Technology0 min ago
So It's Confirmed We Are Ready For No Deal, Even The Cbi Think We Are Not....
161 Answers
https:/
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
Answers
Ellipsis - // In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain. // No, it does not mean that. What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is...
16:55 Mon 29th Jul 2019
>> In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain.
> No, it does not mean that.
Yes, it does mean that. In the lace seller scenario, you have some money in your pocket, the lace seller has some lace. No deal means that you fail to agree a price for the lace that you can both accept. You walk off with your money in your pocket, the lace seller keeps their lace. That's how you both were at the outset, before you even tried to reach a deal. So the status quo is preserved.
On real Brexit, rather than analogies ... it seems that the No Dealers are trying to arrogate Leave voters to their own position, when it would only take two percentage points of those original Leave voters to feel closer to Remain than No Deal and we should, democratically, not be leaving at all.
Despite that, a campaign of lies and deceit, only 37% of the electorate voting Leave, and now 3 years down the line with all that has happened in between - and still I'm prepared to leave. What I'm not prepared to do, however, is leave with No Deal. That is not what the majority voted for. Of course what I think makes no difference, but it's probably a fair reflection of how some of the Remainer Tory MPs see things - Brexit OK, grudgingly, No Deal? - no thanks.
> No, it does not mean that.
Yes, it does mean that. In the lace seller scenario, you have some money in your pocket, the lace seller has some lace. No deal means that you fail to agree a price for the lace that you can both accept. You walk off with your money in your pocket, the lace seller keeps their lace. That's how you both were at the outset, before you even tried to reach a deal. So the status quo is preserved.
On real Brexit, rather than analogies ... it seems that the No Dealers are trying to arrogate Leave voters to their own position, when it would only take two percentage points of those original Leave voters to feel closer to Remain than No Deal and we should, democratically, not be leaving at all.
Despite that, a campaign of lies and deceit, only 37% of the electorate voting Leave, and now 3 years down the line with all that has happened in between - and still I'm prepared to leave. What I'm not prepared to do, however, is leave with No Deal. That is not what the majority voted for. Of course what I think makes no difference, but it's probably a fair reflection of how some of the Remainer Tory MPs see things - Brexit OK, grudgingly, No Deal? - no thanks.
It's worth noting, of course, that the Millennium Bug wasn't "alarmist piffle", exactly, so much as "people took it seriously, made the necessary preparations and corrections, and ensured that the problem was dealt with and overcome". As to the Death of Bees, that very much *is* a serious problem, if it carries on under current trends then a great many species will disappear. A topic for another thread, but it's ignorant piffle to dismiss such threats.
***
Naomi: // That the same question be asked again has never been suggested ... //
I don't see that the wording of a hypothetical future referendum has to be exactly the same in order for the spirit of it to be essentially the same. And besides, it might even be in Brexiteers' interests for the question to be put with less ambiguity as to when and/or how we should leave the EU.
***
I don't think I am making any choice at all between "scientific/rational and what [I] personally prefer". There are plenty of warnings from a huge number of expert sources as to the potential effects of no deal, so there is no hypocrisy at all. Just because you don't pay attention to that evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
***
Naomi: // That the same question be asked again has never been suggested ... //
I don't see that the wording of a hypothetical future referendum has to be exactly the same in order for the spirit of it to be essentially the same. And besides, it might even be in Brexiteers' interests for the question to be put with less ambiguity as to when and/or how we should leave the EU.
***
I don't think I am making any choice at all between "scientific/rational and what [I] personally prefer". There are plenty of warnings from a huge number of expert sources as to the potential effects of no deal, so there is no hypocrisy at all. Just because you don't pay attention to that evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Jim, the point is that the public have been asked, promised and given their answer. Any MP with any integrity at all (I know, lol) will do their very best to make it happen without sabotaging it, or trying to minimise it. And your post do swing wildly between science and preference, so I am not sure I believe your views on this either. The majority don't agree with your assessment... do you honestly think that they should be ignored, in spite of a referendum... because you see it as too risky?
// And your post do swing wildly between science and preference ... //
I don't agree and I simply don't see it -- but I would say that, of course. At the very least I think I find as fair a balance as possible between the two, or at least try to find it. No doubt I fail from time to time, but how is that any different from anybody else?
"Do you honestly think that they should be ignored..."
No, I do not. I think, however, that they should be asked again. There is a world of difference between the two positions.
And I'm getting bored of, in particular, Naomi's baseless attempts to undermine my credibility by merely claiming that I have none without even bothering to take the time to explain why. Either back up what you have to say with evidence or find something different and interesting to say.
I don't agree and I simply don't see it -- but I would say that, of course. At the very least I think I find as fair a balance as possible between the two, or at least try to find it. No doubt I fail from time to time, but how is that any different from anybody else?
