Re: Brexit
 

I suspect doing robust research along the lines you suggest throws up the wrong kind of answers.
Enjoy Rome. :)

Re: Brexit
 

Pip stole my line....There is nothing amiss in researching, and fact finding, the thing that you do. But it’s the way you do it. The determination that you must try prove a forum opponent wrong and I say opponent, because that is how you characteristically treat the poster, you’re responding to and you apply this approach mainly to folk who are not politically aligned with you.

Re: Brexit
 

Or throws out millions of different answers, it's tedious work picking out the ones you agree with ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Erm, all you ever do is post claim after claim, with zero evidence. I told you forecasts are not evidence and never will be and that is the end of it.

Also. I told you to stop demanding others provide evidence when you never do. Ignore me again ianch, at your own peril. :mad:

Re: Brexit
 

Surely the only true debates you can have apart from philosophical ones are information-based ones. This should be commended and not denigrated. You can never assume another's motives here.
The alternative is of course the I'm right/No, I'm right argument which doesn't get us anywhere.
Of course, the information cited may not ever be perfect and probabilities may be attached to it. But we're all logical human beings so should be able to factor this in.

Re: Brexit
 

We cannot have a situation where someone demands evidence all the time, and you can be guilty of this at times, but then provide absolutely none yourself, when you cast off your own dispersions of opinion.

The problem here is Brexit has not occurred so there is no evidence of fact. Remainers want to write off Brexit because they are so against it, and put forward claims of chaos. The so called experts said the millennium bug would be a massive issue, a disaster for the tech industry, it wasn’t. They said not joining the EURO, would be catastrophic for the British Economy, it wasn’t.

You and ianch telling the rest of us that this expert opinion or forecast for the millennium bug and not joining the Euro, is evidence, because that is quite frankly, bullshit.

We are a single country that has voted to become independent again, of the EU, we do not need to be in their overpriced club to do trade. But we’re too busy here, well, some of us are, trying to still argue the toss that we should leave or not, that boat has sailed. The UK voted to leave.

Re: Brexit
 

I have posted many times with links to evidential articles detailing ways No Deal is disadvantageous to this country. Here are some more for you:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...alysis__1_.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go...March_2019.pdf

Look, you just don't care what anyone says about what is likely to happen, you just want the outcome at any cost. I get that but I care what happens to this country and I care what happens to my children.

If someone says No Deal will not adversely impact this country, like John Redwood does, I will say prove it .. every time ..

Re: Brexit
 

Wonderful, you have linked to more opinions and waffle.

And It’s not about caring, it’s about believing. Past Forecasts and disaster predictions have been historically false.

Re: Brexit
 

1) I've never demanded a higher standard of evidence than I am prepared to supply myself, that's inaccurate.
2) I've never mentioned the Millennium Bug (what a joke that was, lol) or advocated joining the Euro or we will suffer on this forum. Experts do sometimes get things wrong but mostly they get it right - experts built this forum's software, the device you have typed into and the power station that supplies the electricity for doing so.
3) Forecasts are not bullshit. They represent the best available information out there and those supplied to the Government are as impartial as possible and not produced by some underground pact of Remainers. Indeed, the Government was not keen for them to be published.

Re: Brexit
 

BREAKING: Brexit Party to challenge Peterborough by-election result amid mounting evidence convicted electoral fraudster Tariq Mahmood acted as an “agent” to Labour candidate @LisaForbes_

Re: Brexit
 

Those are extremely reputable sources, Mick as they're published by the Government. If you were ranking source accuracy, they would be at the top and sites like RT and InfoWars at the bottom. You may not agree with 100% of their conclusions but you should be able to both understand and agree with a lot of the information in there.

Re: Brexit
 

You suddenly trust this government, because it fits squarely with your agenda.

Re: Brexit
 

It's just a unsubstantiated claim by them. Every time people say we must or mustn't do X, because of the peace process, is purposefully and blatantly pandering to the terrorists.

Re: Brexit
 

It's about looking at the source of the material and its purpose.

I think it's right to be sceptical of Government literature issued to households by a Remain government encouraging people to vote remain.

But if a Government commissions analysis to help it plan for different scenarios and then tries to prevent such information falling into the public domain, I wouldn't be as sceptical.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

No because as you've highlighted, they don't believe in the peace process.

Re: Brexit
 

Just my opinion on this . .

You can have as much expert analysis, profiling, research, forecasts etc etc as you like, but it's the way the information is finally presented (and the 'keywords' used therein) at the target that sway the reader in many cases.

Interpretation/Presentation . . open to human fallibility