Discussion:
Gna Miller Knows
Add Reply
Yellow
2018-09-17 20:18:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -


"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""


I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?


I have found this site -

https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB

But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.


Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
pensive hamster
2018-09-17 21:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
The above page currently shows WWE (wrestling?) as top search
term, with 50K+ searches.

This page

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Brexit&geo=GB

shows Brexit as a search term at above 50 [*] since June 10.

It could be you get a different result if you compare search
frequency over a period, compared with just on one day.

[*]
'Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point
on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the
peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is
half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data
for this term.'
Yellow
2018-09-17 21:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
The above page currently shows WWE (wrestling?) as top search
term, with 50K+ searches.
This page
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Brexit&geo=GB
shows Brexit as a search term at above 50 [*] since June 10.
It could be you get a different result if you compare search
frequency over a period, compared with just on one day.
[*]
'Numbers represent search interest relative to the highest point
on the chart for the given region and time. A value of 100 is the
peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is
half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data
for this term.'
Interesting link - cheers. :-)

But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
pensive hamster
2018-09-17 22:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pensive_hamster says...
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
[...]
But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
Possibly ...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018

'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.

'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: “When is Brexit?”

'... The second most Googled question was: “What is Brexit?”

'... Bafflement around the UK’s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.

'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won’t have any trees. ...'
Yellow
2018-09-18 00:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
[...]
But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
Possibly ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018
'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.
'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: ?When is Brexit??
'... The second most Googled question was: ?What is Brexit??
'... Bafflement around the UK?s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won?t have any trees. ...'
Interestingly, as you quote, this page says "The most Googled question
on the topic", in contrast to Ms Miller's claim that 'what is Brexit?'
was the biggest search.
GB
2018-09-18 11:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Interestingly, as you quote, this page says "The most Googled question
on the topic", in contrast to Ms Miller's claim that 'what is Brexit?'
was the biggest search.
I think that you are being more than a tad unfair. There's a limited
time for speeches and it's a political conference, so you can't expect
complete precision in the wording, as you would at a logician's
conference. It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
Yellow
2018-09-18 15:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <pnqnvu$mnm$***@dont-email.me>, ***@microsoft.com
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Interestingly, as you quote, this page says "The most Googled question
on the topic", in contrast to Ms Miller's claim that 'what is Brexit?'
was the biggest search.
I think that you are being more than a tad unfair.
And you are entitled to your view. :-)
Post by GB
There's a limited time for speeches
True, but we are only talking a couple of extra words here.
Post by GB
and it's a political conference, so you can't expect
complete precision in the wording, as you would at a logician's
conference.
Where as I think it is exactly the time for precision in wording.
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
GB
2018-09-18 15:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
Well, you have certainly tripped her up on a minor mistake. The thing
is, was her main point wrong, do you think?
Yellow
2018-09-18 15:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <pnr60e$ee4$***@dont-email.me>, ***@microsoft.com
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
Well, you have certainly tripped her up on a minor mistake.
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, given the
crux of her speech was about accurate communication and ensuring the UK
public have good quality information.

"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that."
Post by GB
The thing
is, was her main point wrong, do you think?
The crux of her speech was about making sure people have accurate
information - ironically. :-)
GB
2018-09-18 16:45:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
Well, you have certainly tripped her up on a minor mistake.
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, given the
crux of her speech was about accurate communication and ensuring the UK
public have good quality information.
Having read it again, as you kindly quoted it, I think it's completely
clear that it's about Brexit searches. If you think it was a deliberate
attempt to mislead, your paranoia detector may be set a bit too
sensitive and you should turn it down a notch. :)
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that."
Post by GB
The thing
is, was her main point wrong, do you think?
The crux of her speech was about making sure people have accurate
information - ironically. :-)
Yes, we all appreciate the irony.
Yellow
2018-09-18 16:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <pnra2g$9kb$***@dont-email.me>, ***@microsoft.com
says...
Post by GB
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
Well, you have certainly tripped her up on a minor mistake.
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, given the
crux of her speech was about accurate communication and ensuring the UK
public have good quality information.
Having read it again, as you kindly quoted it, I think it's completely
clear that it's about Brexit searches. If you think it was a deliberate
attempt to mislead, your paranoia detector may be set a bit too
sensitive and you should turn it down a notch. :)
Before I simply said you are entitled to your opinion but given you have
decided to ramp that up and get a bit more personal, forgive me for
pointing out that you are being being extremely naive if you genuinely
believe that. :-)

Conferences are the shop front and are well reported, so every word that
is spoken is spoken for a reason.
Post by GB
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that."
Post by GB
The thing
is, was her main point wrong, do you think?
The crux of her speech was about making sure people have accurate
information - ironically. :-)
Yes, we all appreciate the irony.
GB
2018-09-18 23:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
says...
Post by GB
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
Post by GB
It's pretty obvious that she didn't mean that Brexit is the
hottest search topic in the nation, and she was just commenting on the
searches made about Brexit.
I simple thought that she meant what she said, which is why I did a bit
of research. So it is therefore also reasonable to assume other people
took what she said to be what she meant too.
Well, you have certainly tripped her up on a minor mistake.
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, given the
crux of her speech was about accurate communication and ensuring the UK
public have good quality information.
Having read it again, as you kindly quoted it, I think it's completely
clear that it's about Brexit searches. If you think it was a deliberate
attempt to mislead, your paranoia detector may be set a bit too
sensitive and you should turn it down a notch. :)
Before I simply said you are entitled to your opinion but given you have
decided to ramp that up and get a bit more personal, forgive me for
pointing out that you are being being extremely naive if you genuinely
believe that. :-)
Just in case anybody gets the wrong idea, I don't actually think you're
even slightly paranoid.

I'll usually believe the cock-up theory, rather than the conspiracy
theory. Whether that's extremely naive or extremely sensible is a matter
for debate.

Anybody who thought about it for a moment would not believe that the
great British public are more interested in Brexit than Eastenders, say,
therefore it was obvious what Miller meant.
Conferences are the shop front and are well reported, so every word that
is spoken is spoken for a reason.
She doesn't have the services of a speech writing and fact checking
team, as far as I know. So, I'm happy to stick with the cock-up theory,
thanks.
pensive hamster
2018-09-18 18:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pensive_hamster says...
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
[...]
But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
Possibly ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018
'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.
'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: ?When is Brexit??
'... The second most Googled question was: ?What is Brexit??
'... Bafflement around the UK?s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won?t have any trees. ...'
Interestingly, as you quote, this page says "The most Googled question
on the topic", in contrast to Ms Miller's claim that 'what is Brexit?'
was the biggest search.
Yes, I did notice that, which was why I slightly hesitatingly prefaced
the link to the Express article with "Possibly ..."

The Express article does at least indicate that there may be some
Google data on search term frequency, even if it doesn't seem to
provide any information as to where any such data might be found.
Yellow
2018-09-18 18:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
[...]
But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
Possibly ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018
'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.
'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: ?When is Brexit??
'... The second most Googled question was: ?What is Brexit??
'... Bafflement around the UK?s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won?t have any trees. ...'
Interestingly, as you quote, this page says "The most Googled question
on the topic", in contrast to Ms Miller's claim that 'what is Brexit?'
was the biggest search.
Yes, I did notice that, which was why I slightly hesitatingly prefaced
the link to the Express article with "Possibly ..."
The Express article does at least indicate that there may be some
Google data on search term frequency, even if it doesn't seem to
provide any information as to where any such data might be found.
It refers to Google Trends at the end so I wonder if they have been
using the same site as us but spending far more time correlating the
data.
harry
2018-09-18 07:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
[...]
But it doesn't support Ms Miller's claim that it is "the biggest
search" and still wonder how she substantiates this claim.
Possibly ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018
'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.
'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: “When is Brexit?”
'... The second most Googled question was: “What is Brexit?”
'... Bafflement around the UK’s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won’t have any trees. ...'
Almost right.
We have had a whole range of tree diseases from the EUSSR.
Elm, ash, oak horse chestnut, cypress all affected.
pensive hamster
2018-09-18 18:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by harry
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018417/brexit-news-what-is-brexit-google-searches
Sep 16, 2018
'... Perhaps frustrated by the endless waffle of Westminster politicians,
British people have been turning to Google to try and get answers for
their most burning questions.
'The most Googled question on the topic in the UK during the
last two weeks was: “When is Brexit?”
'... The second most Googled question was: “What is Brexit?”
'... Bafflement around the UK’s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won’t have any trees. ...'
Almost right.
We have had a whole range of tree diseases from the EUSSR.
Elm, ash, oak horse chestnut, cypress all affected.
I guess Corsican pines at least, will have to leave after Brexit.
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 07:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
'... Bafflement around the UK’s decision to leave the EU was epitomised
in the 2018 series of reality show Love Island, when a group of
contestants tried to explain to each other what Brexit is.
'They made headlines for their frank questions, especially Hayley Hughes,
21, a beauty queen from Liverpool, who asked if Brexit means the UK
won’t have any trees. ...'
Presumably, they didn't vote in the referendum, but think their wisdom
should be allowed to be expressed in a second one.
Norman Wells
2018-09-17 21:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
pensive hamster
2018-09-17 21:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/06/30/word-trends-brexit/

'Brexit is the term commonly used for the departure of the United
Kingdom from the European Union – formed from British or
Britain + exit. It was on our shortlist for Word of the Year in 2015,
but it is only in recent weeks that it has seen such a surge in searches.

