The Positive Brexit Thread

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

And that perfectly captures the ultimate pointlessness of responding to your posts (although I shall make this one last response). You could have spent the 10 seconds it would have taken you to google "populism" in order to avoid posting these ill-informed comments. Ironically, the fact you can't be bothered to do that is a fine example of the populism that you fail to understand.

 

Given your own disposition towards excessive pedantry (where it suits) if the treaty/pact misunderstanding is anything to go by, wanting a better understanding of the definitions you're working with doesn't sound unreasonable to me. 

[horsefly 4,300]

2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

Yep! The perfect metaphor for this incredibly crappy brexit

[horsefly 4,300]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Given your own disposition towards excessive pedantry (where it suits) if the treaty/pact misunderstanding is anything to go by, wanting a better understanding of the definitions you're working with doesn't sound unreasonable to me. 

Perhaps you would be better off reading and responding to exactly what I said in my extensive reply. It's hardly my fault that he couldn't be bothered to spend a few seconds looking up the meaning of "populism" in order to avoid writing the nonsense in his post.

[Well b back 3,208]

So @SwindonCanary it seems you Boris and Nigel misled us, the man at the top suggests we don’t give a flying one. Of course maybe he was forced at gun point by the French to say such things.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10199165/Outgoing-UK-Border-Force-boss-triggers-political-row-saying-borders-just-pain-a.html

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you would be better off reading and responding to exactly what I said in my extensive reply. It's hardly my fault that he couldn't be bothered to spend a few seconds looking up the meaning of "populism" in order to avoid writing the nonsense in his post.

Perhaps I should amend that to excessive pedantry when it suits coupled with wilful incomprehension when it suits. 

[horsefly 4,300]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Perhaps I should amend that to excessive pedantry when it suits coupled with wilful incomprehension when it suits. 

Here we go again. All you're capable of is throwing around ad hominem insults in an attempt to distract from the fact that you never respond to the arguments and points presented, and refuse to read any of the articles linked. Far from failing to comprehend FC's claims about "populism" I pointed out at length why his claims are truly absurd and do not accord with any accepted definition of the term.

If you ever do decide to engage in actual genuine debate by responding to the actual arguments, I will be happy to respond, but until you do I shall not waste my time any further by responding to your transparent attempts at distraction from the issues.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Here we go again. All you're capable of is throwing around ad hominem insults in an attempt to distract from the fact that you never respond to the arguments and points presented, and refuse to read any of the articles linked. Far from failing to comprehend FC's claims about "populism" I pointed out at length why his claims are truly absurd and do not accord with any accepted definition of the term.

If you ever do decide to engage in actual genuine debate by responding to the actual arguments, I will be happy to respond, but until you do I shall not waste my time any further by responding to your transparent attempts at distraction from the issues.

You have no interest in real discussion, just point-scoring. Good luck in your attempts to win the Internet. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,300]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You have no interest in real discussion, just point-scoring. Good luck in your attempts to win the Internet. 

Final comment: I just wrote an extensive reply to FC and you haven't made a word of comment in response to its content. Just your usual personal abuse. Purple on the other hand did reply with a very interesting follow up. Not difficult to work out who are in favour of a genuine intelligent discussion and those who are only interested in throwing personal abuse.

Edited November 14, 2021 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Final comment: I just wrote an extensive reply to FC and you haven't made a word of comment in response to its content. Just your usual personal abuse. Purple on the other hand did reply with a very interesting follow up. Not difficult to work out who are in favour of a genuine intelligent discussion and those who are only interested in throwing personal abuse.

You did write an extensive ad hominem attack on him about how pointless it was talking to someone who doesn't use Google to look up definitions themselves and vagaries about ill-informed comments without specifying what our how they were ill informed. All part of the MO of people like you. 

[horsefly 4,300]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You did write an extensive ad hominem attack on him about how pointless it was talking to someone who doesn't use Google to look up definitions themselves and vagaries about ill-informed comments without specifying what our how they were ill informed. All part of the MO of people like you. 

