The Student Room Group

Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight

Scroll to see replies

Original post by swiss_cheese
Hahahaha I see no personal insults. You insulted yourself by pretending to have a maths degree to reinforce your hollow argument. And I know you're excessively pro-Brexit from a while back.


I'll just let others decide whether you are being insulting.

As I said, I have been politically impartial on this thread and factually correct. If you wish to hate then I can only feel sorry for you.
Reply 41
Original post by wildleaves
So people who disagree with you cannot "understand simple arguments" and lack a "proper understanding of the english". Ever consider you may just be wrong?


Are you disagreeing with me? If you read my posts I have given three alternative explanations as to why David Davis is a chump. These include the view that Davis really did mean "land area". Those criticising my posts appear unable to address those points - so my assumption is that they do not "understand simple arguments" and lack a "proper understanding of English". CherishFreedom goes as far as saying that they are not having an argument - which I think is prima facie evidence that they don't have a proper understanding of the word "argument" in the first place.
Reply 42
Original post by CherishFreedom
And I've told you how you are flogging a dead horse.


And yours is the authoritative view?

The minister said what he said, he was factually correct. I mean if you want to rant about Brexit and future trades relation then feel free, but don't use a title like 'Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight' when it is you who got it wrong.


You have accepted that what you claim he meant is no reasonable way to measure a trade deal. So how is it that I have got it wrong in saying that the Minister for Brexit must be a fool - or thinks we are? This is the same play they made in the LEAVE campaign - smoke and mirrors, promises and outright lies.

Most of all, don't get passive aggressive when people set you straight.


It's too late, I've sussed you out now - I've been missing it all this time but the realisation finally came. You failed the Turing test. It's no good denying it, I know you're one of those AI chatbots. You seem plausible most of the time, but you fallover on the subtleties of language and argument - always getting back to the "I'm a mathematician" point.

Hey, everyone, the AI chatbot is a mathematician, that's why it's views are determinative.
Reply 43
Original post by CherishFreedom
As I said, I have been politically impartial on this thread and factually correct. If you wish to hate then I can only feel sorry for you.


You don't understand what those terms mean. You are unable to process the subtleties of the statement, and you are unable to form a coherent argument. I'm wrong, according to you, but Davis is also wrong, according to you - so how can both of those positions co-exist?
1. Mr Davis said "We'll get a very, very, very large trade area, much, much bigger than the European Union. Probably 10 times the size".

2. You posted a thread called "Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight".

3. I pointed out that he was talking about trade area and that he was factually correct, and that he did get his 'figure straight'.

4. You argue that he was talking about something he wasn't talking about, despite he clearly said what he meant.

5. You hurl insults likes 'you are not capable of...', 'you are unable to process...' and 'you failed the Turing test.'.

There is no suggestion that Mr Davis meant it in another context different to what he exactly said. He didn't say he was quantifying trading activity, you assumed this. There is absolutely no issue with mentioning area of trade coverage.

So really what is your issue here?
You seem to accuse everyone who opposes you to be incorrect, even when there is hard facts and statistic to prove otherwise.

And when your accusation is proven wrong, again not by opinions, but facts, you start to dictate what the person actually meant, despite him saying explicitly what he meant.

"We'll get a very, very, very large trade area, much, much bigger than the European Union. Probably 10 times the size". - David Davis
Reply 46
Original post by typonaut
It's great for China, because they are making fast moving consumer goods (mobile phones, microwaves, fridges…), 80% of our economy is services, which does not fit with that pattern.


Just so you get the terminology correct:
FMCGs are low-cost consumable products like soft drinks, chocolate bars, and toilet rolls. Not electronics or white goods.

i.e. the stuff made by companies like Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble and Unilever. Not Apple, Electrolux and Samsung.

And while I'm about it:

Original post by CherishFreedom
Well as a mathematician I can't help but point out that he did state 'trade area'.

The EU has a land area..


It's completely clear David Davis was referring to a trade area (eg using the usage as per EEA) not an area of landmass. We don't trade with areas of land, we trade with people, companies, or countries.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
And yours is the authoritative view?

You have accepted that what you claim he meant is no reasonable way to measure a trade deal. So how is it that I have got it wrong in saying that the Minister for Brexit must be a fool - or thinks we are? This is the same play they made in the LEAVE campaign - smoke and mirrors, promises and outright lies.

It's too late, I've sussed you out now - I've been missing it all this time but the realisation finally came. You failed the Turing test. It's no good denying it, I know you're one of those AI chatbots. You seem plausible most of the time, but you fallover on the subtleties of language and argument - always getting back to the "I'm a mathematician" point.

Hey, everyone, the AI chatbot is a mathematician, that's why it's views are determinative.


Stick to the question at hand, Typonaut. Sarcasm and personal attacks are in no way constructive.
Original post by jneill

It's completely clear David Davis was referring to a trade area (eg using the usage as per EEA) not an area of landmass. We don't trade with areas of land, we trade with people, companies, or countries.


You are right that we trade with countries. Most land masses (99% +) on earth are claimed by countries. Also most countries are opened to trade to various degrees. This means trade area, as a term can be applied to 99% + of land masses. Remember by trade area we are talking about area of trade coverage here, not trade intensity.

This still make his statement correct.
Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil
I'll be laughing so hard when the halfwit undergrad students who voted leave will be unemployed in a few years when they graduate. How stupid can you be?

Pretty much the same as graduating circa 2008-2012...it's the new reality, a university degree doesn't equate to a guaranteed job with a 40k starting salary any more.

True the old probably do screw over the young, but just remember that you will be old one day as well so that gives you plenty of time for screwing over future youth as well.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 50
Original post by CherishFreedom
You are right that we trade with countries. Most land masses (99% +) on earth are claimed by countries. Also most countries are opened to trade to various degrees. This means trade area, as a term can be applied to 99% + of land masses. Remember by trade area we are talking about area of trade coverage here, not trade intensity.

This still make his statement correct.


Now you're trolling so whatever.
Reply 51
Original post by jneill
Now you're trolling so whatever.


It's a chatbot, what do you expect. Read the thread, the point has been made multiple times in multiple ways, but the 'bot can't engage with those issues, it just keeps repeating itself.
Reply 52
Original post by ManiaMuse
Pretty much the same as graduating circa 2008-2012...it's the new reality, a university doesn't equate to a guaranteed job with a 40k starting salary any more.

True the old probably do screw over the young, but just remember that you will be old one day as well so that gives you plenty of time for screwing over future youth as well.


There's a basic problem of over-qualification in this country - with the government aiming for 50% (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/apr/24/students-higher-education-almost-50-per-cent) of school leavers going to university you have to wonder if there are actually that many graduate level jobs. What actually happens is that employers are asking for degrees where a couple of decades ago a couple of O-levels would have done.

There's a high degree of qualification inflation across the workforce, and most of it is unnecessary.
Original post by typonaut
It's a chatbot, what do you expect. Read the thread, the point has been made multiple times in multiple ways, but the 'bot can't engage with those issues, it just keeps repeating itself.


And I have made it very clear that was what Mr Davis said and he was correct. Your thread was posted to criticise the accuracy of his statement but it turned out his statement was absolutely true.

I am repeating myself because this is the fact. Try not to go down the low road and call people chatbots when I am simply reiterating a fact that you refuse to accept.

You should know full well that he said 'trade area' explicitly. You can't just go around and say he was talking about something else just because you expected something else, when he stated it clearly. You might want to write to your MP to ask him to clarify just how much of the world's economy's share Britain would be able to trade freely with, and he would of course answer accordingly. You just can't accuse him of being inaccurate when that wasn't the question he was asked.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ManiaMuse
Pretty much the same as graduating circa 2008-2012...it's the new reality, a university degree doesn't equate to a guaranteed job with a 40k starting salary any more.


As you can see from my signature, I did graduate from my undergrad in 2008. Got a good job in consulting right away... but that's not the point. A bunch of greedy bankers in their late 20s to late 40s screwed up the world then - I was talking about people between 18 and 21 who voted Leave, hurting their own and their peers' chances of getting a good, safe job. It's cringe-worthily stupid, really.

Original post by ManiaMuse
True the old probably do screw over the young,


You're missing the point again, that's not what I said. See above.
Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil
As you can see from my signature, I did graduate from my undergrad in 2008. Got a good job in consulting right away... but that's not the point. A bunch of greedy bankers in their late 20s to late 40s screwed up the world then - I was talking about people between 18 and 21 who voted Leave, hurting their own and their peers' chances of getting a good, safe job. It's cringe-worthily stupid, really.


It's strange how you seem so certain that economy is going to go south post-Brexit, given that it has only been been 1 month since the referendum. The pound has fallen, but the FTSE 100 is actually above pre-referendum level, and FTSE 250 is at about the same level. You also did not mention other issues such as democracy and immigration control, which some people find important.

It's perfectly fine to have different political views and expectation of Brexit's outcomes. But you chose to go down the low road by saying you will laugh at Brexiters if they end up with difficulties finding a job. Why don't you argue your case like a mature adult, instead of reducing yourself with that comment?

As I have said to some others on this thread, I think your comment tells more about you as a person than the people you are commenting on.
Original post by TitanicTeutonicPhil
As you can see from my signature, I did graduate from my undergrad in 2008. Got a good job in consulting right away... but that's not the point. A bunch of greedy bankers in their late 20s to late 40s screwed up the world then - I was talking about people between 18 and 21 who voted Leave, hurting their own and their peers' chances of getting a good, safe job. It's cringe-worthily stupid, really.


There is no evidence to suggest that the economy will be worse off. Uncertainty remains one of the biggest issues a company faces. Although 'Brexit' creates uncertainty, the same is true of leaving Britain for another nation.

Fact of the matter is that Britain has one of the best environments to do business in. Corporate tax remains low and companies have access to one of the best educated work forces in the world.
Original post by CherishFreedom
It's strange how you seem so certain that economy is going to go south post-Brexit, [...]


Oh, I don't know, maybe because 99% of all respected political and economic institutions, think tanks and experts said so?

Original post by CherishFreedom
You also did not mention other issues such as democracy and immigration control, which some people find important.


Yup, nationalists and racists find them important. Are you one?

Original post by CherishFreedom
It's perfectly fine to have different political views and expectation of Brexit's outcomes. But you chose to go down the low road by saying you will laugh at Brexiters if they end up with difficulties finding a job. Why don't you argue your case like a mature adult, instead of reducing yourself with that comment?


You know, everything has been said. I have written thousands of words on this topic in several forums and on social media. I know Britain will be worse off. And having experienced what monumental, ignorant idiots most Brexiteers are, I really won't have more than ridicule for them once they realise what huge mistake they made.
Original post by Aceadria
There is no evidence to suggest that the economy will be worse off. Uncertainty remains one of the biggest issues a company faces. Although 'Brexit' creates uncertainty, the same is true of leaving Britain for another nation.

Fact of the matter is that Britain has one of the best environments to do business in. Corporate tax remains low and companies have access to one of the best educated work forces in the world.


Great, then those super educated people (of whom a laughably low percentage has a Masters degree) can do trade with themselves in that great business climate!

When will you realise that the world is interconnected? The financial industry is rougly a quarter of Britain's economy. It will tank. Boom. Many other industries are connected to it. The nation of shopkeepers will become just that again.
Original post by CherishFreedom
It's strange how you seem so certain that economy is going to go south post-Brexit, given that it has only been been 1 month since the referendum. The pound has fallen, but the FTSE 100 is actually above pre-referendum level, and FTSE 250 is at about the same level. You also did not mention other issues such as democracy and immigration control, which some people find important. .


There is going to be a cut in interest rates to record lows and asset purchases by the BOE with a recession/severe growth rate cut predicted next year . How exactly is everything going up?

FTSE 100 is mainly foreign based but it is denominated in pounds. That is why it is higher than FTSE 250 even though the former has performed worse over the past 15 years. If you actually look at companies most exposed to the UK market ( IE Virgin,Sport Direct) ,they are still significantly less post Brexit.

Quick Reply

Latest