a single domestic bill through congress.

America first!

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

jjlynn27 said:

Even if you cherry pick the dates

...

In the circumstances that seems a little bit rich, even for you

What circumstances? Turbo lied about something very obvious and was called on it. So instead of quoting part of my sentence with some odd remark, you can comment on the lie itself. Or you can wait for sidick to post something so that you can agree with it. You know, playing the ball.

Either way, entertaining, if totally predictable post.

[jjlynn27]

fido said:

CaptainSlow said:

vonuber said:

Is that because of a large number of UK MEPs not bothering to turn up to vote yet still trousering the expenses?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Haha. Love it when the Remoaners roll off items from their 'fact sheet'. Well at least we've got off the Red Bus (No. 350).

Not exactly Crufts winning effort there, Fido. Didn't realize that turbo is 'Remoaner' as it was him introducing MEPs into the discussion. From CaptainSlow nobody expected any better anyway.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Wednesday 27th September 19:23