The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

It's a pretty basic fallacy to suggest a criticism is only valid if it provides an alternative.

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Well, not really, I mean, you could at least suggest an alternative that doesn't have shit in it, couldn't you? Bicks asked what your proposed alternative would be, he didn't insist you run for parliament and enact the sodding thing.

I'd prefer not to eat the thing being offered with shit in it.

If that were the only thing that was being offered then I don't think it would be wrong of me (or anyone else) to point out that it has shit in it and that this may have consequences after we've all eaten it and that we should consider those consequences and at least look to address them before we all get force fed the thing with shit in it.

I also don't think that 'it falls flat' if I suggest that the thing with shit in it isn't much better than the last thing with shit in it which we had to eat and may turn out to a lot worse and if we keep continuing to eat shit then it's quite possible that some form of shit soup becomes the only meal on offer.

 

TINA (which is the essence of the 'what is your alternative' demand) is bollocks.

Its purpose is to give the person(s) using this fallacious position reason to ignore any of the criticisms that may have been levelled in the first place.

Edit:

Just seen your edit of

21 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

FWIW, I haven't read the rest of the thread, I just don't think the analogy is on point.  

Apologies if what I've written above comes across as a rant at you. It's not. Its target is the argument.

Edited October 23, 2018 by snowychap

[Chindie]

And supermarkets are looking at chartering flights  (assuming they can get any planes off the ground) to get stock in.

Ah well. Project Fear, innit?

[MrDuck]

[NurembergVillan]

9 hours ago, MrDuck said:

Made in Taiwan.

[Davkaus]

15 hours ago, Chindie said:

And supermarkets are looking at chartering flights  (assuming they can get any planes off the ground) to get stock in.

Ah well. Project Fear, innit?

It's vaguely amusing that the reality we're facing 2 years later is far worse than anything that was condemned as Project Fear. And yet, the slow march towards the cliff edge continues.

[Stevo985]

Yeah but I'm gonna get a blue passport so I am **** buzzing.

Can't wait to celebrate with a rice cracker and my daily allotted orange squash ration.

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah but I'm gonna get a blue passport so I am **** buzzing.

Can't wait to celebrate with a rice cracker and my daily allotted orange squash ration.

this rice and orange?

where you getting this stuff from?

 

Personally, I'm building up my portfolio of big investments in turnip and parsnip futures.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

this rice and orange?

where you getting this stuff from?

BREXIT!

[Chindie]

I'm investing in a baseball bat so I can have your rice and orange squash too.

[Davkaus]

I'm glad I didn't tell you lot where I'm keeping my stash of tins...

[ml1dch]

17 hours ago, snowychap said:

You'd have to at least be prepared to read, understand and engage what someone else was posting to be able to take such a supercilious tone and pull it off successfully.

With the greatest respect I haven't understood what your position is, as so far in this exchange it has been to twice post a picture of a coat hanger.

I don't know if it's a meme that I'm too old to understand or something very witty that I'm just being stupid and not getting. So while it may have been well-meaning, I'd say it's a bit off to complain about someone not reading and understanding your argument when I can't read it and don't understand it, as it has been constructed thus far via the medium of coat hanger pictures.

To hopefully bring this little bout of online fisticuffs to an end (as I find there are very people I've encountered on that there internet as well-meaning as your good self) I'm not sure our positions on this are all that far removed.

Would a second referendum be a horribly toxic event, resulting in millions of people feeling let down over broken promises, which would see breakdown in faith in our democracy and institutions, with the very real likelihood of civil unrest and violence? Absolutely. Is it a terrible idea? Sure. 

Where we possibly start to differ, is that I think all those things are already on the buffet table anyway, second referendum or not.

So given that there are no real options that don't give us nearly all the bad stuff that a second referendum would bring about, if it's put back on the table (and to repeat, I'm sure it won't be) I'm reluctantly happy to follow that path in the absence of any other path to follow.

Edit - following a quick browse of Twitter, Hugo Rifkind put it quite succinctly. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by ml1dch

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm investing in a baseball bat so I can have your rice and orange squash too.

don't worry, I'll sort you all out, I know how easy it is to blag into Liverpool Freeport and I've got an estate car

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, ml1dch said:

With the greatest respect I haven't understood what your position is, as so far in this exchange it has been to twice post a picture of a coat hanger.

Because that isn't my 'position'. It was merely something to satisfy your demand that I make a suggestion of an alternative option.

We can discuss the merits of the coathanger option if you wish, I won't ask you to supply an alternative in order to actually merit involvement in that discussion.

8 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Where we possibly start to differ, is that I think all those things are already on the buffet table anyway, second referendum or not.

Ah, so now you want to have that discussion? The one about the issues with the actual proposal at hand? It's a little late really.

I'm not now about to get involved in the discussion with you that I wanted to have earlier because at some point you'll probably pull another trick like the other day.

