Donald Trump concedes, after a fashion – politicalbetting.com
Options
Donald Trump concedes, after a fashion – politicalbetting.com
He won because the Election was Rigged. NO VOTE WATCHERS OR OBSERVERS allowed, vote tabulated by a Radical Left privately owned company, Dominion, with a bad reputation & bum equipment that couldn’t even qualify for Texas (which I won by a lot!), the Fake & Silent Media, & more! https://t.co/Exb3C1mAPg
0
Comments
-
E pluribus unum0
-
Trump conceded defeat before Philip, that is a surprise0
-
I have nothing to concede over. And I backed Biden all the way and have opposed Trump all along.RochdalePioneers said:Trump conceded defeat before Philip, that is a surprise
0 -
I'm struggling to hear a concession0
-
There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.0 -
'He won'Roger said:I'm struggling to hear a concession
1 -
You're telling me that people didn't say things at a conference you weren't at. Sounds pretty Trumpy from here. Almost the full GiulianiPhilip_Thompson said:
I have nothing to concede over. And I backed Biden all the way and have opposed Trump all along.RochdalePioneers said:Trump conceded defeat before Philip, that is a surprise
0 -
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.0 -
As was once said by Wolfgang Pauli of a bad physics theory,
Trump is
"NOT EVEN WRONG".0 -
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?1 -
Lol - it's your flippin' thread!TheScreamingEagles said:E pluribus unum
0 -
Take some time out.Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?0 -
And if we maintain the status quo - the same open customs arrangements and the same standards - then there will be no disruption. The EU concession is accepting that we are maintaining these arrangements not because we are bound to them, but because we are choosing to. Yes I know that its like the guy strapped to the guy with the parachute claiming to be in control of their tandem jump, but thats all we have.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.0 -
Just a mentally unbalanced random rather than representative of a strand of Loyalist Unionism I'm sure. Mind you the way things are going, it could be a deranged Wings supporter.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1327918012368900097?s=200 -
Price elasticity of demand.Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?0 -
I think that and the 'Rigged Election Hoax' are both telling slip-ups.TheScreamingEagles said:
'He won'Roger said:I'm struggling to hear a concession
0 -
If he said there would be no products on the shelves it would be headline news leading every news bulletin. So yes, you're lying. Or you misunderstood.RochdalePioneers said:
You're telling me that people didn't say things at a conference you weren't at. Sounds pretty Trumpy from here. Almost the full GiulianiPhilip_Thompson said:
I have nothing to concede over. And I backed Biden all the way and have opposed Trump all along.RochdalePioneers said:Trump conceded defeat before Philip, that is a surprise
Go cite a single reputable source quoting him saying there would be no products on the shelves. Or admit you are making shit up please.0 -
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.0 -
It's so people can post on the comment because of vanilla issues.Benpointer said:
Lol - it's your flippin' thread!TheScreamingEagles said:E pluribus unum
0 -
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.1 -
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.2 -
That's outrageous. Smoking in public buildings was banned years ago. That package should have known better.Theuniondivvie said:Just a mentally unbalanced random rather than representative of a strand of Loyalist Unionism I'm sure. Mind you the way things are going, it could be a deranged Wings supporter.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1327918012368900097?s=203 -
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.1 -
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.0 -
-
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.0 -
Ok, I'll give you that. Apology proffered.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's so people can post on the comment because of vanilla issues.Benpointer said:
Lol - it's your flippin' thread!TheScreamingEagles said:E pluribus unum
0 -
It is common knowledge, I work in the financial services industry, and the huge price increases in food in the event of a sustained No Deal Brexit has been factored into an expectation of delinquencies (defaults to you and me) for the consumer division in 2021.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
Obviously it depends what goes in your shopping basket.
In May, the UK published its new tariff schedule, which will be implemented by January 1 next year if a deal is not agreed.
Under the schedule, 85 per cent of foods imported from the EU will face tariffs of more than five per cent, while the average tariff on food imported from the EU would be over 20 per cent.
The figures revealed that we are likely to see a 48 per cent tariff on beef mince, 16 per cent on cucumbers and 10 per cent on lettuce.
The latest monthly retail price index for August revealed fresh food prices increased by 0.2 per cent, while inflation for ambient food accelerated to 2.8 per cent for the month.
