1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

how about a link to this article?

 

How about you read the thread!

 

See post 11304

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Newsweek is just a website now. Time a general magazine that doesn't even pretend to systematically cover economic issues. There is little to indicate that any of the forum Hard Brexiteers regularly read the FT. The cheap charlies wouldn't pay the subscription or buy it (weekday 140 baht, weekend 150 baht). No. When it comes to this thread its always the free tabloids mirroring the Brexiteer agenda. Their sole objection to The Economist is focussed on the anti-Brexit stance of many of its contributors. Nothing else at all. Nothing.

 

Like I've said before, The Economist is a decent read. But it has an agenda, the same as any journal. Only a fool worships selected journals whilst dismissing out-of-hand others. It's all about cross-referencing, sifting out the "an unnamed source told me" nonsense, and then forming an opinion. Ferinstance, would you design a new dress solely upon what you saw and read in Harpers Bazaar, without referencing Elle, Vogue and suchlike?

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Like I've said before, The Economist is a decent read. But it has an agenda, the same as any journal. Only a fool worships selected journals whilst dismissing out-of-hand others. It's all about cross-referencing, sifting out the "an unnamed source told me" nonsense, and then forming an opinion. Ferinstance, would you design a new dress solely upon what you saw and read in Harpers Bazaar, without referencing Elle, Vogue and suchlike?

As limp as limp can be.

"It's all about cross-referencing" - finally, a statement I can agree with. Which is why I think it's important to review information contained in the Independent, The Telegraph and the Guardian, just to compare what is being reported and how.

6 hours ago, AlexRich said:

It looks like the inevitable deal will be hated by everybody in parts, just different parts depending on what side of the argument you sit. What we had before June 2016 will be seen as vastly superior to what we will get when all is done and dusted.

 

Bad enough as that is, we might well end up with a Marxist government adding insult to injury, after the right wing Tories that support a hard line Brexit tear their party apart. 

That 'inevitable' deal might yet prove to be somewhat elusive. We have to wait until the end of the week. An intriguing option would be for May to conclude a deal and then turn the agreement into a vote of Parliamentary confidence. She might have been able to do this if she hadn't called the last unnecessary election, but now maybe to weak to do so.

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

As limp as limp can be.

 

Being serious for a moment (not easy with you), journalism is 80% bs, 10% talent (in select cases, otherwise add the 10% to the former) and 10% luck. We (or rather future generations) are lucky to get something close to the truth fifty years after the event most of the time.

8 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

"It's all about cross-referencing"

Interesting article Brexit deal '90% there' and Broke Britain that cross references many source comments for contrast. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-42217558

 

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Interesting article Brexit deal '90% there' and Broke Britain that cross references many source comments for contrast. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-42217558

 

That's good, interesting that they all say pretty much the same thing, each using different words to say it - glass half full/half empty sort of stuff.

5 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

how about you behave instead of uttering rubbish

 

How about you get back on topic or face a suspension.  It's entirely up to you.  

From today's Guardian:

 

Theresa May’s political weakness was brutally exposed to Brussels on Monday as an agreement struck between Britain and the EU to solve the problem of the Irish border and move to the next phase of Brexit talks was torpedoed by a last-minute telephone call with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.

 

 

I will not comment, except for:

I told you so!

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

"It's all about cross-referencing" - finally, a statement I can agree with. Which is why I think it's important to review information contained in the Independent, The Telegraph and the Guardian, just to compare what is being reported and how.

Nobody does that other than journalism students or other journalists. In reality Brexiteers who use the term misapply it to give status to their diet of conspiracy theories and junk websites vs the so-called mass media which they are so keen to trash. At best they want followers of threads such as these to think the truth is somewhere in the middle or just get confused (ring any bells?). As for referencing per se, the mere suggestion that hard brexiteers have any respect for referencing is thoroughly bogus as whenever a researched article is referenced, they go out of their way to rubbish it. And as for The Independent, Telegraph and Guardian, not convinced that what one wants is somewhere in the centre of the mush.

43 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

From today's Guardian:

Theresa May’s political weakness was brutally exposed to Brussels on Monday as an agreement struck between Britain and the EU to solve the problem of the Irish border and move to the next phase of Brexit talks was torpedoed by a last-minute telephone call with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.

I will not comment, except for:

I told you so!

Not sure whether torpedoed definitively or something can be saved by the end of the week.

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

There weren't any facts in that article anyway. The comments were far more interesting and truthful.

Here are this mornings front pages

 

Can you see which are the quality papers and which are the crap ones?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-42232315

(Imagined....) Forum Hard Brexiteers issue public statement detailing their position on the Northern Irish issue: "We Don't Care".

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Being serious for a moment (not easy with you), journalism is 80% bs, 10% talent (in select cases, otherwise add the 10% to the former) and 10% luck. We (or rather future generations) are lucky to get something close to the truth fifty years after the event most of the time.

I guess when you've got nothing, absolute denial is the way to go.

12 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Not sure whether torpedoed definitively or something can be saved by the end of the week.

Maybe NI could have referendum on the issue?

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

Disingenuous again

 

The Rothschilds have a share 

 

so do Cadbury (chocolate)

and Agnelli (cars- Fiat, Alfa, Ferrari, Chrysler, Lancia)

and Shroeder

 

Has anyone claimed of bias? EVER?

 

If not, back off and try reading a thoroughly good publication.

I agree ,The Daily Mail ,the paper of choice , definitely not the Guardian ,so few people read it ,they ask for contributions to keep it going .

17 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Being serious for a moment (not easy with you), journalism is 80% bs, 10% talent (in select cases, otherwise add the 10% to the former) and 10% luck. We (or rather future generations) are lucky to get something close to the truth fifty years after the event most of the time.

Nice one Khun Han,  From the day one is borne in the UK, the fraud begins.

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Here are this mornings front pages

 

Can you see which are the quality papers and which are the crap ones?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-42232315

Come on Grouse ,who takes any notice of the BBC any longer ,full of left wing right on luvies

16 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Math never was the strong point of Brexiteers!

 

497 is 50% of the decided vote whereas 343 is 34% of the decided vote - 164 or 16% were undecided, all to zero decimal places.

 

And again, sampling is used in many countries to determine a range of factors from census to unemployment and political leanings.

Exactly, the devil is in the detail, something the brexiteers would rather ignore.

15 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Come on Grouse ,who takes any notice of the BBC any longer ,full of left wing right on luvies

I do. 

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

I do. 

Ah ha...That explains everything.

Who thought that the elephant wouldn't trumpet.

 

The talks broke down after Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, ruled out any move “which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ireland-border-deal-uk-latest-updates-brexit-eu-withdrawal-dup-dublin-republic-a8091326.html

 

"Regulatory Divergence" - How many that voted to leave understood it or gave it any consideration before putting their mark on the ballot paper. This will be like a black cloud over the remainder of the negotiations. People think that leaving the customs union and single market is simply about the price of goods. There is also product regulation to be considered and that topic has yet to raise its ugly head.

11 hours ago, aright said:

My best guess is the European Union.

Then guess again.

1 hour ago, talahtnut said:

Nice one Khun Han,  From the day one is borne in the UK, the fraud begins.

Some people never stop crying.

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

Newsweek is just a website now. Time a general magazine that doesn't even pretend to systematically cover economic issues. There is little to indicate that any of the forum Hard Brexiteers regularly read the FT. The cheap charlies wouldn't pay the subscription or buy it (weekday 140 baht, weekend 150 baht). No. When it comes to this thread its always the free tabloids mirroring the Brexiteer agenda. Their sole objection to The Economist is focussed on the anti-Brexit stance of many of its contributors. Nothing else at all. Nothing.

I used to skim (read interesting articles) in the FT/Times/Economist as it was part of the job to be abreast of current 'wealth' issues, and consequently, they were provided by the dept.

 

My conclusion was:-

Understand the editorial/customer bias (and there's always a bias....), read from opposite sources/take into account personal experience - and only then come to any sort of opinion.

Bickering/baiting posts and replies have been removed.  

 

Posts containing a foreign language have been removed as this is the English language side of the forum. 

5 hours ago, Scott said:

How about you get back on topic or face a suspension.  It's entirely up to you.  

Hang on a minute.  A certain poster finds it entertaining to come up with more insulting, obscure insults against those with a different opinion to himself - but always generalised to avoid the 'insulting specific poster' rules.

 

Surely this 'elephant in the room' should have been addressed a long time ago?

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Exactly, the devil is in the detail, something the brexiteers would rather ignore.

The problem is that there are few facts, and even fewer details available.

 

But it looks as if we will learn more about May's 'offer' to Brussels v soon.

9 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

497 people wanting a second referendum versus 343 people not wanting one, sounds like a pretty big fact to me, understandable though how you would not want to see it!

Thought we had moved on from this survey, and all the remoaners saying the vote wasn't a majority now turn and sau 49%  is. Unbelievable