'The word Brexit itself is currently [2016/06/30] at the top of worldwide
popularity for dictionary look-ups, and also in first place in the US,
Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia, and Spain. It features in the top
searches in the UK too, but only in fourth place – presumably because
the British public are more likely to know already what Brexit means than
people using the dictionary in other countries. ...'
Norman Wells
2018-09-17 22:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/06/30/word-trends-brexit/
'Brexit is the term commonly used for the departure of the United
Kingdom from the European Union – formed from British or
Britain + exit. It was on our shortlist for Word of the Year in 2015,
but it is only in recent weeks that it has seen such a surge in searches.
'The word Brexit itself is currently [2016/06/30] at the top of worldwide
popularity for dictionary look-ups, and also in first place in the US,
Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia, and Spain. It features in the top
searches in the UK too, but only in fourth place – presumably because
the British public are more likely to know already what Brexit means than
people using the dictionary in other countries. ...'
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?

It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
pensive hamster
2018-09-18 18:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
I have just been having a click about and cannot find any corroboration
that "what is Brexit" is a currently popular search term so can anyone
help me out here?
I have found this site -
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=GB
But it only does daily, and there is no mention of Brexit at all in the
top 10 and hasn't been for as far back as I could be bothered to look.
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/06/30/word-trends-brexit/
'Brexit is the term commonly used for the departure of the United
Kingdom from the European Union – formed from British or
Britain + exit. It was on our shortlist for Word of the Year in 2015,
but it is only in recent weeks that it has seen such a surge in searches.
'The word Brexit itself is currently [2016/06/30] at the top of worldwide
popularity for dictionary look-ups, and also in first place in the US,
Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia, and Spain. It features in the top
searches in the UK too, but only in fourth place – presumably because
the British public are more likely to know already what Brexit means than
people using the dictionary in other countries. ...'
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.

The remainder of what I wrote in that post was slightly relevant
to the OP's first post, and to the topic of this thread. Admittedly
only slightly relevant, given its date.

Perhaps I should have put that part in a separate post, to avoid
confusing you?
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 18:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.

I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.

He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
Post by pensive hamster
The remainder of what I wrote in that post was slightly relevant
to the OP's first post, and to the topic of this thread. Admittedly
only slightly relevant, given its date.
Perhaps I should have put that part in a separate post, to avoid
confusing you?
No, with your super explanation, it's OK.
pensive hamster
2018-09-18 19:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
This page says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'

The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.

So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 21:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
pensive hamster
2018-09-19 19:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.

Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.

Further, it is rarely reliable to extrapolate from a single data
point. You have yet to produce any data to substantiate your
claim that one single LibDem supporter's possibly less than
comprehensive knowledge of EU FTAs has had the consequence
to any degree, of thwarting the people's will over Brexit.
tim...
2018-09-19 20:55:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.
but don't forget the percentage of the word that is part of the EU

when you take that out the 56% of the whole world equates to what? 70% of
non-EU world.
Post by pensive hamster
Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.
I suspect that they come close
Post by pensive hamster
Further, it is rarely reliable to extrapolate from a single data
point. You have yet to produce any data to substantiate your
claim that one single LibDem supporter's possibly less than
comprehensive knowledge of EU FTAs has had the consequence
to any degree, of thwarting the people's will over Brexit.
you may be right, but I don't think anyone did that

what they doing is pointing out they are are fed up with Clayon's lying

He has many points on his side that he could argue truthfully, but he insist
upon quoting complete lies

and it's not like he's doing it to a conference room full of newbies. He's
doing it to half a dozen people who have previously told him his "facts" are
wrong

tim
Norman Wells
2018-09-19 21:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.
That's the proportion of *world* population in just those 9 countries.
If you exclude the EU from the world population total since it can't
have trade relations with itself, just those 9 countries represent some
62% of the rest of the world's population. And of course that
proportion goes up considerably when you start to include other populous
countries like Ethiopia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand with
whom the EU also does not have existing trade agreements.
Post by pensive hamster
Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.
Then you'll be able to make your case, if you have one, by quoting the
figures you think are relavant.
Post by pensive hamster
Further, it is rarely reliable to extrapolate from a single data
point. You have yet to produce any data to substantiate your
claim that one single LibDem supporter's possibly less than
comprehensive knowledge of EU FTAs has had the consequence
to any degree, of thwarting the people's will over Brexit.
But that's the LibDems' avowed aim. They're all at it.
pensive hamster
2018-09-20 17:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.
That's the proportion of *world* population in just those 9 countries.
If you exclude the EU from the world population total since it can't
have trade relations with itself, just those 9 countries represent some
62% of the rest of the world's population. And of course that
proportion goes up considerably when you start to include other populous
countries like Ethiopia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand with
whom the EU also does not have existing trade agreements.
Post by pensive hamster
Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.
Then you'll be able to make your case, if you have one, by quoting the
figures you think are relavant.
Er no, that's for you to do. I'm not trying to make a case,
I was just asking you for your data to back up your claim
that EU trade deals "don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries".

If you have the data for the percentage of world trade
volumes made up by "the vast majority of major countries"
that the EU doesn't have trade deals with, why not provide it?
It would make your case more persuasive.

Countries you mention like Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand
may be populous, but they are not necessarily "major countries"
in terms of international trade.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Further, it is rarely reliable to extrapolate from a single data
point. You have yet to produce any data to substantiate your
claim that one single LibDem supporter's possibly less than
comprehensive knowledge of EU FTAs has had the consequence
to any degree, of thwarting the people's will over Brexit.
But that's the LibDems' avowed aim. They're all at it.
You have data to back up that claim?
Norman Wells
2018-09-20 17:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.
That's the proportion of *world* population in just those 9 countries.
If you exclude the EU from the world population total since it can't
have trade relations with itself, just those 9 countries represent some
62% of the rest of the world's population. And of course that
proportion goes up considerably when you start to include other populous
countries like Ethiopia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand with
whom the EU also does not have existing trade agreements.
Post by pensive hamster
Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.
Then you'll be able to make your case, if you have one, by quoting the
figures you think are relavant.
Er no, that's for you to do. I'm not trying to make a case,
I was just asking you for your data to back up your claim
that EU trade deals "don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries".
If you have the data for the percentage of world trade
volumes made up by "the vast majority of major countries"
that the EU doesn't have trade deals with, why not provide it?
It would make your case more persuasive.
I'll cut and paste from the Brexit and Customs Duties thread then, so
that you don't have to read too much before bedtime:

Just the nine countries I considered in terms of population with no EU
trade agreement in place, namely China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, actually account on their own
for 50% of the world's GDP, and over 63% of the world's economy
excluding the EU itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
pensive hamster
2018-09-20 22:48:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Is Ms Miller telling lies or is there somewhere else I can find this
information?
It does seem to be something of a characteristic amongst LibDems from my
experience here. Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Do you have the data to back up your opinion?
Is this like the Two Ronnies sketch about answering the question before
last?
It doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
The first line I posted ("Do you have the data to back up your
opinion?") is relevant to what you said.
Oh, right. Well, you can refer to any post you like from the leading
LibDem here, Mark Clayton, about Brexit and you're sure to find one lie
or another. The latest example is a reprise of an earlier one because
nothing seems to sink in, especially facts, about the nations with which
the EU has trade deals.
I've told him before that they don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries, and proved it, but it still re-emerges just a few weeks
later as if we haven't discussed anything like it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
'The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs)[1]
and other agreements with a trade component with many countries
worldwide and is negotiating with many others.[2]'
The map on the right of that page seems to show the only countries
the EU doesn't have FTAs with, or isn't negotiating FTAs with, to be
Russia, China, and a few smallish countries in Africa and South
America.
So it seems a little economical with the truth to say that EU FTAs
"don't exist with the vast majority of major countries".
Post by Norman Wells
He just seems to ignore any facts that inconveniently don't fit his
narrative.
[...]
The fact is, though, that they don't. If you think the EU has any trade
deals in existence with, say, China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, just to mention the top ones
in terms of population, which together account for 56% of the world's
population, do say.
You said that that EU FTAs "don't exist with the vast majority
of major countries". I'm not sure that 56% = the vast majority.
That's the proportion of *world* population in just those 9 countries.
If you exclude the EU from the world population total since it can't
have trade relations with itself, just those 9 countries represent some
62% of the rest of the world's population. And of course that
proportion goes up considerably when you start to include other populous
countries like Ethiopia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand with
whom the EU also does not have existing trade agreements.
Post by pensive hamster
Given that we are discussing EU free *trade* agreements, it
would seem more relevant to quote statistics more related to
trade, such as GDP, or ideally trade volumes. I rather doubt that
the countries you mention contribute as much as 56% of world
trade volumes.
Then you'll be able to make your case, if you have one, by quoting the
figures you think are relavant.
Er no, that's for you to do. I'm not trying to make a case,
I was just asking you for your data to back up your claim
that EU trade deals "don't exist with the vast majority of
major countries".
If you have the data for the percentage of world trade
volumes made up by "the vast majority of major countries"
that the EU doesn't have trade deals with, why not provide it?
It would make your case more persuasive.
I'll cut and paste from the Brexit and Customs Duties thread then, so
Just the nine countries I considered in terms of population with no EU
trade agreement in place, namely China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Russia, actually account on their own
for 50% of the world's GDP, and over 63% of the world's economy
excluding the EU itself.
The USA, for example, also doesn't seem to have FTAs with any of
the countries you mention in your paragraph above (unless I've missed
one).