Earlier this month, Morrisons chief executive David Potts said grocery prices would increase in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Opie said: “UK consumers have benefited from great value, quality, and choice of food thanks to our ability to trade tariff-free with the EU.
“There is no time to waste, the UK and EU must hammer out a final arrangement as soon as possible.
https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/09/shoppers-will-face-higher-prices-for-weekly-shop-in-no-deal-brexit/
I can post further links if you'd like.1 -
I find it quite amusing that you gave a "like" to my post.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
But then one's got to survive with what you can at the moment.0 -
Was it really not obvious i was extracting the Michael?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is common knowledge, I work in the financial services industry, and the huge price increases in food in the event of a sustained No Deal Brexit has been factored into an expectation of delinquencies (defaults to you and me) for the consumer division.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
Obviously it depends what goes in your shopping basket.
In May, the UK published its new tariff schedule, which will be implemented by January 1 next year if a deal is not agreed.
Under the schedule, 85 per cent of foods imported from the EU will face tariffs of more than five per cent, while the average tariff on food imported from the EU would be over 20 per cent.
The figures revealed that we are likely to see a 48 per cent tariff on beef mince, 16 per cent on cucumbers and 10 per cent on lettuce.
The latest monthly retail price index for August revealed fresh food prices increased by 0.2 per cent, while inflation for ambient food accelerated to 2.8 per cent for the month.
Earlier this month, Morrisons chief executive David Potts said grocery prices would increase in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Opie said: “UK consumers have benefited from great value, quality, and choice of food thanks to our ability to trade tariff-free with the EU.
“There is no time to waste, the UK and EU must hammer out a final arrangement as soon as possible.
I can post further links if you'd like.0 -
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.0 -
I replied to the wrong post.alex_ said:
Was it really not obvious i was extracting the Michael?TheScreamingEagles said:
It is common knowledge, I work in the financial services industry, and the huge price increases in food in the event of a sustained No Deal Brexit has been factored into an expectation of delinquencies (defaults to you and me) for the consumer division.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
Obviously it depends what goes in your shopping basket.
In May, the UK published its new tariff schedule, which will be implemented by January 1 next year if a deal is not agreed.
Under the schedule, 85 per cent of foods imported from the EU will face tariffs of more than five per cent, while the average tariff on food imported from the EU would be over 20 per cent.
The figures revealed that we are likely to see a 48 per cent tariff on beef mince, 16 per cent on cucumbers and 10 per cent on lettuce.
The latest monthly retail price index for August revealed fresh food prices increased by 0.2 per cent, while inflation for ambient food accelerated to 2.8 per cent for the month.
Earlier this month, Morrisons chief executive David Potts said grocery prices would increase in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Opie said: “UK consumers have benefited from great value, quality, and choice of food thanks to our ability to trade tariff-free with the EU.
“There is no time to waste, the UK and EU must hammer out a final arrangement as soon as possible.
I can post further links if you'd like.
Shite at multitaksing today.0 -
Assuming no shortages, I'm not entirely convinced price rises in foods will be insouciantly sloughed off, given the financial status of most folk.0
-
I know you were probably being sarcastic but I agree with it literally. Whether you meant it literally or not.alex_ said:
I find it quite amusing that you gave a "like" to my post.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
But then one's got to survive with what you can at the moment.0 -
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?1 -
If that piece of exegesis is correct - and it takes a forensic mind to spot it - then Cummings and the guy no-one had heard of are not the only ones to be safely out of the frame when the decision has to be made by Boris, now Boris alone, to betray either the headbangers who made him leader and PM or the moderate centrists each of whom have a vote at or before 2024. He will betray the headbangers and do a deal.Scott_xP said:
But would he have to rely on Labour to get it through the Commons?0 -
If there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU, then it follows that Brexit is not the freedom to win freedom, but the freedom to subjugate ourselves in a way that we couldn't have done as members.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.1 -
5% for stuff imported from the EU, or even 20% for stuff imported from the EU != 30% for all stuff whether imported or domestically produced.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is common knowledge, I work in the financial services industry, and the huge price increases in food in the event of a sustained No Deal Brexit has been factored into an expectation of delinquencies (defaults to you and me) for the consumer division in 2021.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
Obviously it depends what goes in your shopping basket.
