WhatAboutTheFinish

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

Can you name examples of EU legislation that's been brought in that you don't like? Or is it just the concept of legislation being made elsewhere?

Do people trot out this line if they were in discussions with people opposed to, for example, a constitutional monarchy?

Do you feel the way legislation is made, regardless of the areas it covers, should be a matter of public interest and debate or should it just be blindly accepted? 

2 hours ago, blandy said:

He hasn't delivered anything for his constituents.

Is there an MEP who has delivered something for their constituents?

History would suggest that there is very little difference between finishing 4th or 5th...but slightly favours the latter.

Playoff winners by league position:

3rd - 12

4th - 6 

5th - 8

6th - 5

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

That doesn't answer my question at all. But to address this whataboutery, none. That said if you have to turn a battleship it's marginally easier with a lot of tugboats helping. You want mobile phone operators, or employers, or airline companies or manufacturers to change their practices, one small nation would struggle to have an impact, whereas a bloc of countries will wield more power. 

I like the analogy. I would probably counter though that the EU isn’t a lot of small tug boats but a huge bloody aircraft carrier. It may be turning the battleship but if it is going in the wrong direction what changes its course? 

16 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Which laws dictated to by businessmen in Brussels are you particularly unhappy with? 

Which laws passed in Brussels could not be passed by any other independent nation? 

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

At what point are these German car manufacturer's stepping in to protect their UK market?

In all fairness to the Germans I think they are just getting on with the things. When VW announced last week 7000 job losses and that they were shifting significant production volumes to China and the US, I don’t think Brexit was mentioned as a factor by management, media outlets...or this forum. 

I love how the ref gobs on the floor before bringing out the red card. Gangster! 

Two through the card Super Heinz placed for me today on this annual festival of spunking money up the wall just to enter the spirit of it all. One straight win, one each way.

Win.

1:30 Al Dancer, 2:10 Hardline, 2:50 Mister Whittaker, 3:30 Apples Jade, 4:10 Benie Des Dieux, 4:50 A Plus Tard, 5:30 OK Corral

E/W

1:30 Fakir D'Oudairies, 2:10 Ornua, 2:50 Magic of Light, 3:30 Verdana Blue, 4:10 Limini, 4:50 Highway One O One, 5:30 Atlanta Ablaze

1 minute ago, villatillidie1980 said:

If smith is struggling to work out which midfielder he needs to take off, I think Whealan is putting his hand up!

Of course Hourihane might have his hands up but we can't see them 'cause he's gone missing again.

On 01/03/2019 at 10:25, A'Villan said:

That was the one.

Interesting. I reckon you'd be right. Can't see it being the same in Somali or Swahili either.

Trying to explain to a non native English speaker why you can’t call somebody ‘coloured’ but can refer to ‘people of colour’ does make you feel like you are in a bad sitcom. 

I had the misfortune to watch the Melbourne derby on the weekend and see De Laet in action. Absolute garbage! No wonder he’s not had a recall. It was like he was auditioning for that ‘walking football’ they used to mention in the Barclays adverts aimed at pensioners. 

4 hours ago, MrDuck said:

ECB reveals new details of The Hundred....

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/the-hundred-details-revealed-by-ecb-new-england-cricket-competition/2019-02-22

 

So the plan is; Take what already is quite a complicated game. Make it more complicated. Hope that makes it more popular.

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

The increasing use of the word 'infamous', when the writer means 'famous'. 

On 11/02/2019 at 23:03, Xela said:

Has anyone paid CGT here... and has anyone paid when they don't know what the exact profit is?

Looking to de-risk my portfolio and offload some equities in one company. In summary - 10,000 shares at £7.00 being sold. They've cost between £3 and £5 over the years in various batches (probably about 15,000 purchased in total). Some have been sold in the past but have been below CGT criteria so not had to worry. I think i'd be hard pressed to be exact about my precise profit and what was owed. How do you declare it?

