Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.
Now it's three days later and you're at Cracker Barrel. Do you want the biscuits or the cornbread with your greens? Remember to pay your check in the gift shop (enjoy the AKUS Christmas music!) on the way out.All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.
If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.
1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.
Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.
1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.
Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.
But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.
And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.
1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.
Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.
I'm an it project manager working to the agile methodology, so I recognise much of the sense inherent in the above.If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.
1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.
Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.
this is indeed how you develop an [existing] product, but at the same time existing products do get engineered into a corner, whereby the changing environment leaves them unfit for purpose.
and the response may to replace the product.
You might argue that May's new 'product' does meet these same principles, in that 8t attempts to change as little as possible:
Common rule book for good.
non regression on flanking policies
keeping competition policy
Retaining lots of programs
Keeping a close security relationship
Rebuilding the services relationship and the new institutional relationship are the closest elements to revolutionary change.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".
You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated.... SNIP (some stuff)
I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".
You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated.... SNIP (some stuff)
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.
I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.
And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.
Bad logic. But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.
And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.
If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.
Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Bad logic.
If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.
Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.
Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.Bad logic.
If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.
Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.
(someone else linked this, but the narrative amused me.)
It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
My point was over your use of "compromise" and "extremism", not whether the choice to change the institutional relationship with the EU, or leave it, is radical in itself. (Though I have contended elsewhere that it is simply because of the depth and complexity of the actually-existing built relationship). It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.
To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.
I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.
On a lighter note:
Youtube Video
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries.
Yes. But a hollow gift unless other peripheral states have an interest in joining us against the consensus, which was disallowed by Belguim (cuck move or what?). The result is as you describe below:Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short.
Yes. As I am sure you'll recall me saying: First we didn't care becuase we had a veto, then we didn't care because we had the vote weight to block QMV, then when the vote weight changed post lisbon cameron tried to get us a red card. what we were offered was a notional exemption for britain which had little real meaning unless the other euro-outs had an incentive to join. Belgium said no.F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short.
So when you say this:
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for.
You are only partially right; the peripheral nations would be very happy to preserve core fiscal and economic independence by forgoing the euro, but that was not an option, so no the fault lines did leave us short.Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for.
So we left!
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.
Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.
I'm not at all sure how that relates to what i said. Would be spiffing if you might further explain, please.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.
But within the existing structure, we can still persuade others to our POV if our case is sound enough. All that Brexiteers demand, we can still do, in a fashion, within the EU. See Frag's admission that immigration from outside the EU is one of the reasons why he supports Brexit; this is entirely controllable by a UK government within the EU, and post-referendum immigration from outside the EU has actually gone up. See Corbyn's wish to nationalise the railways; this is doable within the EU.I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.
Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.
To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.
those three sentences are funny when read together: I occupy all the space for compromise... because I am reasonable?But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.
To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.
i agree the whole argument produces no value, it doesn't get us anywhere meaningful, and it does not make interesting debate here on this thread. I simply got bored of being traduced time after time and decided to make a point of dishing some back. more than happy to return to the implications of the policy rather than playing the man.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.
My point is that the backstop is actually pretty good for us, if they'd offered that to Cameron we'd have bitten Junkers arm off!Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.
But, my fear, is that we end up with labour sometime within the transition and they do something stupid. again. like blair did in 1997 when he immediately threw away Major's opt-out from the social chapter - which I contend was the single biggest feeding cause of the 2012 promise to hold a referendum. i.e. because the the transition can be extended by "up to two years", that would go into the period beyond the latest possible GE date. And, frankly, i'd rather the WA/PD/FTA is all sorted before they get back into power. After all comrade corbyn wants an end of the competition regs on state aid, so if he ditches that just so he can re-open the coal mines it will come at tremendous cost.
Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tituencies-it-
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tituencies-it-
Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду
46% have Remain at 1st preference vs 27% for Deal vs 27 for No Deal. So Leavers are evenly split, but almost all Leavers have the other form of leaving as their second choice. (Deal wins overwhelmingly against No Deal because Remainers prefer Deal to No Deal, ACIN.)