In May, the UK published its new tariff schedule, which will be implemented by January 1 next year if a deal is not agreed.
Under the schedule, 85 per cent of foods imported from the EU will face tariffs of more than five per cent, while the average tariff on food imported from the EU would be over 20 per cent.
The figures revealed that we are likely to see a 48 per cent tariff on beef mince, 16 per cent on cucumbers and 10 per cent on lettuce.
The latest monthly retail price index for August revealed fresh food prices increased by 0.2 per cent, while inflation for ambient food accelerated to 2.8 per cent for the month.
Earlier this month, Morrisons chief executive David Potts said grocery prices would increase in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Opie said: “UK consumers have benefited from great value, quality, and choice of food thanks to our ability to trade tariff-free with the EU.
“There is no time to waste, the UK and EU must hammer out a final arrangement as soon as possible.
https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/09/shoppers-will-face-higher-prices-for-weekly-shop-in-no-deal-brexit/
I can post further links if you'd like.0 -
Pants catching fire more likely.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?0 -
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.0 -
His PR team certainly deserves one given how many articles are out there pushing out how great he is in fields other than F1 and such a jolly good bloke to boot.TheScreamingEagles said:Lewis Hamilton doesn't deserve a knighthood, he deserves a Royal Dukedom.
Which he might well be but at this point I only really care about the F1 stuff, which he's plenty great enough at on its own.0 -
"Let them eat stuff."Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.3 -
No they can't. It's a slightly careless abbreviation of a real issue. Both membership of the EU and leaving are exercises of sovereignty.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
There has always been a genuine fear that further integration intends that we would end up step by step as once independent Scotland now is where it has no right of independent exercise of sovereignty. That's fine if you want it, but not if you don't.
Indeed membership of the Euro may well de facto be that point.
0 -
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.0 -
Yes. No big deal.williamglenn said:
"Let them eat stuff."Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.0 -
For some inexplicable reason I'm finding myself thinking f the Whitehall administratorsd who gave cracked maize as food to Irish and (IIRC) Scottish peasants during the potato famines of the 1840s.williamglenn said:
"Let them eat stuff."Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.0 -
Lololol I was very specific about fresh food being the issue. Anything with life on it is being stockpiled like crazy. Again with the absurdity of your straw man arguments. And it isn't "some" products its thousands.Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.0 -
You can definitely make the case that if leaving would be so messy as to cause carnage then the right to do it has become meaningless and sovereignty has been lost. Does Euro membership get you to that place? No. Not for me. It makes it harder to leave but not at all impossible. At the end of the day it's only a currency.algarkirk said:
No they can't. It's a slightly careless abbreviation of a real issue. Both membership of the EU and leaving are exercises of sovereignty.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
There has always been a genuine fear that further integration intends that we would end up step by step as once independent Scotland now is where it has no right of independent exercise of sovereignty. That's fine if you want it, but not if you don't.
Indeed membership of the Euro may well de facto be that point.0 -
That quote doesn't say thousands you've made that up.RochdalePioneers said:
Lololol I was very specific about fresh food being the issue. Anything with life on it is being stockpiled like crazy. Again with the absurdity of your straw man arguments. And it isn't "some" products its thousands.Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.
There will be fresh food on the shelves. Your hyperbole is unsubstantiated fearmongering bullshit.1 -
If you take an absolutist view then anything short of autarky compromises your sovereignty. If you don't, then it's not obvious why there should be any limit to how much sovereignty you can pool.kinabalu said:
You can definitely make the case that if leaving would be so messy as to cause carnage then the right to do it has become meaningless and sovereignty has been lost. Does Euro membership get you to that place? No. Not for me. It makes it harder to leave but not at all impossible. At the end of the day it's only a currency.algarkirk said:
No they can't. It's a slightly careless abbreviation of a real issue. Both membership of the EU and leaving are exercises of sovereignty.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
There has always been a genuine fear that further integration intends that we would end up step by step as once independent Scotland now is where it has no right of independent exercise of sovereignty. That's fine if you want it, but not if you don't.
Indeed membership of the Euro may well de facto be that point.0 -
Absolutely brilliant race earlier today. Real champion's drive from Lewis, ignoring the team on tyres at the end was a good call, finally banishing China 2007.
He is truly the best racing driver ever. He's got the racing instincts of Senna, the strategic outlook of Schumacher and ruthlessness of Prost. We're very lucky to have seen him race, it's just a shame that Ferrari have dropped the ball so badly in the hybrid era so the only real competition has come from the other garage in the Mercedes team.
Hopefully Ferrari, McLaren and RBR are competitive next season and we can get some real racing up front, Bottas is a bit rubbish.1 -
Yes. No big deal.Philip_Thompson said:
"Let them eat stuff."
Simple question
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
0 -
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.3 -
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.0 -
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
What if what needs to be done is to concede to the EU things you don't want the government to concede? By your own logic, you will be betrayed.Philip_Thompson said:Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
We cannot wave the lorries through in the other direction, they cannot return with that second load of tomatoes from Spain if they are still stuck in Kent heading back from the earlier journey.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
Reading that tweet, I'm wondering (yet again) who the monkey is and who the organ grinder is.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.0 -
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.0 -
There are two clear and consistent threads; Firstly that the EU had and has become an issue which needed to be resolved but has no acceptable resolution; (to get into that place is the most monumental failure of post war UK politics). Secondly that Boris intended to be PM whatever it took and intends to remain PM as long as he can.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.
With those two principles everything makes sense.
1 -
Maybe it's monkeys all the way downCarnyx said:
Reading that tweet, I'm wondering (yet again) who the monkey is and who the organ grinder is.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.1 -
I think it was maybe even PT who said how stupid I was when I made a similar point in connection with the supposedly open internal Irish border some eyars back on PB. Apparently actually controlling your border is so 1960s in Brexiter eyes when it comes down to actually doing it.alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers...Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
The logic of this would be that Frost quits/goes this week, at the same time as an extension is announced. Not sure that works, because although the current "hard-ish" deal is crap, it is at least a deal and right now Johnson prefers a shit deal today rather than a workable deal after the "humiliation" of a six months delay. In fact, even with a deal the humiliation is coming, so UK screwed either way. The May Scottish Parliament elections will be the beginning of Johnson´s (and the UK´s) end if they take place in a Brexit crisis atmosphere.Scott_xP said:
The smell of fear in Downing street is pretty obvious I think, but it still seems Boris the Unready is more likely to let this drift rather than bite the bullet of delay.
So money on January crisis I would guess.0 -
That's not needed though.williamglenn said:
What if what needs to be done is to concede to the EU things you don't want the government to concede? By your own logic, you will be betrayed.Philip_Thompson said:Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
But it always was our choice, so the only valid reason to leave based on this argument would be a pressing and urgent need to diverge. Unless there is one, then we shouldn't have left.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.0 -
Oh no - Wilfred certainly isn't, that at least we can safely say.Roy_G_Biv said:
Maybe it's monkeys all the way downCarnyx said:
Reading that tweet, I'm wondering (yet again) who the monkey is and who the organ grinder is.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.0 -
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
It is the approach of an opinion columnist, who has to come up with a "position" on an issue of the day, possibly (if pushed) with a couple of hours 'research' on wikipedia), and who knows that he can advocate a completely different position in next week's paper.algarkirk said:
There are two clear and consistent threads; Firstly that the EU had and has become an issue which needed to be resolved but has no acceptable resolution; (to get into that place is the most monumental failure of post war UK politics). Secondly that Boris intended to be PM whatever it took and intends to remain PM as long as he can.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.
With those two principles everything makes sense.0 -
In or out of the UK?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
So we have a problem without a solution (EU membership), and a solution without a problem (Johnson being PM- what does he bring to the job?).algarkirk said:
There are two clear and consistent threads; Firstly that the EU had and has become an issue which needed to be resolved but has no acceptable resolution; (to get into that place is the most monumental failure of post war UK politics). Secondly that Boris intended to be PM whatever it took and intends to remain PM as long as he can.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.
With those two principles everything makes sense.2 -
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?0 -
Such an excellent rhetorical question so much deserves an answer that it is a shame there isn't one.Roy_G_Biv said:
So we have a problem without a solution (EU membership), and a solution without a problem (Johnson being PM- what does he bring to the job?).algarkirk said:
There are two clear and consistent threads; Firstly that the EU had and has become an issue which needed to be resolved but has no acceptable resolution; (to get into that place is the most monumental failure of post war UK politics). Secondly that Boris intended to be PM whatever it took and intends to remain PM as long as he can.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.
With those two principles everything makes sense.
1 -
Again, that "disputed" is ridiculously soft from Twitter. It should say "a lie" or at the very least "unsubstantiated".Gary_Burton said:
The pandering to the absurd Donald Trump goes on.3 -
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.0 -
Excellent. My free Google Stadia Premier Edition pack has arrived. "Dear YouTube Premium subscriber" said the email. "Would you like a £90 Stadia controller and Chromecast Ultra for free?" it asked. Yes! Yes I would.0
-
Surely the the Dems response should be equally brief - 'put up or shut up' - even though he won't.
Should he even be invited to the inauguration unless he makes a genuine concession? Or would that just reinforce his conspiracy theories?
I really just want someone to stick a sock in his mouth or remove the caps button from his phone. He is seriously undermining the democratic process which always relies on shared trust in the mechanics.0 -
Is that offer still available? I am a premium subscriber but didn't know about that offer.RochdalePioneers said:Excellent. My free Google Stadia Premier Edition pack has arrived. "Dear YouTube Premium subscriber" said the email. "Would you like a £90 Stadia controller and Chromecast Ultra for free?" it asked. Yes! Yes I would.
0 -
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
0 -
Yes, unsubstantiated would be correct.kinabalu said:
Again, that "disputed" is ridiculously soft from Twitter. It should say "a lie" or at the very least "unsubstantiated".Gary_Burton said:
The pandering to the absurd Donald Trump goes on.2 -
You are absolutely right Philip, the way the remainers argue with “no fresh food medicines, utter disaster, world war three coming” is a very poor way to fight brexit. The only way to properly attack brexit is as the vast majority of economists said, we invent extra bills for ourselves to pay on business trading we will get poorer year on year as a nation till we struggle to pay for defence, security, welfare, health, pensions etc etc.Philip_Thompson said:
That quote doesn't say thousands you've made that up.RochdalePioneers said:
Lololol I was very specific about fresh food being the issue. Anything with life on it is being stockpiled like crazy. Again with the absurdity of your straw man arguments. And it isn't "some" products its thousands.Philip_Thompson said:
Missing some products isn't bare shelves it's exactly what I've been saying. So there will be stuff on the shelves. Thanks for proving my point.RochdalePioneers said:
Do you want me to repost the direct quote? He didn't say what you are claiming I said he said. You're posting a straw man. To win Brexit or whatever. He said "we don't know how we're going to trade on 1st January". The lack of fresh food on the shelves is specific to Norniron. Its headline news over there but ignored over here.Philip_Thompson said:
You're right it probably wasn't.alex_ said:
I would have thought that basic food stuffs going up by 30% + in the event of no deal would be massive headline news. But it wasn't. So it obviously wasn't said. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
I've said all along there would be some disruption.RochdalePioneers said:
"All of those values are post any initial disruption"Philip_Thompson said:
What difference do prices make if there's no products on the shelves as you claimed he said?RochdalePioneers said:There was Good News at that Sainsbury's conference where despite Philip not being there he knows what was said. Sainsbury's & Arla have complied their shared view as to the change in shelf prices in January.
Again, this was from the conference Philip wasn't at so he'll be along in a minute to say none of this was said:
Meat: +6% deal / +31% no deal
Fish, Fruit, Veg: +7% deal / +20% no deal
Oil & Fats: +23% deal / +32% no deal
Dairy: +7% deal / +55% no deal
Grain products: +104% deal / +119% no deal
Bakery: +7% deal / +29% no deal
Other foodstuffs: +7% deal / +16% no deal
All of those values are post any initial disruption caused by not having a working customs system to process imports on 1st January.
Or were you lying?
After. Meaning not during. Come on Philip you're embarrassing yourself now.
Disruption does not mean no products in the shelves. So go on, a link please? Because I'm calling you out as making it up. If what you're claiming was said it would have gone viral in seconds, Scott would have posted 17 Tweets about it in five minutes and it would have been and been quoted here incessantly. And yet ... Silence. Mystical, complete and utter silence.
Occam's razor is you are making it up or misunderstanding the situation.
No food on shelves is bigger news than food becomes more expensive though, but yes you're right he has probably misunderstanding and misquoting those numbers too.
The BBC have covered it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54840257. It quotes Sainsbury's CEO saying exactly what I said.
"Mr Roberts told The Guardian: '"If we don't get greater clarity on the Northern Irish situation then we will see a restriction on the ranges of products we can sell.
'This is not one or two products in stores I am talking about, it is a substantial number of products and quite key, everyday products too.
'Customers expect to have access to a full range but [it] won't be possible to make that available unless something changes.'"
Or perhaps he didn't say that. Because its all a lie.
There will be fresh food on the shelves. Your hyperbole is unsubstantiated fearmongering bullshit.
Also there is no political crisis from Boris extending transition for more talks, because of Covid, you can’t deliver even an oven ready deal with Covid going on, everyone will forgive the extension.
0 -
If food supply security comes at a cost of people or other types of smuggling that's a pretty high cost.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.0 -
He's the anti-Thatcher.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.0 -
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?0 -
It is.MaxPB said:
If food supply security comes at a cost of people or other types of smuggling that's a pretty high cost.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Forced choice though would you pay that price or not?
If it comes to it then food security is more important than security theatre.0 -
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?0 -
What does Youtube Premium buy you (besides the £90 in free stuff)? Is it just advert-free?Philip_Thompson said:
Is that offer still available? I am a premium subscriber but didn't know about that offer.RochdalePioneers said:Excellent. My free Google Stadia Premier Edition pack has arrived. "Dear YouTube Premium subscriber" said the email. "Would you like a £90 Stadia controller and Chromecast Ultra for free?" it asked. Yes! Yes I would.
0 -
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.0 -
No I'm advocating no extension and the EU compromises and gives us what they want. If they don't then no deal and we face the consequences of that.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
I expect a few weeks of disruption. If the consequences are smuggling for a few weeks as people adapt or lack of food for a few weeks then that's an easy choice for me. Food is more important to secure than preventing a bit of smuggling for a few weeks.0 -
Indeed. We were managing to do both just about fine before this damn foolish plan.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?0 -
Qu'ils ne mangent pas de la brioche.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm advocating no extension and the EU compromises and gives us what they want. If they don't then no deal and we face the consequences of that.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
I expect a few weeks of disruption. If the consequences are smuggling for a few weeks as people adapt or lack of food for a few weeks then that's an easy choice for me. Food is more important to secure than preventing a bit of smuggling for a few weeks.0 -
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?0 -
One thing I really don't understand - why the government has set itself against a border in the Irish Sea.
What is the debate in Northern Ireland at the moment?0 -
Yes. We are living through the Boris Johnson Project. He does whatever is best for him. You will not go far wrong analyzing everything (inc Brexit) through that perception.algarkirk said:
There are two clear and consistent threads; Firstly that the EU had and has become an issue which needed to be resolved but has no acceptable resolution; (to get into that place is the most monumental failure of post war UK politics). Secondly that Boris intended to be PM whatever it took and intends to remain PM as long as he can.Roy_G_Biv said:
It seems to be the single most defining feature of Johnsonism that we don't have a clear single definitive message on what's going on, what is wanted or intended. It's a consistent thread of shit that runs through everything... the EU referendum campaign, the agreeing to/disparaging of May's deal, the coronavirus response, the EU negotiations.Scott_xP said:
The is-he-isn't-he, will-he-won't-he, maybe-aye-maybe-no approach is no way to govern. Instead of a PM we have a gnomic wanderer; instead of making decisions, he dreamily plucks petals from daisies.
With those two principles everything makes sense.1 -
Can't we just import food from the rest of the world? Might not be as good of course. And won't we just see more goods being delivered by ship?1
-
Exactly what I'm driving at. If we do not use our "freedom" to do some serious things that would have been verboten as EU members, Brexit has been (being kind) a monumental waste of time and energy.williamglenn said:
But it always was our choice, so the only valid reason to leave based on this argument would be a pressing and urgent need to diverge. Unless there is one, then we shouldn't have left.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.0
This discussion has been closed.