You didn’t just say “lower tariff,” mhaze.

//here's my original point… UK economic leaders… Brexit allowed… materially better trade deal… anti-Brexiteers towing the line.//

You explicitly framed Brexit itself as a benefit because it supposedly enabled a “materially better trade deal.” That’s far broader than just a single tariff carve-out. A materially better deal would mean a clear, overall economic advantage - better terms across multiple areas, stronger GDP prospects, or a net gain compared to staying in the EU.

Now you’ve shrunk that to one numeric difference in tariffs (10% vs 15%) because the wider “Brexit win” doesn’t hold up. That’s not me misinterpreting, it’s you rewriting your own point after it failed.

//you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory… to your satisfaction.//

Not just to my satisfaction. To anyone looking for a finished policy outcome. You’ve offered future promises, partial rollouts, renamed agencies, and numeric tweaks, but no fully implemented, uncontested wins. That’s why nothing sticks when examined.

//you’d never acknowledge a Trump victory… Potomac… curing cancer…//

That’s not evidence, that’s an excuse. If Trump had a completed, verifiable victory to point to, you wouldn’t need to hide behind hypotheticals and jokes about walking on water. You’d just show it.

Declaring “work done” doesn’t erase that your examples keep shrinking every time they’re scrutinised. A single tariff carve-out isn’t a sweeping Brexit success, no matter how you spin it.

Any other backpedals you'd like to reframe as misrepresentation?

Let's do this!

"You didn’t just say “lower tariff,” mhaze."

So what were all those posts about the 10% v 15% question?

From a few days back.... "I think you misunderstood the 10% v 15% point. Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit."

Having comprehensively lost that and having learned that 10 is indeed lower than 15, you suddenly pivot to claims that that was never the issue.

Its like trying to hold rancid custard in your palm. It keeps seeping through because it has no substance.

mhaze,

This “rancid custard” bit is clever spin, but let’s not pretend I’m the one moving the goalposts here. The record shows otherwise.

I'll try to make as clear as possible for you:

1. What you originally claimed

You wrote:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235

That’s not “10 vs 15.” That’s a broad economic claim that Brexit itself delivered a materially better deal - framed as proof that Brexit was beneficial and that even critics had conceded.
_____

2. How your claim narrowed

Later, when challenged on the broader benefit of Brexit (GDP loss, reduced investment, higher import costs), you shifted to:

“Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371239

That’s a much smaller claim - no longer about a “materially better trade deal,” just about a single tariff differential. I addressed that by saying:

“A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit... It’s like praising a firefighter for saving one room...”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371256
_____

3. Why this isn’t me pivoting

I’ve addressed both claims:

The big picture: Brexit damaged the UK economy overall.

The numeric carve-out: A slightly lower tariff doesn’t change that damage.

You’re now pretending that I “lost” a maths debate about 10 < 15, when the debate was never about knowing which number is smaller - it was about whether Brexit was a strategic economic win. That’s what you originally claimed and have since shrunk down.
____

4. The real custard
You accuse me of having “no substance,” but:

Original claim = Brexit big-picture win.

Revised claim = Brexit got a 10% carve-out.

Future spin = Pretend that’s what you said all along.

That’s not custard leaking through my fingers - that’s you pouring your own argument into a smaller and smaller bowl to avoid admitting the larger point didn’t hold.

The maths was never in dispute. The meaning of it was - and on that, your original claim still doesn’t survive scrutiny. But you knew this all along.

Naughty, naughty.

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US.”

A better trade deal with the US. That's all I said. Nothing about GDP, import costs, investment levels or any of the other red herrings you want to dream up. Just a direct comparison between the deal done by London compared to the deal done by Brussels.

And you've spent how many posts(?) trying to say the trade deal wasn't better by pivoting to other completely unrelated issues. Why? Because you didn't want to admit the trade deal was better for reasons that aren't all that clear other than wanting to be contrarian.

Nowhere did I say Brexit resulted in better GDP outcomes or that Brexit was even a net good. Just that on this occasion it was a positive.

Now I know that you're now going to pivot to claims about the 'vibe' of what I said, but kindly show your working when doing so.

Your MO is outrageous and extremely funny. You assert without the slightest evidence that I made claims about Brexit being a net good and when I point out that I never said any such thing, you assert I'm backtracking.

mhaze claims that JD says the world is flat.
JD responds that he never said any such thing.
mhaze asserts JD is backtracking on his flat earth claims.

Simultaneously funny and sad.

A nice attempt to rewrite history, mhaze, but the record speaks for itself.

//A better trade deal with the US. That's all I said… just a direct comparison… nothing about GDP…//

No. Your own words:

“Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235

“Materially better trade deal” + “rabid anti-Brexiteers towing the line” is not a mere 10% vs 15% tariff comment. That’s a sweeping political claim that Brexit delivered a better overall outcome - and that even critics had conceded it.

You didn’t limit it to “on this one tariff.” You added “materially better” and invoked a broader shift in opinion. That’s your own wording, not my imagination.

//Nowhere did I say Brexit resulted in better GDP… net good…//

You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, but that’s the implication of calling it “materially better” and a “positive.”

"iMpLiCaTiOn!!1!"

Yes, implication. Do you understand what it means to paraphrase? If you truly meant only “UK’s tariff was slightly lower,” you could have said that. Instead, you framed it as a broad vindication of Brexit.

Shrinking it now to just “this one tariff” isn’t clarification - it’s retreat.

//mhaze claims JD says the world is flat… JD says no… mhaze calls it backtracking…//

Cute analogy, but wrong way round.

This is like you saying “the world is round and thriving,” getting shown data of flooding coastlines, and then insisting you only meant “the world is round.” The scale of your own claim changed once challenged.

That’s not me dreaming up red herrings, that’s me holding you to what you originally said.

This has been your pattern all thread: big claim first, smaller claim later, then claim I misrepresented you.

Try again.

"You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, but that’s the implication of calling it “materially better” and a “positive.”"

As I predicted.... "Now I know that you're now going to pivot to claims about the 'vibe' of what I said,"

You're so easy to read its not fun any more.