No Brexit Extension

[BillyStubbsTears]

First flash point. There is a timebomb in the deal under the UK car industry.

In five years time, there is going to be a very harsh limit on the amount of overseas-sourced components in cars made in the UK. Anything above that limit will lead to big tariffs on cars built in the UK and sold to EU countries.

Since Nissan, Toyota and Honda all use lots of Japanese-sourced parts in their UK-built cars, as things currently stand they'd be in line for a situation where their UK plants become uneconomical in 2026.

[drfchound]

On the gov.uk site it says it was published on 24th December.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

There is a link on that site that says "See all updates"

Try it.

Then ask yourself why you always assume I'm trying to mislead people.

[Filo]

Hound.

There is a link on that site that says "See all updates"

Try it.

Then ask yourself why you always assume I'm trying to mislead people.

And we know the next response don’t we?

“I never said you were trying to mislead people”


Classic post a leading question and when challenged it’s “ not me guv, honest”

[drfchound]

Hound.

There is a link on that site that says "See all updates"

Try it.

Then ask yourself why you always assume I'm trying to mislead people.

Why do you always assume that people are thinking of you when they make a post?
I just said that it says the document was published on 24th December.
It never crossed my mind that you might be trying to deceive anyone.


Oh, Filo, I didn’t ask a question did I.
I made a statement.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

Experience. Years of experience of you not accepting factual stuff that I post on here and rubbing your hands gleefully on the occasions that it turns out I'm mistaken.

I assume you accept that you're wrong on this occasion?

[selby]

  Billy, 2026 is a long way off for the EU.

[drfchound]

Hound.

Experience. Years of experience of you not accepting factual stuff that I post on here and rubbing your hands gleefully on the occasions that it turns out I'm mistaken.

I assume you accept that you're wrong on this occasion?

Actually, no, I don’t.
I did have another look and it clearly says that the information was published on 24th December.
It also says that some further information was added today.

Incidentally, I did used to accept that the stuff you wrote on here was right but then other posters began to question your all seeing eye and correcting you on quite a few things.
After that I didn’t take a lot of notice of much of the stuff that you write about.

Anyway, enjoy reading all those pages and no doubt you will be picking out stuff to whine about but will conveniently forgetting to mention the good stuff.

Hope you enjoyed your day off yesterday by the way.

[wilts rover]

  Billy, 2026 is a long way off for the EU.

But a very short time for anyone making large investment plans in the car industry - which I think is the point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

If you clicked that link and then the obvious next one "Show all updates" and you still insist that the text of the deal was published there on 24 Dec then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing anything with you.

It says in plain English, black and white text in the updates

26 December 2020
Following documents added: Trade and Cooperation Agreement

[BillyStubbsTears]

As far as getting stuff wrong, of course I do. Everyone does. My policy is that, if I state something as a fact and I get it wrong, I do my best to correct it. Like in this very thread.

It is sort of fundamental to civilised discourse.

I fully accept that you may decide that you'll ignore everything anyone ever says because sometimes they get stuff wrong. Although if that's your approach, I'm wondering why you joined in this thread?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Finally:

"no doubt you will be picking out stuff to whine about but will conveniently forgetting to mention the good stuff."

Good line that, from someone who insists he's never accused me of arguing in bad faith.

[selby]

  Wilt's, do you think the EU will have the same member countries in 2026?

[drfchound]

Finally:

"no doubt you will be picking out stuff to whine about but will conveniently forgetting to mention the good stuff."

Good line that, from someone who insists he's never accused me of arguing in bad faith.

As I said previously, but you evidently didn’t read, I have never used the phrase “arguing in bad faith”.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Selby.

I'll pay £100 to whichever charity you decide if any country has left or joined the EU by 2026.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

I know exactly what you said. The words are irrelevant. The implication is there in pretty much every interaction we have.

I didn't say that you had every used those precise words. I said that you assume I'm acting in bad faith. So why you chose to respond in the way you did is anyone's guess. If you actually DON'T think I'm acting in bad faith, you could have said "I don't think you're acting in bad faith." In fact you could do it now.

[drfchound]

As far as getting stuff wrong, of course I do. Everyone does. My policy is that, if I state something as a fact and I get it wrong, I do my best to correct it. Like in this very thread.

It is sort of fundamental to civilised discourse.

I fully accept that you may decide that you'll ignore everything anyone ever says because sometimes they get stuff wrong. Although if that's your approach, I'm wondering why you joined in this thread?

Once again, you change the words to suit your argument.
I said “I don’t take a lot of notice of much of the stuff that you write”.
I didn’t mention anyone else.
That is probably because you are always so  sure that you are in the right about virtually everything on this forum.
Once I discovered that you aren’t as good as you seem to believe you are I lost confidence in you.

[drfchound]

Hound.

I know exactly what you said. The words are irrelevant. The implication is there in pretty much every interaction we have.

I didn't say that you had every used those precise words. I said that you assume I'm acting in bad faith. So why you chose to respond in the way you did is anyone's guess. If you actually DON'T think I'm acting in bad faith, you could have said "I don't think you're acting in bad faith." In fact you could do it now.

It isn’t a phrase I use, or have used.

[drfchound]

Hound.

If you clicked that link and then the obvious next one "Show all updates" and you still insist that the text of the deal was published there on 24 Dec then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing anything with you.

It says in plain English, black and white text in the updates

26 December 2020
Following documents added: Trade and Cooperation Agreement

I did click on the link that you suggested.
It says last updated on 26th December.
The black and white text also says that the report was first published on 24th December and that an HTML version was added on 24th December.
If it wasn’t, to be honest, I wouldnt have a clue because I don’t usually spend my time, especially on Christmas Eve, trawling the internet looking for something from the government to complain about.

[Filo]

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

[BillyStubbsTears]

Major success on fishing in the trade deal.

The amount of one specific fish that British trawlers will be able the catch is going up from 22% to 25%.

So it looks like those who were saying that claims that Brexit would benefit us amounted to a reight big load of pollacks were right all along.

[drfchound]

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

Hardly Filo.
I made a comment but look at post number 1442 to see who lit the match.

[Filo]

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

Hardly Filo.
I made a comment but look at post number 1442 to see who lit the match.

How do you know if that was about you?

[drfchound]

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

Hardly Filo.
I made a comment but look at post number 1442 to see who lit the match.

How do you know if that was about you?

Because it was addressed to me.

[Filo]

It wasn’t addressed to anyone, I never quoted or mentioned you in the post, I wonder why you think it was addressed to you

[drfchound]

Your post number 1459 followed my post 1458 so I thought you were referring to my post.
This is the trouble when the discussion between two posters (me and BST) gets a third party involved.
It happens all the time on here and then misunderstandings happen.
I did actually think that a man of your intellect could have worked that I thought you had meant me with your comment about lighting the match.
You are hardly likely to be aiming it at BST were you.
Why would you have posted a random comment like that otherwise.

[drfchound]

On the gov.uk site it says it was published on 24th December.

Hound.

There is a link on that site that says "See all updates"

Try it.

Then ask yourself why you always assume I'm trying to mislead people.

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

Hardly Filo.
I made a comment but look at post number 1442 to see who lit the match.

How do you know if that was about you?

Pour petrol on and deny lighting the match

Hardly Filo.
I made a comment but look at post number 1442 to see who lit the match.

How do you know if that was about you?

Because it was addressed to me.

Filo, does this series of quotes help you to understand why I thought your lighting the match comment was intended for me.

[Filo]

I just wondered who would feel the need to defend themselves at a random comment

You see this is exactly what we read with your posts, over and over again, wether I agree or not with BST is irrelevant, over and over again you throw in a random question/ statement, usually aimed at BST, disagree with him, thats fine, but when challenged about your disagreement you got all defensive, “ not me guv” it’s tedious and boring and I think most of us can see what your doing, I sometimes wonder why A bloke of BST’s intelligence continues to engage with people who only want to wind him or any one else up for that matter, disagree by all means, but add something to the debate

[Bentley Bullet]

We?

[drfchound]

I just wondered who would feel the need to defend themselves at a random comment

You see this is exactly what we read with your posts, over and over again, wether I agree or not with BST is irrelevant, over and over again you throw in a random question/ statement, usually aimed at BST, disagree with him, thats fine, but when challenged about your disagreement you got all defensive, “ not me guv” it’s tedious and boring and I think most of us can see what your doing, I sometimes wonder why A bloke of BST’s intelligence continues to engage with people who only want to wind him or any one else up for that matter, disagree by all means, but add something to the debate

But you are totally missing the point Filo.
I didn’t choose to defend myself over a random comment, I have explained quite clearly why I thought that you had aimed your lighting the match comment at me.
FFS I get enough stick from Labour supporters on here who attack my posts willy nilly.
I think also that you will find that BST picks out lots of my posts to have a go at.
I see his name as the poster then see that he has written “hound” and then have to read his ramblings about Churchill and Napoleon or be expected to read through half a dozen paragraphs of a lecture from him.
That is why I don’t bother reading through some of the stuff he posts.

I suppose that is a cue for certain other posters to start firing at me now but I am used to it I guess.

All this tonight began after Tyke said that the withdrawal document had been posted on the gov.uk website on Christmas Eve.
BST then told Tyke he was wrong.
I had a look on the gov.uk website to see for myself what the situation was and posted that I had read very clearly that the site says that the report was published on 24th December.
BST then said that I was suggesting that he was trying to mislead people.
How he came to that conclusion is beyond me.
That was when BST,  as usual, began to get on my case.

You jumped in with your post at 2.27.51 in support of BST and then with three people involved the situation got complicated.

Out of interest, who was that post of yours aimed at then.(the lighting of the match one)

Anyway, I agree, it is getting boring.