Even as someone who thinks Brexit is incredibly fecking stupid, I don't think a lot of the PV types do themselves any favours.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If one talks of shortages people think you're being overdramatic and scaremongering and all the rest.
If there is a no deal, things that were taken for granted will be different. Nobody knows to what extent but it won't be the same as before but certainly fresh produce will be affected, food wise. You can't stock up on fresh produce.
What makes even less sense is that people say there may be an initial shock but unless things change back to how they were, the initial shock would be continuous. It's not suddenly going to go away.
Furthermore until it happens most people think everything will carry on as normal. I've no idea why.
Yeah I know. Everything from the very start until now is beyond ridiculous. There should have been more options in referendum in the first place because as you say, you can leave EU in a lot of different ways. Leave campaign was mostly based on laughable lies and false promises (infamous £350m per week for NHS...) and unfortunately there are over 17 million fools who believes (or believed) that. I don't think having a second referendum with more options (Leave with no deal, leave with a deal that is currently on the table, revoke Article 50) would be any less democratic than having an entire campaign based on lies. It's a complete shambles and there will be no winners whatever the outcome will be. I am not into politics at all and I don't even live in UK anymore so I might be talking nonsense I am not sure
That's how the party works. Manifesto policy (i.e UNDER LABOUR) doesn't tend to be made to order for the benefit of the Beeb.Can this lot pick a fecking position and stick with it?
Dunno what's going on with RedCafe mods but if @Dobba hasn't earned himself a Corbyn or Labour related tagline yet I don't know what he has to do.
Congratulations you've managed to point out that government spending is more complicated than buying pints!
This does not mean spending more on public services is a always going to be good, so spend as much as possible.
Yes much of government spend will cycle around the economy, but in some places it will be sunk or make it's way to the rich and be tied up in their savings.
Some government spend will also be tied up in profit making investments which are certainly good investments assuming of course the longer term profit offsets interest costs.
The NHS is a perfect example. Spending more money will most often go to drug companies and their shareholders, many of which will be abroad. Cutting spend on the NHS is thus more like the pints example. Although yes more money on drugs might mean a UK HQ and extra jobs, so again not crystal clear, but what is clear is £100 going into the NHS might only say £70 making it's way back into the UK economy. I don't know exact numbers, but the principle holds. It's highly unlikely that money is going back into the government pot.
Yeah I know. Everything from the very start until now is beyond ridiculous. There should have been more options in referendum in the first place because as you say, you can leave EU in a lot of different ways. Leave campaign was mostly based on laughable lies and false promises (infamous £350m per week for NHS...) and unfortunately there are over 17 million fools who believes (or believed) that. I don't think having a second referendum with more options (Leave with no deal, leave with a deal that is currently on the table, revoke Article 50) would be any less democratic than having an entire campaign based on lies. It's a complete shambles and there will be no winners whatever the outcome will be. I am not into politics at all and I don't even live in UK anymore so I might be talking nonsense I am not sure
Absolutely the greatest quote on here today, well done, dove thank you, you've restored my faith in the human "I'm not sure what I'm talking about" syndrome
And running football clubs ?
Good counter and I just get frustrated by people who blame Conservatives for reduced public spending when often this is a counter to rising debt.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. You are right to some extent that with cheap debt it's a good time to invest in profit making investments. For example, privatising trains would be a huge investment, but could be good all round. Instead of money to shareholders leaking out of the country, it could instead fuel the economy.
Regarding the cut of austerity there are multiple elements. For a start forecasts are inherently difficult to get right as the global economy is not easy to predict, secondly there is no benefit in saying austerity will last for a massive period of time, it's more palatable to drip feed this information. Otherwise many may change their career routes damaging the needs of the country.
As for zero hours contracts. What would you prefer someone who racks up 10-20 hours on a zero hour contract and pays some tax or someone claiming benefits and thus extracting taxes, some of which will or course flow back into the economy, but some of it will be sunk in cigarette, alcohol, gas & electric companies, etc.
Yep. Got a couple weeks’ worth of extras in. I figure if the shit is hitting the fan after that brexit will be toast and there will be urgent discussions with the eu to stabilise the situation.
You can’t trust the govt, self evidently.
Last edited:
Well the Labour manifesto was very clear that they wanted to Leave, so he should saying that shouldn't he?
You are very welcome. I just replied to someone and gave my opinion, I don't follow all this nonsense everyday hence why I never post in this thread.
That's what I mean, its your opinion, like most of what appears on here, but you were completely honest in declaring it so... we could all take a lesson from you!
Just in the last few years we’ve seen the run on northern rock and how fecking close the system came to collapsing, we’ve seen the incompetence over Iraq and we have seen what happened to Greece. The govt lacks the competence and foresight to navigate safe passage thru brexit. I don’t trust them to get this right.
That sort of civil action goes against all my principles, but in this situation, and considering it worked in the case of the poll tax, maybe it might wake the Government up a bit.
Will of the people, my arse!
Ignoring a million people marching in the street and 5 million petition signatures is not Democratic.
It's no point trying to explain stuff like this on here, it's a markedly left leaning forum.
What he's saying is largely incorrect though - austerity isn't the only approach to tackling debts and deficits. Plenty of economists have said so - the only reason the Tories pursued austerity was because the financial crisis gave them a convenient disguise for doing so. And the fact the party have went for Brexit so keenly shows they don't give a feck about good economic management of the country, it's always been an ideological desire for them to reduce the size of the state.
So if you'd be a good lad and do what redtillhe'sdead failed to do and cite me the maximum gdp spend of Blair's government prior to the banking crisis that'd be great.
No point preaching to the converted either! So better to have a tough conversation and open someone's mind.
Democracy is only as good as your candidate.
Ignoring a referendum where it was laid out in plain terms what voting out entailed (and all the scare mongering that came with it) and then demanding a second referendum before the results of the first one is even implemented or asking for a soft brexit which isn’t actually what leave was painted as (by both sides), is democratic I suppose?
You’re all asking for the far right to truly have cause to get behind by literally wanting to overturn the results of the referendum.
Because the financial crisis meant they had to. Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin, especially after 10 prior years of increases.
When the Tories were voted in they took over economic commitments they couldn't get out of. You can't just cancel things like gilts and public contracts, some of which spiralled after the recession. When you're stuck with significant, increasing outgoings and declining GDP you have to aggressively cut the areas you can make cuts in until things come back under control.
Last edited:
I thought that the prosecco/German car industry BS will come out at one point.
This argument has 1 major flaw. For the UK to make Brexit work then it must sign multiple trade deals. There's no point leaving the EU only to keep its same standards and rules. Now that will require the UK to cut corners on standards else there's no way in hell a small market like the UK can ever sign better trade deals then the EU. So lets say that the UK buys 30% of its beef from Ireland. That beef is of the highest standard which means its very expensive compared to the hormone induced/maggot ridden 'food' bought from the US, which will flood the UK following a trade deal with the US. Thus the Irish farmers market share in the UK is set to shrink to the ridiculous irrespective whether the UK signs an FTA with the UK or not. As Brexiteer no 1 (and only?) economist Patrick Minford said the only way for Brexit to work would be to lower tariffs on everything which would concurrently end the manufacturing/farming industry in the UK. Using such logic then I can't see the Irish farmer succeeding in a market were even the locals will be failing using such same high standards.
Then there's the other two other main categories of things that the EU sells to the UK
a- perishable goods. Due to its geographical location the UK will have no choice but to buy them from the EU irrespective on whether they sign an FTA or not. That's not a problem for the EU which can ignore British produce and buy from somewhere else
b- high end products. Which strictly speaking isn't a real issue either. Those who can afford a Ferrari will still buy a Ferrari irrespective whether the UK decide to slap a 30% tariff on it or not
Thus such leverage is pretty much gone.
Lets go in the detail of what activating article 50 means. Article 50 focuses on the country's withdrawal from the EU. In simpler terms it gives the UK the opportunity to settle its bills and to give an indication of what sort of future relationship it wants with the EU. Due to the GFA such withdrawal not only goes into EU territory but also into international treaties as well. Both parts is a bone of contention with Brexiteers.
A- They weren't happy to settle the bills as that strips the UK from its main leverage
B- Because of the GFA they can't push for a no deal Brexit as that would require the UK to crush out on WTO rules which in turn would mean hard borders in Ireland.