Also interesting, a majority of respondents who actually voted Leave in 2016 prefer No Deal to Deal (51-40). (I'm looking at the full report.)
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tituencies-it-
ACIN, the hard limitation to the usefulness of any MP constituency analysis is that Brexit will not be decided on a per-constituency vote per se, whether in Parliament or by another referendum. The fact that [EDIT: Corrected because I thought I was referring to the figures in Table 13, but was actually giving figures from Table 14 on the Condorcet vote within MP incumbent supporters] almost 80% of Tory constituencies have Deal as their Condorcet vote, and almost 60% of Labour constituencies have Remain as their Condorcet vote, is therefore electorally not meaningful. More interesting to me is that Remain is basically still only 50-50 against either Deal-Brexit or No-Deal-Brexit, also confirming reports that there has been minimal movement between positions within the electorate (i.e. polarization). Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tituencies-it-
46% have Remain at 1st preference vs 27% for Deal vs 27 for No Deal. So Leavers are evenly split, but almost all Leavers have the other form of leaving as their second choice. (Deal wins overwhelmingly against No Deal because Remainers prefer Deal to No Deal, ACIN.)
Also interesting, a majority of respondents who actually voted Leave in 2016 prefer No Deal to Deal (51-40). (I'm looking at the full report.)
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду
You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
In my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!
Originally Posted by Liam Fox MP, Trade Minister:
I welcome the approval of the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement yesterday, which could boost UK GDP by up to £3bn in the long run. Japan is a vocal defender of free trade and this agreement will form the basis of our new, stronger trading relationship as we leave the EU.
I welcome the approval of the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement yesterday, which could boost UK GDP by up to £3bn in the long run. Japan is a vocal defender of free trade and this agreement will form the basis of our new, stronger trading relationship as we leave the EU.
Originally Posted by :
No it won't moron. Its an agreement with the EU (of which the UK is still a member and would benefit enormously from). Because of YOUR hatred of the EU you and your robotic Far Right ideological nutcase agenda you plan to take us out and away from all these benefits-
YOU FOX
No it won't moron. Its an agreement with the EU (of which the UK is still a member and would benefit enormously from). Because of YOUR hatred of the EU you and your robotic Far Right ideological nutcase agenda you plan to take us out and away from all these benefits-
YOU FOXOriginally Posted by :
Except Japan has said this FTA will not form the basis of a JP-UK trade deal IF we leave the EU. Do keep up Liam.
Except Japan has said this FTA will not form the basis of a JP-UK trade deal IF we leave the EU. Do keep up Liam.
Originally Posted by :
Liam, the UK is leaving the EU so won't benefit from this Japan/EU free trade deal. If you look at the paperwork, Japan is precluded from offering an equivalent deal to the UK.
Liam, the UK is leaving the EU so won't benefit from this Japan/EU free trade deal. If you look at the paperwork, Japan is precluded from offering an equivalent deal to the UK.
Originally Posted by :
Now Liam. It isn’t right to be taking the Michael out of us all like this. The EU Japan Trade Deal starts just as we are supposed to be exiting.
Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?Now Liam. It isn’t right to be taking the Michael out of us all like this. The EU Japan Trade Deal starts just as we are supposed to be exiting.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?
So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?
More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..
More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?
Pretty much nobody, though some (including, according to Pannonian, some of the loudest exit voices) are pretty well insulated from the downsides.So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..
More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?
It is possible that the UK will be stronger for a hard Brexit independence....but the positives aren't quite certain and won't be felt for a generation while the suckage will be immediate and encompass most of a decade.
It remains to be seen how long it takes for the UK to rebound from the price it pays for such an exit.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.
Can't I use the infinitive imperative in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form? You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.
Originally Posted by Husar:
In my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...
Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!
не болтай, солнышкоIn my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...
Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!
Apparently there's an HBO TV movie coming out starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Too soon?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Can't I use the infinitive imperative in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form?
Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular. The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.Can't I use the infinitive imperative in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form?
I wonder who will want to learn Russian (or any other Slavic language) after this post.
Sorry, but what was the purpose of the original comment? I confess I missed the original, and largely bypassed subsequent discussion.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
не болтай, солнышко
You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.не болтай, солнышко
Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org.