Just to make clear where I stand with respect to the above, though - so as you don't think I've used this as an excuse not to repond:

I think that some of those things are already on the table but that any second referendum brings with it a distinct possibility of an increase in those things and other problems which we don't already have. Not least amongst them all are that we appear to have had as little thought as to the potential pitfalls and issues surrounding a second referendum as we did for the first. It's a case of just 'ploughing on' and crossing bridges when we come to them (with the caveat that Boris hasn't burnt them already). There is not enough care taken in considering outcomes and possible ameliorations or actions to deal with the worst circumstances before these options are taken or even proposed. There's more but that's been alluded to in previous posts with comments asking about legitimacy, will of the people mark i v will of the people mark ii, &c. but I'm not going to waste my time going in to it any further.

Respond if you wish but that'll be for your own and others' satisfaction, not mine, as I'm not interested in taking this further with you.

Edited October 24, 2018 by snowychap
Spelling/typo

[ml1dch]

*shrugs*

Fine, let's move on then.

 

I imagine this helped matters a lot.

"Oi, Europe. You're basically a cross between the Soviets and the Nazis. PS can we have a super-special trading relationship with our European friends and allies, please?"

[chrisp65]

So to recap:

Dyson has stopped spouting pro Brexit stuff just long enough to announce his new factory will be in Singapore.

Lawson, pro Brexit, has decided to live in France.

Farage has sorted EU passports for his kids.

Mogg and Redwood have advised their 'clients' to shift money and offices to Ireland.

Ratcliffe, UK's richest man, is moving to Monaco.

 

Almost feels like there's a theme here amongst the rich liars of Brexit.

 

[snowychap]

Russia blocks UK's post-Brexit tariff proposal at WTO

Quote

The UK’s proposal to split its import quotas from those of the EU after Brexit has drawn an official objection from Russia at the World Trade Organization, MLex has learned.

An objection from a single trading partner means that the WTO can’t certify the proposal until the problem is resolved. It might also force the UK to undergo the full procedure for changing its rates, rather than the simplified “rectification” procedure it has so far pursued.

In a notice to the global trade body, Russia stated that the draft UK schedule of tariffs and quotas was inconsistent with its obligations “under several basic WTO provisions,” MLex understands.

During a committee meeting at the WTO earlier this month, a Russian representative said that the EU’s current tariff list that hasn’t been ratified by all WTO members since Croatia’s accession to the bloc in 2013, therefore it can’t form the basis of a UK proposal for its post-Brexit schedule.

“The Russian Federation reiterated that the resolution of the issue of certification of the EU schedule seems to be pivotal to proceed with the new UK schedule,” said a WTO official who was present at the meeting where Russia delivered its notice.

Tariff tiff

The UK’s plan has drawn opposition ever since it was circulated in July, alongside a proposal for a revised EU schedule that carved out the UK share.

To become an independent WTO member after Brexit, the UK has to negotiate lists, or “schedules,” of its own tariffs and tariff-rate quotas. TRQs allow a certain amount of goods to be imported each year with no tariffs, or reduced tariffs.

The EU and the UK have agreed between each other to maintain tariffs at current levels and split their quotas according to historical trade flows. But their trading partners complain that this doesn’t account for subsequent movement of goods within the bloc.

The single objection from Russia is enough for the WTO not to certify the schedules until all doubts are resolved. It’s also possible that more countries have sent similar notices to the UK mission —19 countries have raised concerns informally about the schedules. The exact number of formal notices is unknown, because the procedure isn't open to the public.

Shortcut cut short

The UK had hoped to avoid full negotiations with third countries by using a “rectification" procedure, under which the proposal would be accepted if no WTO member objected to it within three months of publication — a deadline that passes today.

That approach drew criticism because the rectification procedure is normally used to introduce cosmetic changes, not to modify whole schedules. Facing the objections, the UK might be forced to use a longer procedure that allows all WTO members to comment and seek changes.

And if the UK fails to reach an agreement before it leaves the EU, it will have to operate on “uncertified schedules”, opening it up to more trade disputes.

UK- EU plan

According to the joint UK-EU plan, most existing quotas will be divided between them. For example, the EU quota for rice from Thailand is currently listed as 4,313 metric tons. After Brexit, EU members will be entitled to 3,663 metric tons, or 84.9 percent, and the UK the remainder.

The proportions were calculated on the basis of trade flows to the UK and other EU countries, averaged across 2013, 2014 and 2015. The joint plan doesn’t include any changes to the overall levels of quotas.

Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and many other countries have been critical about the methodology, timing and the basis of the proposal and are seeking to increase the quotas, to compensate them for any loss of market access caused by Brexit.

 

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Mrs Farage has sorted EU passports for his kids.

Surely more likely?

[villakram]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

I'm investing in a baseball bat so I can have your rice and orange squash too.

Were this America... you're the resident gun nut, with a shed full of canned chilli and gold, lot's of small amounts of gold   

[Chindie]