Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
Of course, the above ignores the fact that the point of the post was to point out that Cranked was quite right in regards to what his original post said
I don't recall anyone saying or suggesting that Cranked was "wrong" in what he said. Where was this said?The Scottish Daily Express article doesn't add any more weight to Cranked's claims. It basically just reinforces this is Andrew Neil claiming stuff, with exactly zero evidence to support what he said. Not the first time Neil (and Boris too, ha) have made lavish and outlandish claims of questionable provenance unsupported by evidence, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
HM-2 said:
don'tbesilly said:
Of course, the above ignores the fact that the point of the post was to point out that Cranked was quite right in regards to what his original post said
I don't recall anyone saying or suggesting that Cranked was "wrong" in what he said. Where was this said?The Scottish Daily Express article doesn't add any more weight to Cranked's claims. It basically just reinforces this is Andrew Neil claiming stuff, with exactly zero evidence to support what he said. Not the first time Neil (and Boris too, ha) have made lavish and outlandish claims of questionable provenance unsupported by evidence, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
I would have thought challenging "questionable provenance unsupported by evidence" is something you would relish, after all, everyone knows who you are and your credentials are unquestionable.
don'tbesilly said:
You are more than welcome to challenge the claims made in the article
What is there to challenge? "Andrew Neil claimed Boris Johnson told him something" doesn't really warrant a challenge. I can merely point to the lack of evidence supporting the assertions and call it a day. HM-2 said:
don'tbesilly said:
You are more than welcome to challenge the claims made in the article
What is there to challenge? "Andrew Neil claimed Boris Johnson told him something" doesn't really warrant a challenge. I can merely point to the lack of evidence supporting the assertions and call it a day. Looks like we are all good, thanks
don'tbesilly said:
Mortarboard said:
don'tbesilly said:
So the article not saying what you suggested it said meant I hadn't read it.
Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
You admitted it yourself Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
And most uk startups fail.
https://www.beauhurst.com/blog/startup-fail-scale-...
M.
MB doubling down on the gloating, stay classy Fella, although it does suit you.
Doing better on a beauty poll of favored nations to emigrate to won't change that- case in point, look at the current tory frothfest over asylum seekers.
Likes don't count fir jack in the real world.
M.
don'tbesilly said:
So you've dropped the hyperbole and don't want to/ can't challenge anything in the article.
Again, what in the article do you think I should be "challenging"?You seem to be under the illusion I said something I didn't:
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil
So you can't use modelling to evaluate the likely economic impact of Brexit, even when done in a mathematically rigorous way, but Andrew Neil is allowed to be declared an arbiter-oracle and assert that AUKUS Security Pact would never have happened if the UK didn't leave the EU? 
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
Rules and regulations, but I do not know exactly what rules and regulations would have come into play. Third Countries something or other.
Nothing about the EU rules or regulations precludes the existence of a multilateral military pact involving one member state and one or more external ones. There are multiple such pacts which have been established over the decades.It's an assertion which seems to have no base in evidence.
"Questionable provenance" and "unsupported by evidence" are self-evident.
The provenance of the claim originates from Boris Johnson, whose notorious for making stuff up.
It's unsupported by evidence, because no evidence has been presented to support it.
I really don't know what more you think I need to say?
Edited by HM-2 on Monday 13th March 14:08
HM-2 said:
don'tbesilly said:
So you've dropped the hyperbole and don't want to/ can't challenge anything in the article.
Again, what in the do you think I should be "challenging"?You seem to be under the illusion I said something I didn't:
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil
So you can't use modelling to evaluate the likely economic impact of Brexit, even when done in a mathematically rigorous way, but Andrew Neil is allowed to be declared an arbiter-oracle and assert that AUKUS Security Pact would never have happened if the UK didn't leave the EU? HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
Rules and regulations, but I do not know exactly what rules and regulations would have come into play. Third Countries something or other.
Nothing about the EU rules or regulations precludes the existence of a multilateral military pact involving one member state and one or more external ones. There are multiple such pacts which have been established over the decades.It's an assertion which seems to have no base in evidence.
ArmaghMan said:
As expected DUP reject Windsor Agreement.
Who knew!
I loved the way they framed it (literally) in Windsor - whilst trying to get King Charles just by being there subconsciously back it. I doubt naming it the 'Bradford Framework' would have held the same gravitas. Having said that, the DUP were never going to agree, so the 'Mordor Framework' would have been just as useful.Who knew!
sugerbear said:
ArmaghMan said:
As expected DUP reject Windsor Agreement.
Who knew!
hashtag Shocked !!Who knew!
Which would mean (as it stands at the moment) having a taig first minister. Couldn't have that
Of course, I'm sure their objections to the WF would just fade away, should they regain status as the largest party after the upcoming local elections
25th anniversary of the GFA will be fun for them. Gives them the cover of "objecting to the WF" for their upcoming antics.
M.
Mortarboard said:
sugerbear said:
ArmaghMan said:
As expected DUP reject Windsor Agreement.
Who knew!
hashtag Shocked !!Who knew!
Which would mean (as it stands at the moment) having a taig first minister. Couldn't have that
Of course, I'm sure their objections to the WF would just fade away, should they regain status as the largest party after the upcoming local elections
25th anniversary of the GFA will be fun for them. Gives them the cover of "objecting to the WF" for their upcoming antics.
M.
don'tbesilly said:
Riff Raff said:
don'tbesilly said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil. Another brexit benefit.
You must have read this article Cranked?It certainly corroborates your claim in regards to Andrew Neil.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-...
"Boris Johnson claimed to me in London last week that the Aukus deal could not have happened if the UK had still been enmeshed in the EU's common foreign and defence policy ambit”.
Boris. Never been known to tell a porky. Jesus wept.
Article also said:
Mr Neil claimed that Americans were enjoying the fact Britain was able to make decisions about military and intelligence decisions without having to consult the European Union.
Article also said:
"I was sceptical. But here in America, U.S. intelligence and foreign policy officials confirmed his claim. Indeed, they went further.
"They said that U.S.-UK intelligence and security cooperation, always close, had become even closer since Brexit. They liked the way they could deal with a Britain that didn't have to look over its shoulder for an EU response or permission to proceed.
Of course, the above ignores the fact that the point of the post was to point out that Cranked was quite right in regards to what his original post said which caused quite a kerfuffle. "They said that U.S.-UK intelligence and security cooperation, always close, had become even closer since Brexit. They liked the way they could deal with a Britain that didn't have to look over its shoulder for an EU response or permission to proceed.
don'tbesilly said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil. Another brexit benefit.
You must have read this article Cranked?It certainly corroborates your claim in regards to Andrew Neil.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff