Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Don't blame me for your shortcomingsI don't understand your weird thinking.
Don't blame me for your shortcomingsI don't understand your weird thinking.
Right. I'm incoherent because I point out that the ukip you hold up as a *really* big threat are going down the plughole. You say it's like ukip have taken over the Tory party. You think you're coherent, but really you're hysterical. And wrong.
Updates?The Potsdam Agreement of 1945 was superceded by the '2 plus 4 Agreement' of 1990 after German reunification without a WW2 reloaded.
Things change and these agreements get updates...
Pls link to this post where you think you demolished this argument. I don't think it existsthe ukip you hold up as a *really* big threat - where did you read that I certainly didn't say it.
You say it's like ukip have taken over the Tory party - It sometimes feels like, yes it really does but its an aside in any case to the main point which was to do with the unsavoury political alliances that the Left wing leave advocates have made.
So you're twisting what I said and putting words in my mouth about UKIP, nit-picking because I've just demolished the argument which you weighed in on about political alliances. and then just called me incoherent, hysterical and wrong.
I'm not going to bother calling you incoherent and hysterical. I will just say that you are wrong and trying to cover it up by being slippery
No,that was me quoting youYou say it's like ukip have taken over the Tory party
update, revision, amend, version.. .what ever the fuck you say when you rewrite a peace agreement due to the changing political circumstances.Updates?
Not sure what the word is when one side reneges on a peace treaty...pretty sure it's not update.update, revision, amend, version.. .what ever the fuck you say when you rewrite a peace agreement due to the changing political circumstances.
Circumstances change and contracts get rewritten. Either in the form of new contracts, amended versions/ revisions, an addendum or two, whatever.Not sure what the word is when one side reneges on a peace treaty...pretty sure it's not update.
Contract? it's a peace treaty, why are you being so disingenuous? They're not proposing any new one, they're proposing breaking the current one. If something bad happens it is not a terrorist campaign, it is the result of one side breaking the peace treaty.Circumstances change and contracts get rewritten. Either in the form of new contracts, amended versions/ revisions, an addendum or two, whatever.
Do you think a terrorist campaign is likely if the UK pulls out of the existing contract and proposes a new one?
It's not a peace treaty. It's an agreement.Contract? it's a peace treaty,why are you being so disingenuous? They're not proposing any new one, they're proposing breaking the current one. If something bad happens it is not a terrorist campaign, it is the result of one side breakingthe peace treaty.
I don't recall this being mentioned in the campaign. Ever.
I call Bullshit. When you wrote 'That's your position' you were obviously aiming it directly at andysays in the 2nd person 'you'.
'that's ones position...' just sounds fucking weird in that prince charles-like 'one' point of view.
If your position is that you don't care about the consequences for Eire or for Northern Ireland then fair enough, that's your position, but state that clearly rather than taking the "nothing to do with me guvnor" stance.
If it's a return to the hard border then I can't see nationalists taking part in the peace process.Circumstances change and contracts get rewritten. Either in the form of new contracts, amended versions/ revisions, an addendum or two, whatever.
Do you think a terrorist campaign is likely if the UK pulls out of the existing contract and proposes a new one?
if it's a hard boarder enforced by the Eu, they (the nationalists) may well look a bit silly doing so. They'd also be dragging the Eu into calling the shots, no?If it's a return to the hard border then I can't see nationalists taking part in the peace process.
Managed Ambitious Cake eating.Haven't had time yet to pay attention yo May's speech today and try to work out if it means anything,
No, the UK will still have an obligation to collect tariffs, it can't just say no border. Hence May going on about free trade today.if it's a hard boarder enforced by the Eu, they may well look a bit sill doing so, also dragging the Eu into calling the shots, no?
on what basis would the UK be obliged to collect tariffs? genuine question as that's new to me.No, the UK will still have an obligation to collect tariffs, it can't just say no border. Hence May going on about free trade today.
No,that was me quoting you
You don't even know what you've said
You, sir, are a rude man.Come back when you can put together a coherent sentence
I know exactly what I said you dip. I was commenting on you quoting me that's why I put a "-" after the word "party" Just the same as i put a dash after the word "threat" those were two comments on things that YOU said. My comment on the UKIP comment was that you were deliberately nit picking on a minor point to hide your lack of argument on the substantive point which was to do with the unsavoury political alliances that the Left wing leave advocates have made. I could have made it clearer by putting both of the two things I was commenting on in quotes instead I just put a dash after the two things I was commenting on.
it's the use of the word 'your'. it's specifically 2nd person. it doesn't translate to the prince charlesesque 1st/3rd person POV of 'one' that you used when you tried to wriggle out of it.I didn't just write "That's your position", though, did I? I wrote
So, even if I had been aiming it directly at Andysays - which I wasn't, which can be seen reading it in context, as it was a response to his interjection into a conversation I was having with Riklet - even if I had been aiming it at Andysays, then the words "if" and "then" are somewhat important, are they not?
still standsSo what were you saying about putting words into peoples' mouths?
on what basis would the UK be obliged to collect tariffs? genuine question as that's new to me.
eta, my understanding is that the wto only sets upper limits
it's the use of the word 'your'. it's specifically 2nd person.
Reread the exchange from here. Ignoring the fact that it started with you again putting works in Ricklets mouth, the subsequent exchange with andysays was direct and in the 2nd person.No, it's completely normal to use 'you' as a generic pronoun, and that was how it was intended. You announcing that it is "specifically 2nd person" doesn't make it so. But as I say, even if I'd been using it as such, you'd still be wrong. Case closed.
My use of the present continuous in the contentious post further demonstrates that I'm not talking about andysays but about the ongoing conversation he has just inserted himself into. I'm happy for readers to make their own minds up, in the unlikely event that anyone else cares.Reread the exchange from here. Ignoring the fact that it started with you again putting works in Ricklets mouth, the subsequent exchange with andysays was direct and in the 2nd person.
So ignoring subsidies for the moment - if the Uk decided on a zero tariff default set, then the onus would be on the EU to decide if they wanted to reciprocate that. By their own principle of "it's the UKs decision to leave, so the UK needs to propose the solution to the EU<>UK Border issue, as it's responsible for potentially jeopardising the GFA" , then by the same token, it would be the EUs decision to enforce tariffs that require a hard boarder, therefore the onus should be on the EU to find a solution that quells any nationalist anxiety.You can only have one default set of tariffs under WTO rules. They can be as low as you like, but without a post-Brexit trade agreement, we can't give preferential treatment to the EU. Plus we'd need to find an awful lot of money to subsidise UK farmers and manufacturers so they could compete.
yes I agree, much better discussing things with someone who doesn't put words in your mouth, make insulting remarks, and constantly sneer at the leaver idiots.Well this grammatical and semantic nit-picking is totally enlightening. It may be worth more of several participants time to look into WTO rules, Most Favoured Nation status etc. Basically engage with Raheem rather than the tedious nit-pickers.
Edit: haha, well fuck, that's me pre-empted