Originally Posted by Husar:
You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.
Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org.
Rather "don't babble, honey".You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.
Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Rather "don't babble, honey".
If we all followed this advice, the Backroom would have to shut down....Rather "don't babble, honey".
Along with most of the elected leadership in Europe and North America.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular.
I forgot the soft sign. Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular.
Originally Posted by :
The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.
What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.
лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)
Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives? Aside from По траве не ходить in the link, does this work:
Я открою дверь.
Не откривать (дверь)!
Or:
Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.
Maybe even:
Если овощи есть, есть овощи.
(I'll admit though Google Translate likes these, my reference people don't)
Originally Posted by :
(like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?).
English has "not to worry" , but it's probably a unique formula (idiom).(like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?).
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Rather "don't babble, honey".
I prefer Liebchen, a terrific German word.Rather "don't babble, honey".
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.
WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?
I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.
WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?
Originally Posted by :
A powerful cross-party group of MPs today warns Theresa May that Brexit is “sucking the life” out of her government – as cabinet sources admit that the crisis is forcing vital domestic business off the government’s timetable.
With the deadlock over May’s Brexit deal unresolved, and a key vote in parliament postponed until mid-January, the chairpersons of six all-party select committees have signed a statement saying long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit are having a “serious detrimental effect” on wider domestic policy.
While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges. Labour members including Creagh say government austerity has made neglect of poorer communities by government even more shocking.
Their intervention follows news on Friday that chaos over Brexit has forced NHS leaders to postpone a new long-term plan for the NHS and put back, yet again, a long-awaited green paper on the future of social care until January. Both decisions dismayed MPs and organisations across the health and social care sectors.
Asked why the social care green paper had been delayed, a government source told the Observer the crisis over Brexit had “wiped the grid clean and meant we have had to push stuff back. So social care won’t be until January.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-governmentA powerful cross-party group of MPs today warns Theresa May that Brexit is “sucking the life” out of her government – as cabinet sources admit that the crisis is forcing vital domestic business off the government’s timetable.
With the deadlock over May’s Brexit deal unresolved, and a key vote in parliament postponed until mid-January, the chairpersons of six all-party select committees have signed a statement saying long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit are having a “serious detrimental effect” on wider domestic policy.
While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges. Labour members including Creagh say government austerity has made neglect of poorer communities by government even more shocking.
Their intervention follows news on Friday that chaos over Brexit has forced NHS leaders to postpone a new long-term plan for the NHS and put back, yet again, a long-awaited green paper on the future of social care until January. Both decisions dismayed MPs and organisations across the health and social care sectors.
Asked why the social care green paper had been delayed, a government source told the Observer the crisis over Brexit had “wiped the grid clean and meant we have had to push stuff back. So social care won’t be until January.”
Practically all government has stopped since the 2016 referendum pending the conclusion of Brexit. And the harder the Brexit, the longer acting to ameliorate its effects will continue to affect government. Eg. No deal will reduce government revenue by an amount equivalent to 100% of the Defence budget. If the UK leaves with no deal, as the ERG (over a third of the ruling party) is urging, there will be widespread and deep spending cuts, as the government will have to prioritise some services and drop others just to avoid collapse. With the 2016 result, no plans are possible as all normality is gone.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?
лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)
The example is strange. Are these remarks belonging to two different people? If so, расскажем should be followed by some object(s) like расскажем им всё. Говорим is also possible, but it I wouldn't put it that way.What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?
лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives?
Не откривать (дверь)!
Or:
Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.
I never said it. My observations concerned the verb говорить and I said "hardly possible". Generally, all of these possible and gramatically correct, but they sound impersonal (as used on signs По газонам не ходить or Животных не кормить - in the zoo) and a bit rude if used addressing someone. More natural and emotionally neutral would be an imperative. Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives?
Не откривать (дверь)!
Or:
Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.
A funny sign plate (using infinitive as an imperative) allegedly spotted in a Soviet diner: Пальцами и яйцами в солонку не лазить. It may be understood in two ways since яйца means both "eggs" and (informal) "testicles".
Oh, and Не
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO