This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  12 Sep 19 2.59pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Although they’re not betting on the collapse of their own economy, of course. They’re also not responsible for engineering said collapse. No, they are invested in the denial of democracy. The reality that a 'no deal' will see the markets go down is so predictable that a 16th century corpse could suddenly re-animate and predict it. So this, 'betting' idea is fundamentally flawed. Some remainers will also invest when it becomes obvious and make money....the markets are hardly moral. Some of them will lose money when it comes back up. When you use a word like 'collapse' are you buying into worst case scenarios? Because they are as likely as best case scenarios. The UK will still be seen as a safe investment base, and indeed if the EU becomes less and less fiscally sensible....which is hardly a risky prediction the benefit to the UK of being outside is a better scenario. We will see. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Sep 2019 3.03pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 12 Sep 19 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No, they are invested in the denial of democracy. The reality that a 'no deal' will see the markets go down is so predictable that a 16th century corpse could suddenly re-animate and predict it. So this, 'betting' idea is fundamentally flawed. Some remainers will also invest when it becomes obvious and make money....the markets are hardly moral. Some of them will lose money when it comes back up. When you use a word like 'collapse' are you buying into worst case scenarios? Because they are as likely as best case scenarios. The UK will still be seen as a safe investment base, and indeed more so as the EU becomes less and less fiscally sensible. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Sep 2019 3.00pm) You’re missing the point; they are not placing a bet and sitting back to see how it unfolds - they’re playing a huge part in influencing the outcome; that’s the part I take issue with.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 12 Sep 19 3.17pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Yeah some of that is true but I think really when you say 'EU' you really mean 'The world', 'Capitalism'. Those issues are in no way exclusive to countries within the European Union. Thanks to globalisation there's no certainty that you'd be rid of them without it. In fact it's almost impossible to imagine it would be. Also you're treating the EU as a bloc when you talk about high unemployment, but the UK has the lowest unemployment rate for years (albeit not true due to gig employment but still). And it's in the EU. Menial employment is a real issue though with no immigration, but that won't change really when we're out unless they adopt the points system, which I support. It'll just be non-EU nationalities that take up the slack. "the UK has the lowest unemployment rate for years (albeit not true due to gig employment but still). And it's in the EU" That is essentially the "women who ride horses live longer argument" The two facts are only related because rich women can both afford to buy horses and afford better access to education and healthcare. The fact that we have low unemployment has little or nothing to do with the EU, where as the high unemployment in southern European countries is demonstrably related to EU policy. You also seem to be arguing that we need wage slaves rather than paying our own people a better wage. Strange how this seems to be the standard socialist position these days. No wonder Labour is now seen as a firmly middle class and globalist friendly party.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 12 Sep 19 3.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
You’re missing the point; they are not placing a bet and sitting back to see how it unfolds - they’re playing a huge part in influencing the outcome; that’s the part I take issue with. I'm not missing the point, I'm just not anti market. Could you please tell me how this could be any other way? Like I said, you complaining that they are influencing the outcome can also be said about those lobby groups funding remain and MPs and parties against leaving.....that's not carrying out article fifty. Yet for you...if some arseholes make a buck, that's more terrible than democracy being disfigured. Here's an idea...the markets are immoral because they reflect nature. The profit and tax from them is responsible for much of the social programmes you and I value. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Sep 2019 4.04pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 12 Sep 19 3.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
What failure is that? We won the Referendum and no one has screwed up this process except Remainers. It's this attitude which lies at the very heart of the problem. Seeing Brexit as a battle which one side "won" and the other "lost" when the truth is that opinion is more or less equally divided overall, but with parts of the UK so strongly in favour of remaining that by leaving we could cause everything to collapse. Calling such a referendum meant that we ALL lost. How on earth have we "won" anything when after 3 years we are still arguing and in such a big mess? Those on the leave side seem to think that by gaining a small margin on a particular day in 2016 means that their views on everything must suddenly become the gospel by which the UK is governed. Forget the supremacy of Parliament over the executive, their reservations and their duty to do what is right for all the people, and not just one section of it. No, just do what we now say we told you to do and screw everyone else's opinion. Those on the leave side openly admit that they would have continued campaigning if the small margin had fallen the other way. This won't improve unless and until both sides learn to understand, and then respect, the other's viewpoint. Not just those who wanted to remain but have accepted we will leave, but insist on that being in an orderly fashion. It also requires the leavers to stop believing they have "won" and start to acknowledge that other opinions matter.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 12 Sep 19 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the silurian