According to this page, the countries the USA does have FTAs with are:

https://www.trade.gov/fta/

FTAs In Force

Australia
Bahrain
Chile
Colombia
DR-CAFTA (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, & Nicaragua)
Israel
Jordan
Korea
Morocco
NAFTA (seems a bit dodgy with Canada at present)
Oman
Panama
Peru
Singapore
Post by Norman Wells
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.

So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.

Perhaps you would like to provide a list of the countries or trading
blocs which *do* have trade agreements in place with very much
of the significant trading world?

I suspect it would be quite a short list, but I am willing to be proved
wrong.
GB
2018-09-20 22:56:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
I suspect it would be quite a short list, but I am willing to be proved
wrong.
Look here, Mr Hamster. This is Usenet, so less (fewer?) of these
annoying facts, and more rhetoric and illogical arguments. A bit of ad
hominem wouldn't go amiss, either.

If you can complain about MI5 and get obsessive about certain parts of
the human anatomy, you'll blend in perfectly.
Norman Wells
2018-09-21 08:01:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?

I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you would like to provide a list of the countries or trading
blocs which *do* have trade agreements in place with very much
of the significant trading world?
No, I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making.
Post by pensive hamster
I suspect it would be quite a short list, but I am willing to be proved
wrong.
If it is, it just goes to show how the world keeps revolving regardless,
and how Mr Clayton's fears are so misplaced.
pensive hamster
2018-09-21 19:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?

The EU does have trade agreements with quite a few countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
and presumably we will lose the advantages those agreements
bring us when we leave the EU.

And it may be that we will be "minnows trying to compete against
whales" when we try and negotiate new trade deals:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dup-arlene-foster-customs-theresa-may-a8381276.html
3 June 2018
'... But shadow international trade secretary Barry Gardiner said the
government’s refusal to remain in a customs union with the European
Union would ensure the UK was a “minnow trying to compete against
whales” on the global stage.

'He told Sky News that Labour’s Brexit policy would ensure “trade in
goods would continue uninterrupted”, adding: “The Tories’ red line is
actually going to make it much, much more difficult.

“They’re the ones who will be isolated, they will be minnows trying to
compete against whales.

“They will be a 70 million strong consumer market against America’s
500 million.”
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Perhaps you would like to provide a list of the countries or trading
blocs which *do* have trade agreements in place with very much
of the significant trading world?
No, I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making.
Post by pensive hamster
I suspect it would be quite a short list, but I am willing to be proved
wrong.
If it is, it just goes to show how the world keeps revolving regardless,
and how Mr Clayton's fears are so misplaced.
Norman Wells
2018-09-21 20:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
pensive hamster
2018-09-23 12:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?

Are you saying we won't lose whatever advantages EU FTAs
bring us as soon as we leave the EU?
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 13:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?
And I don't want to reprise all the arguments here that I had there.
Post by pensive hamster
Are you saying we won't lose whatever advantages EU FTAs
bring us as soon as we leave the EU?
Of course we will. The point, though, is that they don't amount to
much, because the EU does not actually have free trade agreements in
place with very much of the signicant trading world.

It doesn't for example, with USA, China, India, Russia, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Brazil ....

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/

Moreover, a free trade agreement that suits the EU as a whole, ie some
of the major economies within it, might not be to the UK's advantage.
Free trade is not always advantageous, as Trump's spat with China shows.
pensive hamster
2018-09-24 11:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?
And I don't want to reprise all the arguments here that I had there.
Post by pensive hamster
Are you saying we won't lose whatever advantages EU FTAs
bring us as soon as we leave the EU?
Of course we will. The point, though, is that they don't amount to
much, because the EU does not actually have free trade agreements in
place with very much of the signicant trading world.
It doesn't for example, with USA, China, India, Russia, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Brazil ....
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/
The EU is not the only major country or trading block that doesn't
have free trade agreements with those countries, the USA for
example, doesn't.

Are you anticipating that The UK will be able to successfully
negotiate FTAs with those countries?
Post by Norman Wells
Moreover, a free trade agreement that suits the EU as a whole, ie some
of the major economies within it, might not be to the UK's advantage.
Your argument seems to boil down to saying that being in the
EU might not be to the UK's advantage. Have you attempted
to evaluate whether it is or not, or is "might not be" just your
version of Project Fear?

The UK is 34th in this list of top exporting countries per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita

below such EU members as Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland,
Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Estonia, France, and Italy.

But it is 9th in this list of top exporting countries by value:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

Why the discrepancy, do you think? Is EU membership
somehow good for the above mentioned countries' exporting
abilities, but bad for the UK's?

Do you think the UK will move up either list after Brexit?
Post by Norman Wells
Free trade is not always advantageous, as Trump's spat with China shows.
Don't think the USA has a free trade agreement with China.
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 20:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?
And I don't want to reprise all the arguments here that I had there.
Post by pensive hamster
Are you saying we won't lose whatever advantages EU FTAs
bring us as soon as we leave the EU?
Of course we will. The point, though, is that they don't amount to
much, because the EU does not actually have free trade agreements in
place with very much of the signicant trading world.
It doesn't for example, with USA, China, India, Russia, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Brazil ....
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/
The EU is not the only major country or trading block that doesn't
have free trade agreements with those countries, the USA for
example, doesn't.
So what? The question is what we would lose when we leave, and the
answer to that is only the trade agreements the EU has in place. It has
nothing to do with any other blocs.
Post by pensive hamster
Are you anticipating that The UK will be able to successfully
negotiate FTAs with those countries?
I don't know. At least we will be free to try.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Moreover, a free trade agreement that suits the EU as a whole, ie some
of the major economies within it, might not be to the UK's advantage.
Your argument seems to boil down to saying that being in the
EU might not be to the UK's advantage. Have you attempted
to evaluate whether it is or not, or is "might not be" just your
version of Project Fear?
I've already evaluated that, and think we should leave. It's no secret.

But a trade agreement that has been negotiated by the EU does not
necessarily or even likely benefit all the countries of the EU equally.
In fact it may actually disadvantage some but has been concluded because
its benefits to the EU as a whole outweigh the disadvantages.
Post by pensive hamster
The UK is 34th in this list of top exporting countries per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita
below such EU members as Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland,
Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Estonia, France, and Italy.
That's presumably because it's only counting goods not services, whereas
we are mainly a service-based economy.

Unlike some other countries in the EDU, we've gone beyond base
metal-bashing and tomato growing.
Post by pensive hamster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
Why the discrepancy, do you think?
It's obviously because the goods we export are of high value.
Post by pensive hamster
Is EU membership
somehow good for the above mentioned countries' exporting
abilities, but bad for the UK's?
I've no idea.
Post by pensive hamster
Do you think the UK will move up either list after Brexit?
I doubt it because we're not a very significant manufacturing nation.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Free trade is not always advantageous, as Trump's spat with China shows.
Don't think the USA has a free trade agreement with China.
No, but he obviously thinks that trade has been too free with China, and
that has led to the dumping of Chinese steel, aluminium, textiles and
other goods in the USA to the detriment of US businesses. That's why
he's now imposed substantial import tariffs on such goods.