 

I think that working off estimates is fine so long as you appear to have some logic behind it and have had a good stab at cost price averaging your holding. If memory serves me right I think there may be a box that you tick on the return form to show it isn't 100% accurate. 

21 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Well (speaking as a non rugby fan), I assume it gives you some idea (if you switch on mid-game) of how a team's been playing. I mean, if the points tally has been achieved mainly via tries (rather than by drop goals and penalties) it tells you something about the tactics and balance of play, does it not? 

I can understand the argument but am not wholly convinced. As an example, if I had started to watch Sco v Ire yesterday at around the 15 minute mark and seen the score 3-12 (2T), any assumptions I may draw about the balance of play so far would have probably been pretty wide of the mark.

Even if it was the case, how big is the coming in late market that TV graphics have to be designed with them in mind?

Not sure why this upsets as much as it does but I have a real hatred of the little tags they put now put over the top of rugby scores on TV to tell you how many tries have been scored by a team. I mean who are they for? People who can't count to 4? People who aren't really watching? People who suffer short term memory loss? Or is it some device to try to engage the "Me watch rugby. Me want number 4. Me know 4 good" audience?

41 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Am I missing something, is he someone famous and its some form of joke? 

I wouldn't so he's famous but it's Ryan Giggs' brother. The same brother whose wife had an affair with Ryan.

Just now, bickster said:

Your analogy is therefore crap as it does show the full picture

The remain camp encapsulated right there...I’ll try to make my analogies more one sided in future! 

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, it's got nothing to do with trickle down.

In very very rounded numbers:

in 1980, the EU had 30% / 35% of all the business / trade. The total pot was £20, so they had £6.50

in 2014 the EU had 15% of all the business / trade around the world. The total pot was £80, so they had £12.00

so, in a world with more nations competing, the EU trade more now than they used to - it's a good news story for the EU, they have proven to be relativelt good at business

 

To put it another way, if we had 100% of all the trade with Romania when they were a basket case third world state, but now we only have 25% of the trade with Romania, then we're doing better now than we were then. The 75% of business we are not getting with Romania? That's putting money in the pockets of Koreans and Chinese. They use some of that money to buy Land Rovers and Mulberry scarves. So we do more trade with then as well. 

In 1980 we go in to business. You own a 30% stake. We make £20 profit so your share is £6.50

By 2014 the business has expanded. But now you only own 15% of the business. We make £80, your share is £12.

Good news story, you get more than you used to and have demonstrated yourself to be a good businessman!

Does not being honest and open about our past, make us better people today? 

Just now, chrisp65 said:

still junk because it still doesn't show how much bigger the total share is

I've only got 20% of my salary left in week 3.

In 1980, I'd have had 40% of my salary left in week 3.

But that tells you nothing of any value, without knowing what I earned then and now. If I earn 5 times more now, then I have a lot more money in week 3 than I used to.

The statistics were raised in relation to the EU's ability to gain competitive advantage. I know you've always been a big advocate of evidence based posts. My stats are junk, fine, what evidence can you provide that the EU has a strong track record of gaining competitive advantage against any other trading blocs? 

(I'm fairly sure your pie analogy is the basis of 'trickle down economics' which I think I may have read you opposing in the past, although I'm happy to be corrected)

6 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Pretty meaningless graph, as it covers the era of massive growth in China. The EU is still the richest and most lucrative market in the world. With 140 trade agreements globally, and the recent free trade deal with Japan just concluded, we will be leaving the strongest economic bloc in the world to set up a corner shop . God help us.

 

 

 

Richest by which measure? Most lucrative by which measure? And if we add in some US data, do you still want to maintain the graph is 'meaningless' when talking about the EU's ability to either build or maintain competitive advantage?

Some further evidence of the EU's ability to calmly and patiently build up competitive advantage. They must be so good and so patient that after 30 years of almost continuous decline they are still waiting to exercise it!

Did Liam Neeson display a racist behaviour 40 years ago? Yes. Does that make him a racist today? No.