You are either, being extraordinarily disingenous or you don't have a clue what "ad hominem" means. After my expression of anoyance that FC couldn't be bothered to look up the definition of "populism", the following are the exact words I posted. Feel free to explain how they could in any sane world constitute an ad hominem attack as opposed to an explanation (as requested by FC) of what I understand "populism" to mean:

 "Populism in politics is the attempt to garner the support of ordinary people by seeking to persuade them that their interests are being subverted by an elite class. That elite class is often described as including the very wealthy (hence it often includes stereotyped anti-semitism), but even more commonly it focuses on those who have benefitted from a higher education and occupy positions of social power and significance. Gove very neatly and shamelessly captured the essence of this government's populism when he claimed "The public have had enough of experts". By its very nature populism has to be fuelled by fomenting a division between so-called "ordinary opinion" and the so-called "educated privileged elite". Brexit provided exceptionally fertile ground to create that division, along with all the aspects of the "culture wars" that populists are so keen to encourage. Both Trump and Johnson are populists par excellence. Their speeches are marked by encouraging people to trust their visceral opinions in opposition to views based on educated authority. They vaunt ordinary "commonsense" over expert research. Thus Trump continues to claim he won the election despite the expert opinion of every investigation into electoral fraud proving precisely the opposite. Likewise Johnson jumped on the brexit bandwagon when he worked out which of his two speeches (one for and one against) proved to reflect the best chance of him achieving political power. Both politicians are notorious and blatant liars, and a fundamental attribute of populist leaders is a willingness to lie without shame. The undermining of truth is a sine qua non for the populist which is precisely why they seek to undermine the idea of expertise and expert opinion. Thus we have the egregious irony of a well educated elite like Gove sending out a clarion call to ordinary people to trust their own uneducated gut feelings rather than listen to the educated views of experts. 

It is perfectly possible to be critical of the privilege afforded to certain groups in society without collapsing into the ill-informed divisive politics of populism. This last week has witnessed the naked unfairness involved in those with significant wealth being able to influence and corrupt the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy. However, objection to that unfair influence ought to be based upon an educated articulation of the principles of justice, fairness and democracy, and not appeal to viceral feelings of "bashing the rich". As much as I despise the effect that Corbyn has had on the Labour Party it would be completely inaccurate to describe him as a populist. He most certainly objected to the unwarranted (and unethical) influence that certain elite groups have in politics and society, but he absolutely rejected the fundamental populist attribute of anti-intellectualism. Anti-elitism and populism are NOT coterminous. Some anti-elitists are indeed populists, but there are plenty of anti-elitists who completely reject the politics of populism and who base their anti-elitism on educated opinion rather than visceral instinct."

[SwindonCanary 455]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

populism

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

Why all the writing ?

[Yellow Fever 3,787]

8 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

Why all the writing ?

Do you need it in pictures instead ....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

You are either, being extraordinarily disingenous or you don't have a clue what "ad hominem" means. After my expression of anoyance that FC couldn't be bothered to look up the definition of "populism", the following are the exact words I posted. Feel free to explain how they could in any sane world constitute an ad hominem attack as opposed to an explanation (as requested by FC) of what I understand "populism" to mean:

 "Populism in politics is the attempt to garner the support of ordinary people by seeking to persuade them that their interests are being subverted by an elite class. That elite class is often described as including the very wealthy (hence it often includes stereotyped anti-semitism), but even more commonly it focuses on those who have benefitted from a higher education and occupy positions of social power and significance. Gove very neatly and shamelessly captured the essence of this government's populism when he claimed "The public have had enough of experts". By its very nature populism has to be fuelled by fomenting a division between so-called "ordinary opinion" and the so-called "educated privileged elite". Brexit provided exceptionally fertile ground to create that division, along with all the aspects of the "culture wars" that populists are so keen to encourage. Both Trump and Johnson are populists par excellence. Their speeches are marked by encouraging people to trust their visceral opinions in opposition to views based on educated authority. They vaunt ordinary "commonsense" over expert research. Thus Trump continues to claim he won the election despite the expert opinion of every investigation into electoral fraud proving precisely the opposite. Likewise Johnson jumped on the brexit bandwagon when he worked out which of his two speeches (one for and one against) proved to reflect the best chance of him achieving political power. Both politicians are notorious and blatant liars, and a fundamental attribute of populist leaders is a willingness to lie without shame. The undermining of truth is a sine qua non for the populist which is precisely why they seek to undermine the idea of expertise and expert opinion. Thus we have the egregious irony of a well educated elite like Gove sending out a clarion call to ordinary people to trust their own uneducated gut feelings rather than listen to the educated views of experts. 

It is perfectly possible to be critical of the privilege afforded to certain groups in society without collapsing into the ill-informed divisive politics of populism. This last week has witnessed the naked unfairness involved in those with significant wealth being able to influence and corrupt the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy. However, objection to that unfair influence ought to be based upon an educated articulation of the principles of justice, fairness and democracy, and not appeal to viceral feelings of "bashing the rich". As much as I despise the effect that Corbyn has had on the Labour Party it would be completely inaccurate to describe him as a populist. He most certainly objected to the unwarranted (and unethical) influence that certain elite groups have in politics and society, but he absolutely rejected the fundamental populist attribute of anti-intellectualism. Anti-elitism and populism are NOT coterminous. Some anti-elitists are indeed populists, but there are plenty of anti-elitists who completely reject the politics of populism and who base their anti-elitism on educated opinion rather than visceral instinct."

And here you go again, arguing about definitions. 

Ad hominem: to the person; attacking the person rather than dealing with the subject matter, such as suggesting its not worth you engaging with them because they're too stupid to google things themselves, particularly when you're not above asking for 'evidence' in an argumentative way over subjects that are perfectly accessible to you through Google as well. 

[Well b back 3,208]

6 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

I may have been mistaken but did I read somewhere that you were in the forces ? Maybe it was one of your shadows like Paul Moy.

[Herman 9,768]

He was in the navy. He sailed the seven seas.

[horsefly 4,300]

30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And here you go again, arguing about definitions. 

Ad hominem: to the person; attacking the person rather than dealing with the subject matter, such as suggesting its not worth you engaging with them because they're too stupid to google things themselves, particularly when you're not above asking for 'evidence' in an argumentative way over subjects that are perfectly accessible to you through Google as well. 

FFS you even quote everything I said and still claim it is ad hominem. You truly are as thick as shi*te. And that definitely is ad hominem since you're incapable of putiing forward any ideas to discuss.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

And that perfectly captures the ultimate pointlessness of responding to your posts (although I shall make this one last response). You could have spent the 10 seconds it would have taken you to google "populism" in order to avoid posting these ill-informed comments. Ironically, the fact you can't be bothered to do that is a fine example of the populism that you fail to understand.

 

Here you go. Yet another example of your wilful incomprehension as a deviating tactic. 

[RobJames 881]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And here you go again, arguing about definitions. 

Ad hominem: to the person; attacking the person rather than dealing with the subject matter, such as suggesting its not worth you engaging with them because they're too stupid to google things themselves, particularly when you're not above asking for 'evidence' in an argumentative way over subjects that are perfectly accessible to you through Google as well. 

You do sound very similar to another poster. He doggedly repeated the same flawed argument, long after it had been proved incorrect.

[Well b back 3,208]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

He was in the navy. He sailed the seven seas.

So why would he be posting on here between 11 and 12 am on armistice Sunday ?

Edited November 14, 2021 by Well b back

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

12 minutes ago, RobJames said:

You do sound very similar to another poster. He doggedly repeated the same flawed argument, long after it had been proved incorrect.

How is it flawed? 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

On 13/11/2021 at 01:52, Fen Canary said:

I don’t think you completely understand what a contractor/subcontractor is in the building industry. A contractor is a person/business that has overall control of the main contract, a subcontractor is a person/business that is then employed by the main contractor to install certain sections of the main contract (plumbing/electrical etc). A contractor or subcontractor could both be either one man bands or firms employing hundreds of workers. So a subbie can indeed be a bog standard employee, at the mercy of unscrupulous bosses, as I witnessed on many occasions.

If you’re going to accuse me of ignorance, it’s best to have a rough idea yourself of what you’re talking about first I find 

One thing I  feel that you have missed is the importance  of the use of agency workers and the self employed 

I worked in the UK construction industry for many years, in my opinion it looked  like there was an increasing move towards both principal contractors and subcontractors using agency staff and workers. 

Also there are many staff that work for a single contractor but are operating as self employed, principally for tax reasons 

There are advantages and disadvantages for any individual working through an agency or self employment, depending on their requirements and expectations 

[RobJames 881]

6 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

One thing I  feel that you have missed is the importance  of the use of agency workers and the self employed 

I worked in the UK construction industry for many years, in my opinion it looked  like there was an increasing move towards both principal contractors and subcontractors using agency staff and workers. 

Also there are many staff that work for a single contractor but are operating as self employed, principally for tax reasons 

There are advantages and disadvantages for any individual working through an agency or self employment, depending on their requirements and expectations 

The notable point being that tradesmen will move to another job if they can get paid better. Accepting a rate that is little better than the minimum wage is evidence that he is just repeating an urban myth. Perhaps yellowbird could help explain.

[Herman 9,768]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

So why would he be posting on here between 11 and 12 am on armistice Sunday ?

??   

Walter Mitty.😀

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

27 minutes ago, RobJames said:

The notable point being that tradesmen will move to another job if they can get paid better. Accepting a rate that is little better than the minimum wage is evidence that he is just repeating an urban myth. Perhaps yellowbird could help explain.

Better wages are important, but not everything. Conditions, location and guarantee of work are also important factors. Especially you are responsible for funding your own travel to work. Our company had people with us for decades because there was a guarantee of work 

I can only speak for myself, I didn't see immigrants undercutting local labour. They were providing an additional resource that was needed, evidenced by the low rate of unemployment we had. Even our "unskilled" labour were earning wages exceeding minimum wage 

The problem some  of the agency workers do have is one of poor conditions, such as lack of holiday pay, funding their own travel and short notice of being told their services are not required 

[RobJames 881]

49 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Better wages are important, but not everything. Conditions, location and guarantee of work are also important factors. Especially you are responsible for funding your own travel to work.

Absolutely. My comment was directed solely at yellowbirds claim about tradesmen accepting much lower rates. Because of Lithuanian workers. 

[Van wink 2,994]

Trades are charging much more than they used to,  I can tell you that, good luck to them👍

Edited November 14, 2021 by Van wink

[Van wink 2,994]

 

 

3 hours ago, RobJames said:

You do sound very similar to another poster. He doggedly repeated the same flawed argument, long after it had been proved incorrect.

So do you 😂

[SwindonCanary 455]

Shell plans to move headquarters to the UK - BBC News

[horsefly 4,300]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/small-exporters-are-shifting-operations-out-of-uk-due-to-brexit-survey-suggests/ar-AAQI2VF?ocid=msedgntp

Small exporters are shifting operations out of UK due to Brexit, survey suggests

More than one in ten small and medium-sized exporters (SMEs) have lost trade with the EU since Brexit, a survey suggests.

 

A total of 13 per cent of exporters said their trade with the EU has fallen by up to 100 per cent since the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December, the Institute of Directors survey for Channel 4’s Dispatches said.

A quarter (26 per cent) of SMEs that trade with the EU are now considering moving some of their European operations outside Britain while 16 per cent said they had already decided to move some or all into the single market due to Brexit.

Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of companies that trade with the EU say their costs have risen and the vast majority (70 per cent) said they had to absorb this themselves, the survey of 635 SMEs suggested.

Up to £9.5bn-worth of UK exports to the EU between January and July have had tariffs placed on them despite Boris Johnson’s “tariff-free” trade deal, separate analysis by Sussex University’s UK Trade Policy Observatory shows.

Over the same period, imports from the EU fell by nearly a quarter (24.8 per cent), while exports to the EU fell by 13.1 per cent the analysis said.

[horsefly 4,300]

A very clear explanation of just why the UK is in such a weak negotiating position compared to the EU, and why we can't afford to start a trade war:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-trade-war-would-have-immediate-and-devastating-impact-on-uk-economy-industry-warns/ar-AAQJpS7?ocid=msedgntp

Brexit trade war would have ‘immediate and devastating’ impact on UK economy, industry warns