Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Haus said:

in 469 pages, you havent managed to explain what is positive about brexit, you dont have any thoughts of your own, is your head just empty ?  when questioned about any of the crazy statements you post, you just send idiotic youtube videos of other peoples opinions and dont or cant explain your thinking,

I've done it too many times, please pay attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

I've done it too many times, please pay attention. 

If you mean lying fvckwit we have been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

I've done it too many times, please pay attention. 

no, you just make things up, then its pointed out its lies 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SHRIMPER said:

If you mean lying fvckwit we have been paying attention.

look back and you will see it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

look back and you will see it 

I have quite a good memory.. I do not need to look back you fvckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

NEVER call me a name again !

If you were in the Grey Funnel Line (which I doubt) I bet your shipmates thought you were a bundle of fun. But there again you could have been a good bunk buddy for some lonely Tar.. because you do not act like any Jack i've ever known. "NEVER call me a name again" you prat.

Edited by SHRIMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SHRIMPER said:

If you were in the Grey Funnel Line (which I doubt) I bet your shipmates thought you were a bundle of fun. But there again you could have been a good bunk buddy for some lonely Tar.. because you do not act like any Jack i've ever known. "NEVER call me a name again" you prat.

I stopped the swearing as soon as I left the RN. Before that I'd swear with the best of them but changed when I hit Civvy Street.

Maybe you should take note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report in the press here is that according to the AFP news agency a deal is nearly done 

I can't access AFP, though

EDIT, apologies, this is with EFTA. I thought we had done all that? The report says that negotiations with the EU are resuming, nothing more 

My Icelandic needs to improve 😟

Edited by How I Wrote Elastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

REASONABLE ? Far from it !

Yes, very reasonable. All that want is fish they have been catching for centuries, the UK to not expect to export sub-standard goods into the EU or use taxpayers money to subsidise the dumping of uncompetitive goods. What could possibly be wrong with that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Yes, very reasonable. All that want is fish they have been catching for centuries, the UK to not expect to export sub-standard goods into the EU or use taxpayers money to subsidise the dumping of uncompetitive goods. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Dont forget theyd like tax Haven loopholes to be closed so the mega rich cant hide all their money offshore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Yes, very reasonable. All that want is fish they have been catching for centuries, the UK to not expect to export sub-standard goods into the EU or use taxpayers money to subsidise the dumping of uncompetitive goods. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Centuries ?  It's since we joined the EU !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

Centuries ?  It's since we joined the EU !

You are wrong. The French dominated fishing off Kent & Sussex from the 19th century. Other nations also fished is so called British waters. The current division is based on the fishing take before the UK joined the EU.

What has changed is the UK used to get most of its fish, pinching if you like, from Icelandic waters.

Still I suspect it is immaterial and the EU will give on fishing and the UK will give on everything else. Johnson will claim a diplomatic victory and you will be happy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BigFish said:

You are wrong. The French dominated fishing off Kent & Sussex from the 19th century. Other nations also fished is so called British waters. The current division is based on the fishing take before the UK joined the EU.

What has changed is the UK used to get most of its fish, pinching if you like, from Icelandic waters.

Still I suspect it is immaterial and the EU will give on fishing and the UK will give on everything else. Johnson will claim a diplomatic victory and you will be happy.

I'm not sure what Flemish is for fish.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-belgium-privilege/belgium-dusts-off-1666-charter-for-post-brexit-fishing-rights-idUKL8N2HD3AV

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh and does not "DAFT IN THE HEAD" constitute calling names?

It does not when the lot of you can't see any difference between Murder and a bit of paperwork, that's what I call daft in the head !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SwindonCanary said:

It does not when the lot of you can't see any difference between Murder and a bit of paperwork, that's what I call daft in the head !

OMG! you clearly didn't bother to take up my very simple piece of advice to look up what the word "analogy" means, and understand how an analogy is used in an argument. Can I politely suggest that you do this before you post ridiculous comments like this. If you wish to persist in posting something that shows you don't have the slightest idea of what an analogy is and how it functions then you are inviting the rest of us to heap derision upon your ignorance. I did try to explain these points to you in previous posts but you either ignored them or didn't understand them. So again, I respectfully suggest you go to an independent source and get a clear understanding of the meaning and function of the concept of an analogy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

That means two things similar 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

That means two things similar 

Utterly wrong! How do you even begin to conclude your second point from the first?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a summary of the previous points I tried to get you to understand about an analogy:

1. The point of an analogy is NOT to posit literal equivalence between the two things being compared. 

2. An analogy is meant to draw your attention to a salient underlying similarity. The salient underlying similarity here is that you are expected to abide by the law irrespective of your personal feelings. 

It really is that simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

it says  'typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification' That did not do it's purpose !

I begin to lose the will to live: "explanation" and "clarification" do not imply in any way, shape or form that the two things being compared in the analogy are similar.  Indeed many analogies work by comparing overtly unsimilar things and then showing that they express an underlying truth or principle in common (Their overt unsimilarity is precisely what provides the dramatic force in pointing out what underlying truth they share in common. Try reading Plato's analogy of the cave to see this point beautifully expressed). Thus, at the risk of boring everybody else on this forum I will explain to you again that the point of my analogy was to refute your claim that Johnson was merely altering the words on a piece of paper due to some simple error of oversight. He wasn't, his internal market bill breaks international law. My analogy simply points out that one can't break the law on the premiss that one doesn't happen to like it, or that it doesn't fit with one's wishes. This really ought not to be a difficult point to grasp.

I can't make this explanation any easier for you so this will be the last time I expend energy trying to clarify the meaning and function of an analogy. If you wish to persist in ignoring this advice then expect the derision that will follow.

 

Edited by horsefly
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

horsefly explaining something to Swindon.

 

Such an excellent clip. Bravo!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remainers have always had a go at me since I've been here, but it's water off a ducks back as we left the EU as I always predicted. The predictions that you remainers came out with before we left still makes me laugh, and now you keep saying I come out with rubbish and lies just because you can't believe it. It's time you lot started believing in the UK After all it is your country ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Remainers have always had a go at me since I've been here, but it's water off a ducks back as we left the EU as I always predicted. The predictions that you remainers came out with before we left still makes me laugh, and now you keep saying I come out with rubbish and lies just because you can't believe it. It's time you lot started believing in the UK After all it is your country ! 

I really tried hard this morning to be polite and patient but you really are a tw*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

See what I mean a Remainer calling me names, with no provocation 

Your persistent ignorance is more than enough provocation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...