Free trade, especially with a much larger partner that produces the same
stuff as you do but cheaper, can be harmful. It's not true that it's
always good, and it's not true that what is good for someone else is
also good for you.
pensive hamster
2018-09-25 12:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place with very
much of the significant trading world, whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements with
most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked Project Fear
to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those agreements bring as
soon as we leave the EU. This would bring depression, recession and
economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you haven't
exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's all in
there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?
And I don't want to reprise all the arguments here that I had there.
Post by pensive hamster
Are you saying we won't lose whatever advantages EU FTAs
bring us as soon as we leave the EU?
Of course we will. The point, though, is that they don't amount to
much, because the EU does not actually have free trade agreements in
place with very much of the signicant trading world.
It doesn't for example, with USA, China, India, Russia, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Brazil ....
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/
The EU is not the only major country or trading block that doesn't
have free trade agreements with those countries, the USA for
example, doesn't.
So what?
You earlier wrote: 'The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.'

That statement doesn't have much significance unless you compare
the EU with other countries or trading blocs. As far as I am aware,
no country or trading bloc has free trade agreements in place with
very much of the significant trading world, and I cited the USA as an
example of a country which doesn't.

So your statement would have been more balanced and informative
if you had written: 'The fact is, the EU in common with most/all
other countries or trading blocs, does *not* have trade agreements
in place with very much of the significant trading world, whichever
way you look at it.'

As far as I can make out, the EU seems to have an above average
number of free trade agreements in place or partially applied. I am
not aware of any country or trading bloc which has a greater number
of FTAs.

So I cannot at present see any reason to think the UK could,
post-Brexit, achieve a greater number of FTAs than the EU already
has.
Post by Norman Wells
The question is what we would lose when we leave, and the
answer to that is only the trade agreements the EU has in place.
That is only part of the question. You haven't said what we
would *gain* (in terms of FTAs) when we leave.
Post by Norman Wells
It has nothing to do with any other blocs.
It has everything to do with other blocs, they are the ones we
presumably hope to strike new FTAs with.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Are you anticipating that The UK will be able to successfully
negotiate FTAs with those countries?
I don't know. At least we will be free to try.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Moreover, a free trade agreement that suits the EU as a whole, ie some
of the major economies within it, might not be to the UK's advantage.
Your argument seems to boil down to saying that being in the
EU might not be to the UK's advantage. Have you attempted
to evaluate whether it is or not, or is "might not be" just your
version of Project Fear?
I've already evaluated that,
You now seem to be contradicting yourself. I earlier asked
'Are you anticipating that The UK will be able to successfully
negotiate FTAs with those countries?'

and you replied: 'I don't know. At least we will be free to try.'

But now you are saying: 'I've already evaluated that, ...'

????
Post by Norman Wells
and think we should leave. It's no secret.
But a trade agreement that has been negotiated by the EU does not
necessarily or even likely benefit all the countries of the EU equally.
In fact it may actually disadvantage some but has been concluded because
its benefits to the EU as a whole outweigh the disadvantages.
Post by pensive hamster
The UK is 34th in this list of top exporting countries per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports_per_capita
below such EU members as Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland,
Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Estonia, France, and Italy.
That's presumably because it's only counting goods not services, whereas
we are mainly a service-based economy.
Fair point. I assumed the figures would include services, I should
have checked. My apologies.
Post by Norman Wells
Unlike some other countries in the EDU, we've gone beyond base
metal-bashing and tomato growing.
Post by pensive hamster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
Why the discrepancy, do you think?
It's obviously because the goods we export are of high value.
Post by pensive hamster
Is EU membership
somehow good for the above mentioned countries' exporting
abilities, but bad for the UK's?
I've no idea.
Post by pensive hamster
Do you think the UK will move up either list after Brexit?
I doubt it because we're not a very significant manufacturing nation.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Free trade is not always advantageous, as Trump's spat with China shows.
Don't think the USA has a free trade agreement with China.
No, but he obviously thinks that trade has been too free with China, and
that has led to the dumping of Chinese steel, aluminium, textiles and
other goods in the USA to the detriment of US businesses. That's why
he's now imposed substantial import tariffs on such goods.
Free trade, especially with a much larger partner that produces the same
stuff as you do but cheaper, can be harmful. It's not true that it's
always good, and it's not true that what is good for someone else is
also good for you.
Pamela
2018-09-23 14:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
On Friday, 21 September 2018 09:01:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in
place with very much of the significant trading world,
whichever way you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade
agreements with most of the countries we trade with worldwide,
and invoked Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the
advantages those agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU.
This would bring depression, recession and economic ruin, so
we shouldn't leave, should we?
I was just pointing out the dishonesty in all that.
What makes you think all that is dishonest (assuming you
haven't exaggerated or misrepresented what Mr Clayton has
said)?
You'll have to read the Brexit and Customs Duties thread. It's
all in there.
Is this some kind of hide-and-seek game? I don't really want to
trawl through a 127 post thread in the hope of spotting where
you might have hidden your answer. Why can't you just copy
and paste whatever it is that you want me to read?
If Norman had any good arguments he would state them here. To hide
his inability to make any points, he tried to send you off to a long
rambling thread and asked you to tease out points which support him.
Amazing.
Pamela
2018-09-22 15:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.

When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones. There's
nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for traders to
force a good bargain.

It's misleading for you to identify countries which trade with the EU
only within the agreed WTO schedules as having no agreement. There may
be no individual agreement but they are part of a collective agreement.
Norman Wells
2018-09-22 16:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules.
That's not what he was talking about, and you know it.
Post by Pamela
After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
But then you've said on more than one occasion here that trade will stop
on Brexit. So your expert analysis ain't worth much.
Post by Pamela
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones.
We write the schedules, no-one else. They don't have to be negotiated
or agreed with anyone.
Pamela
2018-09-22 18:48:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules.
That's not what he was talking about, and you know it.
He tried to change the subject.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
After Brexit the UK will not be able to trade with thsoe
countries using the old schedules.
But then you've said on more than one occasion here that trade
will stop on Brexit. So your expert analysis ain't worth much.
I have never said that. I said trade agreements based on the EU
schedules will stop. It's the agreements which stop. Did you
follow the use of English there?

If a country wishes to trade with the UK outside of WTO guarantees
or resolution then it can do so. Good luck finding someone. Even
Russia finally joined the WTO.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU
behind us, they could quite likely be worse than the present
ones.
We write the schedules, no-one else. They don't have to be
negotiated or agreed with anyone.
We write the schedule, including any proposed tariffs, quotas or
restrictions, and we put it forward in July for the WTO to approve -
which it does after consulting its members to see if anyone wants
objects. First it sets up

It's explained simply enough here:

"Procedurally, the WTO will set up a Committee or Working Party
to consider the UK's submission. This will be open to all member
countries which want to participate.

Members will prepare lists of questions and follow-up
supplementaries to the UK, which will provide written answers.
In a series of formal sessions, UK representatives will be
questioned in depth on these answers and on issues of concern
that arise.

Individual WTO members will also have the right to seek bilateral
negotiations with the UK on aspects of the draft schedules,
including in particular countries which stand to be disadvantaged
by any increases in the rates of protection currently applied by
the UK.

The Committee will report to the WTO General Council with
findings on the UK proposed schedules, but whether this report
can be ready for consideration before Brexit day in March 2019 is
highly questionable.

https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-
post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/
Norman Wells
2018-09-22 20:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
After Brexit the UK will not be able to trade with thsoe
countries using the old schedules.
But then you've said on more than one occasion here that trade
will stop on Brexit. So your expert analysis ain't worth much.
I have never said that. I said trade agreements based on the EU
schedules will stop. It's the agreements which stop. Did you
follow the use of English there?
I can follow English perfectly well, thank you.

When I asked you in October:

"Do you think trade just stops when we leave then? You do, don't
you?"

you replied:

"If our trade with another country is under the EU agreement with
that country then it will stop."

As a matter of English you thought trade would stop on Brexit.
tim...
2018-10-11 09:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones. There's
nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for traders to
force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.

The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the same
for every member country (all 160 odd of them)

Who could possibly be the person who represents the "other" side in this
supposed negotiation of yours.