"Do you honestly think that they should be ignored..."
No, I do not. I think, however, that they should be asked again. There is a world of difference between the two positions.
And I'm getting bored of, in particular, Naomi's baseless attempts to undermine my credibility by merely claiming that I have none without even bothering to take the time to explain why. Either back up what you have to say with evidence or find something different and interesting to say.
To me Jim, and not that you would or should care, it does seem different from everyone else, purely because I see (or saw) you as extra intelligent and educated. Having realised, that you ignore everything you actually know, in favour of what you prefer to believe, I have totally lost confidence in absolutely everything you post.
I am sure you aren't the slightest bit worried, just trying to explain why I can jo longer take your posts seriously x
I am sure you aren't the slightest bit worried, just trying to explain why I can jo longer take your posts seriously x
//What I'm not prepared to do, however, is leave with No Deal. That is not what the majority voted for.//
How do you know? There were no sub-sections to the question that was asked.
To be unprepared to leave without a deal is utter lunacy. All the EU has to do (and remember they want us to remain because they need our lolly) is to offer the crapiest "deal" imaginable. And that's exactly what they did - because they knew that Mrs May - despite her "No Deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric - would not leave without a deal. And remember this "deal" that everybody prattles on about is nothing to do with trade. It is simply a list of demands and a bill to ensure that we are not caused too much trouble when exercising our audacity. It's essentially demanding money and compliance with menaces.
How do you know? There were no sub-sections to the question that was asked.
To be unprepared to leave without a deal is utter lunacy. All the EU has to do (and remember they want us to remain because they need our lolly) is to offer the crapiest "deal" imaginable. And that's exactly what they did - because they knew that Mrs May - despite her "No Deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric - would not leave without a deal. And remember this "deal" that everybody prattles on about is nothing to do with trade. It is simply a list of demands and a bill to ensure that we are not caused too much trouble when exercising our audacity. It's essentially demanding money and compliance with menaces.
// At that point , there was no "deal" offered or guaranteed, so you can safely assume that leave actually did mean leave. //
Leave meant different things to different people. There is no twisting at all to say this: it's even there, in black and white. Prominent Brexit advocates were arguing for various forms of new relationship, which more or less amounted to leaving the political but not necessarily the economic aspects of the EU: Norway-like, or Canada-like, or whatever. Literature released by the Leave campaign stated, categorically, that "we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave".
I accept that many Leave voters would have decided to vote that way with or without such literature, but the fact remains that a "no deal" scenario was not even part of the conversation in 2016. On its own that means that asking the question again is well-justified.
Leave meant different things to different people. There is no twisting at all to say this: it's even there, in black and white. Prominent Brexit advocates were arguing for various forms of new relationship, which more or less amounted to leaving the political but not necessarily the economic aspects of the EU: Norway-like, or Canada-like, or whatever. Literature released by the Leave campaign stated, categorically, that "we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave".
I accept that many Leave voters would have decided to vote that way with or without such literature, but the fact remains that a "no deal" scenario was not even part of the conversation in 2016. On its own that means that asking the question again is well-justified.
Jim, the question never had "providing there is a great deal" added to it. It was literally leave or stay... as you well know. The assumption that all who voted leave, wanted extra reassurance too, is pure arrogance that everyone wants the same thing, for the same reasons.
No matter how badly you think the question was worded, it could not have been clearer and we got a result. The rest is excuses, sour grapes, and desperation. We have an answer.
No matter how badly you think the question was worded, it could not have been clearer and we got a result. The rest is excuses, sour grapes, and desperation. We have an answer.
// The assumption that all who voted leave, wanted extra reassurance too ... //
Except I am not making any such assumption. Such evidence as there is tends to indicate that Leavers are split roughly evenly on the question of whether or not to leave with no deal or to continue to pursue one -- or perhaps even slightly in favour of No Deal, depending on how the options are presented. But even if you make the most generous assumptions about this in favour of support for No Deal then there's still no sign that it commands the absolute support it needs to be the absolute majority preference of the UK. No Deal is such an extreme option that it is completely reasonable to at least test whether it does have such support, and before carrying it out, not after.
Except I am not making any such assumption. Such evidence as there is tends to indicate that Leavers are split roughly evenly on the question of whether or not to leave with no deal or to continue to pursue one -- or perhaps even slightly in favour of No Deal, depending on how the options are presented. But even if you make the most generous assumptions about this in favour of support for No Deal then there's still no sign that it commands the absolute support it needs to be the absolute majority preference of the UK. No Deal is such an extreme option that it is completely reasonable to at least test whether it does have such support, and before carrying it out, not after.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Older Voters Put Conservatives Way Ahead
News2 mins ago
Politics10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.