yes it was simple question...Leave or Remain. A simple question cannot deal with a complex issue. What was involved in us leaving is far too complicated to be handled that way. Which is why Parliament has to get into the detail, as they have, on our behalf. yes they lied.. Osborne said that the day after the leave vote 500,000 jobs would disappear....he LIED!.We will honour the result....they LIED. He made a prediction. That's all. As we haven't left yet who knows whether, in time, it might be true but the signs are clear enough. the only decisions Parliament can/want to make is those affecting their salaries or their expenses.. You don't really believe that, do you? lets assume another referendum....leave wins again, what you gonna say then....best of 5? I would prefer no referendum at all but if we have to hold one make it advisory only up to a high threshold thus ensuring that we only make substantive changes to the way the UK functions either with Parliamentary agreement or overwhelming support in the country at large. Expecting changes to be accepted on a 52:48 split will always produce issues, whichever way the line gets drawn. Edited by the silurian (12 Sep 2019 1.56pm)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 12 Sep 19 3.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Osborne said the jobs would go the day after the vote, NOT when Brexit happened....HE LIED whether you like it or not HE LIED!! and yes I do believe the MPs are all in it for themselves, no other reason, except for one MP! Edited by the silurian (12 Sep 2019 3.46pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DANGERCLOSE London 12 Sep 19 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Brexit is what the UK voted for . Like it or not , the vote must be respected.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 12 Sep 19 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
That is essentially the "women who ride horses live longer argument" That will please the local gypsy women
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 12 Sep 19 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm not missing the point, I'm just not anti market. Could you please tell me how this could be any other way? Like I said, you complaining that they are influencing the outcome can also be said about those lobby groups funding remain and MPs and parties against leaving.....that's not carrying out article fifty. Yet for you...if some arseholes makes a buck, that's more terrible than democracy being disfigured. Here's an idea...the markets are immoral because they reflect nature. The profit and tax from them is responsible for much of the social programmes you and I value. You are entirely missing the point, because my point has nothing to do with the morality of financial markets, and you keep harping on about it; if random individuals or companies had taken this position, it wouldn’t be a story. Simply, people who influence outcomes should not be able to profit from them, as it creates a very clear conflict of interest.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 12 Sep 19 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Thwarted is more my take. And for what end? Brexit is not about money. The biggest mistake that both sides made before the election. It is all about identity and essentially boils down, with notable exceptions of both side, about the contradictions posed to the entire world about globalisation. This is all about the wording on passports. European citizenship and what that entails. Britain is perhaps the most flexible economy in the current European Union. One of the prime reasons why the Germans do not want us to leave is because we help them maintain a modicum of commercial sense when it comes to how the EU legislates. We leave with No Deal and we can adapt. Merkel was only yesterday warning of the dangers of a UK setting up as a European 'Singapore'. She knows that the UK is more than capable of making a huge financial success of No Deal with Europe the big loser. Hence why they want to effectively keep us captive. They need our markets and more importantly, need us tied into their wider project. Prior to the referendum Project Fear should have breezed it for Remain. All political logic up until that moment had focused on the maxim 'its the economy stupid'. But it did not. And not only did it fail but it was proved almost entirely hysteria. And that is what is driving the issues now. Both Remainers and Leavers are driven by identity. About how they see themselves. About how they envisage the future. That is why this is all so damaging. If it was simply down to pounds, shillings and pence then we would not be at each others throats. Hence why all the insults, especially from the Remain camp. Look at the disdain, the contempt. All from the Culture Wars handbooks. All the buzz words. Brexit is about the future of the UK and by default, by globalisation. Of how it is defined. Always makes me smile when we see the term 'populist' bandied about like an insult. When did 'popular', especially in terms of how democracy works, become a bad thing? Remain is primarily driven by nothing more than an excessive sense of self-worth. Snobbery really.
Giving people what they want doesn't mean you are giving them what they need. Appealing to the lowest common electoral denominators might put you in power but ultimately be of no use to the country. There are many examples of "populist" leaders who were/are disasters, though I guess some won't be able to see why. Hitler was, to a degree. Trump certainly is, as is Bolsonaro. All to the political right they tend to increase corruption and reduce democracy. They tend to cling to power and to gradually believe that they have a right to hold it, becoming dictators in all but name. Being populist is a long, long way from just being a popular democratic politician.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 12 Sep 19 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
"the UK has the lowest unemployment rate for years (albeit not true due to gig employment but still). And it's in the EU" That is essentially the "women who ride horses live longer argument" The two facts are only related because rich women can both afford to buy horses and afford better access to education and healthcare. The fact that we have low unemployment has little or nothing to do with the EU, where as the high unemployment in southern European countries is demonstrably related to EU policy. You also seem to be arguing that we need wage slaves rather than paying our own people a better wage. Strange how this seems to be the standard socialist position these days. No wonder Labour is now seen as a firmly middle class and globalist friendly party. Firstly, I'm not a socialist. Secondly, wage slaves are the reality of globalisation, which in my view is an inevitability and feel free to fight against it but you'll lose. Ergo the need for low paid jobs to be filled by immigrants is nothing new, and will continue to be the standard until automation takes over. You make paying our 'own people' a better wage seem as simple as flicking a light switch. Firstly, who are our 'own people'. Lets for simplicity say people who were born here. Then just stop and think about the complexity of that. If we kicked out all non-brits tomorrow, and raised the pay to a level that would be acceptable to resident labour, how much debt would that accrue? How much money would need to be set aside to subsidise said wages to ensure our businesses remained competitive? and so on and so on. Don't make out these things are easy. Re. the horses – I agree, but facts are facts. Not everyone in the EU has employment issues. Quite the opposite. So don't pass it off as though every country is affected. If the point had been worded differently the reply would not have been necessary – eg unemployment is high in the eastern bloc countries which is causing problems in more affluent western ones etc. etc.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.