So, as there is no-one on the other side to negotiate with, the "strength"
of the people behind you when you propose your schedules counts for
absolutely northing at all in this process.

tim
Pamela
2018-10-11 12:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones. There's
nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for traders to
force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.
The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the
same for every member country (all 160 odd of them)
Who could possibly be the person who represents the "other" side in
this supposed negotiation of yours.
So, as there is no-one on the other side to negotiate with, the
"strength" of the people behind you when you propose your schedules
counts for absolutely northing at all in this process.
tim
Wake up, sleepy head. Not only are you posting to historical messages
but you must know any and every country has a veto over a proposed
schedule. They are the "other" side. You should revise WTO 101.
tim...
2018-10-11 15:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones. There's
nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for traders to
force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.
The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the
same for every member country (all 160 odd of them)
Who could possibly be the person who represents the "other" side in
this supposed negotiation of yours.
So, as there is no-one on the other side to negotiate with, the
"strength" of the people behind you when you propose your schedules
counts for absolutely northing at all in this process.
tim
Wake up, sleepy head. Not only are you posting to historical messages
but you must know any and every country has a veto over a proposed
schedule.
yes we've had that discussion

they may have a veto in theory, but it is clear that it is rarely used,
otherwise no-one would be allowed to join. One nutty country or other would
always be vetoing new applications.
Post by Pamela
They are the "other" side. You should revise WTO 101.
They don't have a veto based upon the details of the schedule

just whether the UK is a suitable country to be allowed to join

tim
Pamela
2018-10-11 17:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not
be able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU
behind us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones.
There's nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for
traders to force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.
The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the
same for every member country (all 160 odd of them)
Who could possibly be the person who represents the "other" side in
this supposed negotiation of yours.
So, as there is no-one on the other side to negotiate with, the
"strength" of the people behind you when you propose your schedules
counts for absolutely northing at all in this process.
tim
Wake up, sleepy head. Not only are you posting to historical
messages but you must know any and every country has a veto over a
proposed schedule.
yes we've had that discussion
they may have a veto in theory, but it is clear that it is rarely
used, otherwise no-one would be allowed to join. One nutty country or
other would always be vetoing new applications.
Post by Pamela
They are the "other" side. You should revise WTO 101.
They don't have a veto based upon the details of the schedule
just whether the UK is a suitable country to be allowed to join
tim
Complete nonsense as usual from you. No wonder you seem at such a loss
when you post about WTO role in trade. Tha fact is, each county draws
up a schedule and the schedule its very self is passed around for
approval and any country is able to veto its implementation. The
applicant (in our case, the UK) then redraws the schedule and tries
again until all other countries are satisfied.

The horse trading takes places when each country want a special deal
fromth eother and try to apply the same terms to ROW without loss.
pensive hamster
2018-10-11 12:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Pamela" wrote in message
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not be
able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU behind
us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones. There's
nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for traders to
force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.
A negotiation surely requires two or more parties. How can a
single party negotiate with itself?

This page says:

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/mark_27jul17_e.pdf

"Schedules result from negotiations among members, both in the
multilateral (among all WTO members) and plurilateral (among
some members) context."

and:

"There are 135 schedules for the 164 WTO members. The European
Union has a single Schedule for all its member states."

So presumably when we leave the EU, we will need to negotiate
new schedules with some or all of the other 160-odd WTO member
states. We may not be in such a strong negotiating position, as a
single country, and as a much smaller economic entity than the EU
as a whole.

Or is there something I have failed to understand?
The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the same
for every member country (all 160 odd of them)
The above-cited page says "There are 135 schedules for the 164 WTO
members." which seems to contradict your statement above that "The
schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the same
for every member country (all 160 odd of them)"

Those 135 schedules are presumably 135 *different* schedules.
Who could possibly be the person who represents the "other" side in this
supposed negotiation of yours.
So, as there is no-one on the other side to negotiate with, the "strength"
of the people behind you when you propose your schedules counts for
absolutely northing at all in this process.
Pamela
2018-10-11 12:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
"Pamela" wrote in message
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 18:41:37 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
The fact is, the EU does *not* have trade agreements in place
with very much of the significant trading world, whichever way
you look at it.
Equally, it seems the fact is, the USA does *not* have trade
agreements in place with very much of the significant trading
world, whichever way you look at it.
So quite why you are picking on the EU, I'm unsure.
It's because Mr Clayton was alleging the EU had trade agreements
with most of the countries we trade with worldwide, and invoked
Project Fear to make us think we'd lose all the advantages those
agreements bring as soon as we leave the EU. This would bring
depression, recession and economic ruin, so we shouldn't leave,
should we?
The EU trades with those countries you named using the agreements
contained in the EU's WTO schedules. After Brexit the UK will not
be able to trade with thsoe countries using the old schedules.
When the UK agrees new schedules, without the muscle of the EU
behind us, they could quite likely be worse than the present ones.
There's nothing like a country in desperation, like the UK, for
traders to force a good bargain.
No one negotiates for the other side when setting up WTO schedules.
A negotiation surely requires two or more parties. How can a
single party negotiate with itself?
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/mark_27jul17_e.pdf
"Schedules result from negotiations among members, both in the
multilateral (among all WTO members) and plurilateral (among
some members) context."
"There are 135 schedules for the 164 WTO members. The European
Union has a single Schedule for all its member states."
So presumably when we leave the EU, we will need to negotiate
new schedules with some or all of the other 160-odd WTO member
states. We may not be in such a strong negotiating position, as a
single country, and as a much smaller economic entity than the EU
as a whole. Or is there something I have failed to understand?
The schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the
same for every member country (all 160 odd of them)
The above-cited page says "There are 135 schedules for the 164 WTO
members." which seems to contradict your statement above that "The
schedules that the UK uses (will use) for trade with ROW are the same
for every member country (all 160 odd of them)"
Those 135 schedules are presumably 135 *different* schedules.
Tim wrote his claim in an ambiguous way which makes it seem there is
only one agreement which applies to all trading pairs of countries.
However, as you rightly point out, there is over 100 such agreements
documented in different schedules.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding about WTO trading, such as "The
UK can trade on standard WTO terms". Tim may be using those ill-
informed early guesses about how the WTO works. He wouldn't know as he
is often guided largely by his own intuition rather than external facts.
GB
2018-09-18 11:49:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers
their objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding the
people's will over Brexit?

There are strong indications that the people's will has changed since
the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs for that?
Phi
2018-09-18 12:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their objective of
thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding the
people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed since the
referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be sufficient ?
GB
2018-09-18 13:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their objective of
thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding the
people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed since
the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be sufficient ?
It depends entirely whether you want to reflect the will of the people
or not.
Pamela
2018-09-23 12:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding
the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed
since the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs for
that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.

History will look back and ask what all the rush was about.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 14:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
But that just raises more and more questions.

How do you determine whether a public is 'well-informed'? Will there be
an exam, with only the people who pass being allowed to vote?

Over what period must it not change its mind? And over how many
successive referenda?

What will signify an end to the process so that we can actually get on
with some work?

Then, how would we deal with an apparent shift in public opinion after
you've decided a final decision has been reached?

How often should we have a referendum? Every six months, or what? If
not at regular intervals, what should prompt one?

Do say.
Fredxx
2018-09-23 14:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding
the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed
since the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs for
that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't changed
their mind.

Every 2 years? So we can play hokey-pokey with EU membership?

After being told this was always a once in a lifetime referendum this is
all patent nonsense by a poor loser.
Post by Pamela
History will look back and ask what all the rush was about.
Pamela
2018-09-23 14:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding
the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed
since the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs
for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large majority.

If there are several options proposed we can use single
transferrable vote to avoid repeated getting an insufficient
majority.
Post by Fredxx
Every 2 years? So we can play hokey-pokey with EU membership?
After being told this was always a once in a lifetime referendum
this is all patent nonsense by a poor loser.
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Fredxx
2018-09-23 14:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23/09/2018 15:17, Pamela wrote:

<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the significant
political parties said they would honour the result.
Pamela
2018-09-23 14:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there is so
much dispute about what the best terms should be.

If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
Fredxx
2018-09-23 14:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there is so
much dispute about what the best terms should be.
So far, according to the EU, there are no terms acceptable. There is
then only WTO terms.

Most deals are done in the 11th hour. Any further 'consultation' will
just draw things out even longer, probably another 10 years.
Post by Pamela
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
With the lack of alternative plans put forward by the EU, any
consultation would be fruitless. Consulting on what exactly?

Historically the people have never been consulted, except at General
Elections, and even then parties such as the LibDems are happy to
disregard their manifesto and actually vote against the principles so
outlined.
Pamela
2018-09-23 15:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there is
so much dispute about what the best terms should be.
So far, according to the EU, there are no terms acceptable. There
is then only WTO terms.
I think it's the other way around. We agree terms with the EU on
border controls, access to the Free Market, movement of people, etc.

As for "WTO terms":

"There is no such thing as 'WTO tariffs': the WTO does not itself
determine tariff rates, and it does not require member countries to
charge tariffs on their imports. Quite the reverse. Governments
apply tariffs to imported goods exclusively at their own initiative
and for their own reasons"

https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-
post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/
Post by Fredxx
Most deals are done in the 11th hour. Any further 'consultation'
will just draw things out even longer, probably another 10 years.
I'm happy if Theresa May waters down Chequers to suit the EU and
accepts their border recommendations but Rees-Mogg may not be so happy
and he would moan about it for ever. That's why I say the deal needs
approving by the British public to ensure widespread acceptance and to
also avoid lasting conflict.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
With the lack of alternative plans put forward by the EU, any
consultation would be fruitless. Consulting on what exactly?
Theresa May has asked the EU to make a counter proposal but the EU is
not the one leaving. It's for the UK to make proposals on how its
wants to Leave and it's a bit cheeky asking the EU to do that for us.
Post by Fredxx
Historically the people have never been consulted, except at
General Elections, and even then parties such as the LibDems are
happy to disregard their manifesto and actually vote against the
principles so outlined.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 15:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
I'm happy if Theresa May waters down Chequers to suit the EU and
accepts their border recommendations
Er, what border recommendations would they be then? Can you enlighten
us please?
Post by Pamela
but Rees-Mogg may not be so happy
and he would moan about it for ever. That's why I say the deal needs
approving by the British public to ensure widespread acceptance and to
also avoid lasting conflict.
But you have to consider what happens next if they don't. Why are you
so shy that you won't address that pretty fundamental point?
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
With the lack of alternative plans put forward by the EU, any
consultation would be fruitless. Consulting on what exactly?
Theresa May has asked the EU to make a counter proposal but the EU is
not the one leaving. It's for the UK to make proposals on how its
wants to Leave and it's a bit cheeky asking the EU to do that for us.
No it isn't. They're in a negotiation with us, and their own Lisbon
Treaty obliges them to negotiate a leaving agreement with us. Sometime
they have to say what they want or at least what they would find
acceptable, just as all parties in any negotiation have to if they wish
to reach agreement. They have to say what their objections are, and in
detail, or we cannot possibly deal with them.

The UK has submitted a detailed proposal, whether anyone likes it or
not, and the least the EU should do is consider it with respect and say
in comparable detail why, if indeed it is, it's unacceptable. We can't
guess, we have to know.
Fredxx
2018-09-23 16:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there is
so much dispute about what the best terms should be.
So far, according to the EU, there are no terms acceptable. There
is then only WTO terms.
I think it's the other way around. We agree terms with the EU on
border controls,
Currently there is unlikely to be any agreement, apart from annexation
of NI.
Post by Pamela
access to the Free Market,
That was never an issue, the right to obtain trade agreements with other
nations is the sticking point.
Post by Pamela
movement of people, etc.
Again, the EU negotiators will not accede to a limit on worker migration.
Post by Pamela
"There is no such thing as 'WTO tariffs': the WTO does not itself
determine tariff rates, and it does not require member countries to
charge tariffs on their imports. Quite the reverse. Governments
apply tariffs to imported goods exclusively at their own initiative
and for their own reasons"
A number of tariffs are set and observed by WTO members.
Post by Pamela
https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-
post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/
Post by Fredxx
Most deals are done in the 11th hour. Any further 'consultation'
will just draw things out even longer, probably another 10 years.
I'm happy if Theresa May waters down Chequers to suit the EU and
accepts their border recommendations but Rees-Mogg may not be so happy
and he would moan about it for ever. That's why I say the deal needs
approving by the British public to ensure widespread acceptance and to
also avoid lasting conflict.
How many years are you willing to take for approval? How many
referendums until you get your result?
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
With the lack of alternative plans put forward by the EU, any
consultation would be fruitless. Consulting on what exactly?
Theresa May has asked the EU to make a counter proposal but the EU is
not the one leaving. It's for the UK to make proposals on how its
wants to Leave and it's a bit cheeky asking the EU to do that for us.
If the EU don't provide the reasons or accept a compromise then they are
accepting WTO rules and going to impose a hard border between NI and Eire.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Historically the people have never been consulted, except at
General Elections, and even then parties such as the LibDems are
happy to disregard their manifesto and actually vote against the
principles so outlined.
As outlined the referendum is about the only consultation we've had,
that once in a lifetime event. There is no need for more, unless you are
choosing to weaken the UK hand.
Pamela
2018-09-23 18:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
<snip>
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in
this together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the
result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there
is so much dispute about what the best terms should be.
So far, according to the EU, there are no terms acceptable.
There is then only WTO terms.
I think it's the other way around. We agree terms with the EU on
border controls,
Currently there is unlikely to be any agreement, apart from
annexation of NI.
Post by Pamela
access to the Free Market,
That was never an issue, the right to obtain trade agreements with
other nations is the sticking point.
Post by Pamela
movement of people, etc.
Again, the EU negotiators will not accede to a limit on worker
migration.
Post by Pamela
"There is no such thing as 'WTO tariffs': the WTO does not
itself determine tariff rates, and it does not require member
countries to charge tariffs on their imports. Quite the
reverse. Governments apply tariffs to imported goods
exclusively at their own initiative and for their own
reasons"
A number of tariffs are set and observed by WTO members.
Each country does not necessarily use the same tariffs. It's
incorrect to say "There is then only WTO terms" to suggest tariffs.
There are no WTO terms which indicate the valid tariff.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-
schedules-of post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-
that-means/
Post by Fredxx
Most deals are done in the 11th hour. Any further 'consultation'
will just draw things out even longer, probably another 10
years.
I'm happy if Theresa May waters down Chequers to suit the EU and
accepts their border recommendations but Rees-Mogg may not be so
happy and he would moan about it for ever. That's why I say the
deal needs approving by the British public to ensure widespread
acceptance and to also avoid lasting conflict.
How many years are you willing to take for approval? How many
referendums until you get your result?
I would rather do it right than fast.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants
then arguments will rage for decades.
With the lack of alternative plans put forward by the EU, any
consultation would be fruitless. Consulting on what exactly?
Theresa May has asked the EU to make a counter proposal but the
EU is not the one leaving. It's for the UK to make proposals on
how its wants to Leave and it's a bit cheeky asking the EU to do
that for us.
If the EU don't provide the reasons or accept a compromise then
they are accepting WTO rules and going to impose a hard border
between NI and Eire.
As above, there is no such thing as "WTO rules" trading without
agreeing individual tariffs.
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Historically the people have never been consulted, except at
General Elections, and even then parties such as the LibDems are
happy to disregard their manifesto and actually vote against the
principles so outlined.
As outlined the referendum is about the only consultation we've
had, that once in a lifetime event. There is no need for more,
unless you are choosing to weaken the UK hand.
Brexit is being done in the name of the British public and we should
determine what the British public think about the actual agreement.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 15:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
There are no winners and losers. The whole country is in this
together.
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the
significant political parties said they would honour the result.
I would like a referendum on the terms of Brexit because there is so
much dispute about what the best terms should be.
If there's no consultation on what the British public wants then
arguments will rage for decades.
How can you expect the public to understand complicated, interrelated
technical terms when your view throughout has been that they didn't
understand the simple question 'Should the UK leave or remain in the
European Union'?

And how would a referendum on the terms go any way at all to resolving
what terms the public wants?

Stop swerving the question: if a referendum rejected the terms agreed,
what happens next?
GB
2018-09-23 15:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the significant
political parties said they would honour the result.
And if the people have changed their mind, that is not 'the will of the
people'?

Look, stop fucking about pretending to hold the moral high ground. There
were a hell of a lot of lies during the referendum run-up, and a large
number of people have changed their minds. You can say they should get
stuffed, but for goodness sake stop pretending that you are upholding
their wishes.
Yellow
2018-09-23 16:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <po8a9q$k1v$***@dont-email.me>, ***@microsoft.com
says...
Post by GB
Post by Fredxx
Good, then you should be able to accept the will of the people
demonstrated in a once in a lifetime referendum where the significant
political parties said they would honour the result.
And if the people have changed their mind, that is not 'the will of the
people'?
Look, stop fucking about pretending to hold the moral high ground. There
were a hell of a lot of lies during the referendum run-up, and a large
number of people have changed their minds. You can say they should get
stuffed, but for goodness sake stop pretending that you are upholding
their wishes.
I am sure people have changed their minds in both directions, we also
have deaths and we have people now eligible to vote who could not two
years ago but to me, what is a bigger issue is were a 2nd referendum
takes us.

Would it resolve anything except prove again that we are split on this?

And being split, does that mean the roughly half who want to stay in the
EU should get their way or the roughly half who want to leave the EU
should get their way?

Meanwhile, we were promised there would not be a 2nd referendum for all
the reasons we all know about so I do not need to list here. Myself, I
also see this as a big issue both when it comes to trust of government
and trust of the EU, and it will cause Leavers to become ever more
entrenched in their position, regardless of the outcome.

But my views aside, what is playing out today at the Labour Conference
is also key in this debate - what exactly would a 2nd referendum ask?
The leadership is now saying that they would support a 2nd referendum if
their membership votes for them to do so but there is no talk of what
that referendum would ask.

How on earth can you decide to support a 2nd referendum and not state
what question you are supporting when this is as critical as the support
itself?

It is a mess. A push-me-pull-you of one group wanting another referendum
to overturn the result of the first while another group want a
referendum to force a Brexit where we leave both the Single Market and
Customs Union - while the people are stuck in the middle, pretty
helpless to push (or pull) any of it in any direction.

And then there are those who want to "resolve it" via a general
election, which would turn in to metaphorical blood bath in my view
(back to my opinions again) because first Brexit is not split on
political lines and second because the political parties themselves are
split.

So keep on this path, or do any of what I discuss above, and we have
pretty much the same problem.
GB
2018-09-23 18:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
I am sure people have changed their minds in both directions, we also
have deaths and we have people now eligible to vote who could not two
years ago but to me, what is a bigger issue is were a 2nd referendum
takes us.
Would it resolve anything except prove again that we are split on this?
And being split, does that mean the roughly half who want to stay in the
EU should get their way or the roughly half who want to leave the EU
should get their way?
We usually manage some semblance of consensus politics in this country.
We can manage that with things like tax rates, where the %age can be
adjusted to some middle rate that most people can live with.

With Brexit, it's more of an all or nothing, but not completely. The
compromise is to leave the EU, but maintain ties of some sort. That's
the deal which seems to be so hard to negotiate. Sadly, nobody seems to
want it in its latest incarnation, so it seems to be the opposite of
consensus, even though it is a compromise. :)
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, we were promised there would not be a 2nd referendum for all
the reasons we all know about so I do not need to list here. Myself, I
also see this as a big issue both when it comes to trust of government
and trust of the EU, and it will cause Leavers to become ever more
entrenched in their position, regardless of the outcome.
But my views aside, what is playing out today at the Labour Conference
is also key in this debate - what exactly would a 2nd referendum ask?
The leadership is now saying that they would support a 2nd referendum if
their membership votes for them to do so but there is no talk of what
that referendum would ask.
How on earth can you decide to support a 2nd referendum and not state
what question you are supporting when this is as critical as the support
itself?
It is a mess. A push-me-pull-you of one group wanting another referendum
to overturn the result of the first while another group want a
referendum to force a Brexit where we leave both the Single Market and
Customs Union - while the people are stuck in the middle, pretty
helpless to push (or pull) any of it in any direction.
If we really cannot agree a deal, then the choice becomes pretty simple.
Leave the EU on WTO terms or remain. That could be put to a referendum,
and I'm inclined to think it should be.

If we do have manage a sensible deal, then it should be able to attract
the middle ground and win any referendum hands down.
Post by Yellow
And then there are those who want to "resolve it" via a general
election, which would turn in to metaphorical blood bath in my view
(back to my opinions again) because first Brexit is not split on
political lines and second because the political parties themselves are
split.
So keep on this path, or do any of what I discuss above, and we have
pretty much the same problem.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 21:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
If we really cannot agree a deal, then the choice becomes pretty simple.
Leave the EU on WTO terms or remain.
Who says the latter is necessarily an option? The EU may have something
to say about that. It may prefer that we leave, and then have to rejoin
as provided for in Article 50, because that would require
re-negotiation, and it may be able to insist that we join the Euro, sign
up to Schengen, and not have the rebate we used to have. We would thus
be sucked even deeper into the inescapable lobster pot.
Post by GB
That could be put to a referendum,
and I'm inclined to think it should be.
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave. Remaining isn't
therefore something that is in accordance with that.
Post by GB
If we do have manage a sensible deal, then it should be able to attract
the middle ground and win any referendum hands down.
If it doesn't, though, what then?
GB
2018-09-23 22:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave.  Remaining isn't
therefore something that is in accordance with that.
But you're the one who keeps on talking about the people's will. Why are
you now so against that?
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 07:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave.  Remaining isn't
therefore something that is in accordance with that.
But you're the one who keeps on talking about the people's will. Why are
you now so against that?
The referendum was to determine the people's will, and it did just that.

A big decision. One that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come. A once in a generation decision. The government
will implement what you decide.

That is what everyone in the land was told. Those were the ground
rules. That is the basis on which everyone voted. There was no doubt
about it.

And it didn't mean it's only advisory, or we'll look at it and see if we
agree, or we'll give you another go next week, next month or next year
until we get the 'right' answer.
Pamela
2018-09-24 11:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave. 
Remaining isn't therefore something that is in accordance with
that.
But you're the one who keeps on talking about the people's will.
Why are you now so against that?
The referendum was to determine the people's will, and it did just that.
A big decision. One that will affect you, your family and your
children for decades to come. A once in a generation decision.
The government will implement what you decide.
That is what everyone in the land was told. Those were the ground
rules. That is the basis on which everyone voted. There was no
doubt about it.
A lot of people voted for £350 million a week, and lots of extra money.
No one voted to be poorer.
Post by Norman Wells
And it didn't mean it's only advisory, or we'll look at it and see
if we agree, or we'll give you another go next week, next month or
next year until we get the 'right' answer.
As you know the referendum was only advisory. Any rhetorical promises
to the contrary have no basis.
GB
2018-09-24 17:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave.  Remaining
isn't therefore something that is in accordance with that.
But you're the one who keeps on talking about the people's will. Why
are you now so against that?
The referendum was to determine the people's will, and it did just that.
No, it determined the people's will at that time. If you are so definite
the people's will must be upheld, it is clearly right to take their
current wishes into account.
Post by Norman Wells
A big decision.  One that will affect you, your family and your children
for decades to come.  A once in a generation decision.  The government
will implement what you decide.
That is what everyone in the land was told.  Those were the ground
rules.  That is the basis on which everyone voted.  There was no doubt > about it.
So, you try to justify NOT taking the people's will into account by this
means. That's fine. Just admit that the people's will is not important
to you.

Don't pretend that you care about what the people want. That's plain
hypocrisy.
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 18:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
Post by GB
I thought we'd had a referendum and decided to leave.  Remaining
isn't therefore something that is in accordance with that.
But you're the one who keeps on talking about the people's will. Why
are you now so against that?
The referendum was to determine the people's will, and it did just that.
No, it determined the people's will at that time. If you are so definite
the people's will must be upheld, it is clearly right to take their
current wishes into account.
Of course a referendum is only a snapshot at a particular time. It has
to be by its nature. But the ground rules said it was ...
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
A big decision.  One that will affect you, your family and your
children for decades to come.  A once in a generation decision.  The
government will implement what you decide.
The government expected the people to take it seriously and wanted as
many as possible to vote, which of course they did.
Post by GB
Post by Norman Wells
That is what everyone in the land was told.  Those were the ground
rules.  That is the basis on which everyone voted.  There was no doubt
Post by GB
about it.
So, you try to justify NOT taking the people's will into account by this
means. That's fine. Just admit that the people's will is not important
to you.
There are times when a decision on an important matter has to be taken
and adhered to. Otherwise, you'd have a referendum every 6 months and
constantly have to alter course without getting anything done.
Post by GB
Don't pretend that you care about what the people want. That's plain
hypocrisy.
The people decided at the time they were asked to decide. That's all
they could do and all the government could offer. The decision has been
taken, and was taken perfectly fairly.
Yellow
2018-09-24 00:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <po8l15$s7i$***@dont-email.me>, ***@microsoft.com
says...
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
I am sure people have changed their minds in both directions, we also
have deaths and we have people now eligible to vote who could not two
years ago but to me, what is a bigger issue is were a 2nd referendum
takes us.
Would it resolve anything except prove again that we are split on this?
And being split, does that mean the roughly half who want to stay in the
EU should get their way or the roughly half who want to leave the EU
should get their way?
We usually manage some semblance of consensus politics in this country.
We can manage that with things like tax rates, where the %age can be
adjusted to some middle rate that most people can live with.
With Brexit, it's more of an all or nothing, but not completely. The
compromise is to leave the EU, but maintain ties of some sort. That's
the deal which seems to be so hard to negotiate. Sadly, nobody seems to
want it in its latest incarnation, so it seems to be the opposite of
consensus, even though it is a compromise. :)
If the definition of compromise is a deal that no one wants then that is
the very definition of Chequers.


<snip some of my post for brevity>
Post by GB
Post by Yellow
It is a mess. A push-me-pull-you of one group wanting another referendum
to overturn the result of the first while another group want a
referendum to force a Brexit where we leave both the Single Market and
Customs Union - while the people are stuck in the middle, pretty
helpless to push (or pull) any of it in any direction.
If we really cannot agree a deal, then the choice becomes pretty simple.
Leave the EU on WTO terms or remain. That could be put to a referendum,
and I'm inclined to think it should be.
So you are in the first group I describe above.

Interestingly, I have just read about what the "compromise" motion being
put to the Labour Conference is going to be and according to The
Independent it will be for a referendum on the deal, the terms of
Brexit, so that would suggest they are plumping for door number 2, if it
is passed.
Post by GB
If we do have manage a sensible deal, then it should be able to attract
the middle ground and win any referendum hands down.
So what would be the point of wasting the money if it is passed by
Parliament?
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 07:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Interestingly, I have just read about what the "compromise" motion being
put to the Labour Conference is going to be and according to The
Independent it will be for a referendum on the deal, the terms of
Brexit, so that would suggest they are plumping for door number 2, if it
is passed.
And now it's 'Ooh, we don't really want to commit to anything,
especially as that nice Mr Corbyn doesn't really agree, and the public
might object, so we'll pass a very strong motion that says we won't
decide anything just yet'.

Good old Labour! As unwavering, firm and decisive as always.
Yellow
2018-09-24 10:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Interestingly, I have just read about what the "compromise" motion being
put to the Labour Conference is going to be and according to The
Independent it will be for a referendum on the deal, the terms of
Brexit, so that would suggest they are plumping for door number 2, if it
is passed.
And now it's 'Ooh, we don't really want to commit to anything,
especially as that nice Mr Corbyn doesn't really agree, and the public
might object, so we'll pass a very strong motion that says we won't
decide anything just yet'.
Good old Labour! As unwavering, firm and decisive as always.
It is quite interesting actually, what is going on, as it is the
argument I keep saying is really going on behind all these calls for a
2nd referendum.

One section of the party want to over turn the vote to leave and could
not give a fig about the deal, while another section are only interested
in a 2nd referendum that does not offer the option of remaining in the
EU.

And of course the rest do not want a 2nd referendum at all.

So they are actually quite representative of the split of opinion
through out the country - not that that helps them. But given Corbyn's,
McDonnell's and McCluskey's views, not wanting a 2nd referendum at all,
I would put my money on that outcome but we will soon see.
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 11:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Interestingly, I have just read about what the "compromise" motion being
put to the Labour Conference is going to be and according to The
Independent it will be for a referendum on the deal, the terms of
Brexit, so that would suggest they are plumping for door number 2, if it
is passed.
And now it's 'Ooh, we don't really want to commit to anything,
especially as that nice Mr Corbyn doesn't really agree, and the public
might object, so we'll pass a very strong motion that says we won't
decide anything just yet'.
Good old Labour! As unwavering, firm and decisive as always.
It is quite interesting actually, what is going on, as it is the
argument I keep saying is really going on behind all these calls for a
2nd referendum.
One section of the party want to over turn the vote to leave and could
not give a fig about the deal, while another section are only interested
in a 2nd referendum that does not offer the option of remaining in the
EU.
And of course the rest do not want a 2nd referendum at all.
So they are actually quite representative of the split of opinion
through out the country - not that that helps them. But given Corbyn's,
McDonnell's and McCluskey's views, not wanting a 2nd referendum at all,
I would put my money on that outcome but we will soon see.
Well, Corbyn and McDonnell are the ones carrying the political can.
They rightly fear a Leaver backlash at the polls if they
undemocratically seek to overturn the referendum result, and they know
they have to get elected first before anything they do is of any
relevance anyway. So, that is their first priority.

The rest of the membership don't have any responsibility for winning an
election, so they can propose any bizarre radical and undemocratic
policies they like and they need have no regard for whether they will be
acceptable to the electorate.

And that, in a nutshell, is the weakness of a party where the membership
decides policy. It's not a cohesive whole.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 15:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of upholding
the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has changed
since the referendum, but you presumably don't give two figs
for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large majority.
If there's a majority, but not of the magnitude you would like to see,
can you give us a good reason why the minority view should trump that of
the majority?

Anyway, what sort of majority would you consider 'sufficiently large'
not to require any more referenda to see if the public has changed its mind?
Pamela
2018-09-23 18:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of
upholding the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has
changed since the referendum, but you presumably don't give
two figs for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large
majority.
If there's a majority, but not of the magnitude you would like to
see, can you give us a good reason why the minority view should
trump that of the majority?
Now read what I actually wrote.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, what sort of majority would you consider 'sufficiently
large' not to require any more referenda to see if the public has
changed its mind?
You're making two different points into one.
Norman Wells
2018-09-23 21:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of
upholding the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has
changed since the referendum, but you presumably don't give
two figs for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public no
longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large
majority.
If there's a majority, but not of the magnitude you would like to
see, can you give us a good reason why the minority view should
trump that of the majority?
Now read what I actually wrote.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, what sort of majority would you consider 'sufficiently
large' not to require any more referenda to see if the public has
changed its mind?
You're making two different points into one.
These are very simple questions that you ought to be able to answer very
easily if you've thought your idea through at all. Why are you so
reluctant even to attempt them? Let me set them out again for you:

How do you determine whether a public is 'well-informed'? Will there be
an exam, with only the people who pass being allowed to vote?

Over what period must it not change its mind? And over how many
successive referenda?

What will signify an end to the process so that we can actually get on
with some work?

Then, how would we deal with an apparent shift in public opinion after
you've decided a final decision has been reached?

How often should we have a referendum? Every six months, or what? If
not at regular intervals, what should prompt one?

Do say.
Pamela
2018-09-24 11:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
Post by GB
Any lie or invented 'fact' will do if it furthers their
objective of thwarting the poeple's will over Brexit.
Am I right, then, that you are strongly in favour of
upholding the people's will over Brexit?
There are strong indications that the people's will has
changed since the referendum, but you presumably don't give
two figs for that?
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public
no longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large
majority.
If there's a majority, but not of the magnitude you would like
to see, can you give us a good reason why the minority view
should trump that of the majority?
Now read what I actually wrote.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, what sort of majority would you consider 'sufficiently
large' not to require any more referenda to see if the public
has changed its mind?
You're making two different points into one.
These are very simple questions that you ought to be able to
answer very easily if you've thought your idea through at all.
Why are you so reluctant even to attempt them? Let me set them
How do you determine whether a public is 'well-informed'? Will
there be an exam, with only the people who pass being allowed to
vote?
Over what period must it not change its mind? And over how many
successive referenda?
What will signify an end to the process so that we can actually
get on with some work?
Then, how would we deal with an apparent shift in public opinion
after you've decided a final decision has been reached?
How often should we have a referendum? Every six months, or what?
If not at regular intervals, what should prompt one?
Do say.
You are like a child making endless foolish and irrelevant
objections. Your child-like mind can't even understand what I
actually wrote.

Sadly you are too lazy to use Google.
Norman Wells
2018-09-24 11:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Pamela
Post by Phi
How many referenda on a subject, do you think would be
sufficient?
As many referendums as required until a well-informed public
no longer changes it mind.
How many referendums do you need to show the electorate hasn't
changed their mind.
A super majority usually guards against that. One error of the
recent referendum was not to require a sufficiently large
majority.
If there's a majority, but not of the magnitude you would like
to see, can you give us a good reason why the minority view
should trump that of the majority?
Now read what I actually wrote.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, what sort of majority would you consider 'sufficiently
large' not to require any more referenda to see if the public
has changed its mind?
You're making two different points into one.
These are very simple questions that you ought to be able to
answer very easily if you've thought your idea through at all.
Why are you so reluctant even to attempt them? Let me set them
How do you determine whether a public is 'well-informed'? Will
there be an exam, with only the people who pass being allowed to
vote?
Over what period must it not change its mind? And over how many
successive referenda?
What will signify an end to the process so that we can actually
get on with some work?
Then, how would we deal with an apparent shift in public opinion
after you've decided a final decision has been reached?
How often should we have a referendum? Every six months, or what?
If not at regular intervals, what should prompt one?
Do say.
You are like a child making endless foolish and irrelevant
objections. Your child-like mind can't even understand what I
actually wrote.
Sadly you are too lazy to use Google.
I'll take it that you have no answers and can't support your own
position then.

That's all a bit limp and pathetic if you don't mind me saying so.
JNugent
2018-09-19 10:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm a g-na, I'm a g-na,
The g-nicest work of g-nature in the zoo.
I'm a g-na, how d'you do,
You really ought to k-now w-ho's w-ho.
I'm a g-na, spelled G N A,
I'm g-not a camel or a kangaroo,
So let me introduce,
I'm g-neither man or moose,
Oh g-no g-no g-no, I'm a g-na!
Peter Percival
2018-09-19 21:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
I'm a g-na, I'm a g-na,
The g-nicest work of g-nature in the zoo.
I'm a g-na, how d'you do,
You really ought to k-now w-ho's w-ho.
I'm a g-na, spelled G N A,
I'm g-not a camel or a kangaroo,
So let me introduce,
I'm g-neither man or moose,
Oh g-no g-no g-no, I'm a g-na!
Bravo!
JNugent
2018-09-19 10:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
It is being reported that Ms Miller stated the following in her speech
today at the Lib Dem conference -
"To me, it illustrates how badly politicians are communicating this.
People aren't understanding basic things. By far the biggest search is
still 'what is Brexit?' Nobody has explained it enough. That's why the
dial hasn't moved on that.""
Perfectly good enough for the Lib Dem conference and they'll be more
than happy with it.

It'll certainly be the most cerebral contribution there all week.

Compare and contrast with the offerings of R. Mark Clayton, for instance.
Loading...