Basically a no deal Brexit was off the table from the start simply. If the UK is stupid enough to agree to pay for its bills without getting anything in exchange (not even the time needed to negotiate other FTAs) ie satisfying Option A, it would still fail to fulfill B. The result to that would be that the UK would portray itself as an unreliable business partner who can change its mind on everything even on delicate international deals such as the GFA
The Brexiters tried to turn this huge disadvantage into an advantage by tying the withdrawal agreement to a half botched trade deal. That goes beyond the scope of Article 50 + it would risk breaching the EU's HUGE red line ie the integrity of the single market. Which leads to me asking you two questions. Have you ever wondered why the EU takes ages to sign an FTA and why it had turned bigger markets (ex the US) down? The answer to that is basically the same. The integrity of the single market represent the EU's biggest asset, something worth protecting far more then anything else. It means a huge and protectionist market were members (and a very short list of trusted and reliable friends) can sell their products freely while concurrently keeping other competitors at arm's length. Through the single market the EU controls who and how countries trade, it can ensure a level playing field between member countries while monitoring the standards of what comes into such market. A loophole in such system would risk upsetting the balance into the single market to the detriment of its members. For example imagine if the UK is allowed to repackage cheap hormone induced/maggot ridden/chlorinated 'food' and then sell it into the single market as beef. That has the potential to be far more damaging then losing the UK's market which is set to shrink for the reasons mentioned above + recession
There will be no trade wars because a market of 65m can never compete with that of an entire continent, especially since the former is set to become poorer + it depends on selling its goods/services to that continent far more then the EU depends on selling its good/services to that country. If the UK doesn't pay its 39b then that would give the EU the casus belli it needs to go tough on the UK. Meanwhile the UK inability to keep the terms of the GFA will give the message that the UK is an unreliable partner to deal with and a horrible neighbour
Last edited:
Oh, so you got a different ballot paper to the rest of us then?
You don't need to listen to a lot of people to know that they didn't really know what Brexit entailed, what the consequences could be, or why it matters. Lots of people voted because it was just one of those things you were supposed to vote on, and they read some stories about it in the paper. Many of them, like that lady, were just as ambivalent at the time of voting as they are now.
That's not to say that a second referendum would solve that problem, or wouldn't have adverse effects. But it's totally ridiculous to suggest that people who voted for this expected anything like what they've seen since. It was not an informed choice and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest it was. That's true on both sides, too. People on the remain side elected themselves the educated choice, the people who didn't fall for the scare mongering, but many people voted to stay because "better the devil you know".
I didn't vote (sacrilege!) because I did not find the terms of the vote to be plain at all. The conditions were not there for an informed decision on a choice of such magnitude. We're undoubtedly in a better place on that front now, and there's every reason to expect that would allow people to make a better decision. Outright ruling that out on the false notion that holding multiple referendums on the same issue is unacceptable, when this was in fact the 2nd referendum on essentially the same issue, is at best misguided and in many cases much worse than that.
The Referdum wasn't ignored. It was followed through upon with numerous negotiations and votes in Parliament.
At risk of repeating myself, Democracy isn't a 'set it and forget it' process. It's a constant set of course corrections. If an elected official does a bad job, they're voted out. If they do a good job, they're kept in. If they lie, cheat, steal, act honourably, dishonourably, etc. the people have the option to register their opinions at regular intervals.
We've had 56 General Elections since the 1800s. There's a reason it wasn't just 1.
Brexit was a chance for the electorate to tell the powers-that-be the direction in which they'd like the ship to be steered. But that direction was set against a backdrop of lies and mistruths.
In any kind of proper Democratic system, we'd be allowed to change course. Instead, we're sailing in slow-motion into the rocks. Everybody knows it. Everybody sees it. Everybody knows how to stop it. But they won't out of stubborness for an idea that is the exact of opposite of the Democracy that is supposedly being protected.
If there was a General Election tomorrow, I'd vote out May for her incompetence because I think she's bad for the country and has proven to be so over the course of time. As a citizen of a first world country, I'd like the same option on Brexit in light of what's come to transpire since 2016. If you're going to have a vote to kick the process off, you should then also have equally significant votes at important junctures. Or else not have any votes on that particular matter at all.
A single vote was the worst of all worlds because it leaves the British people with no recourse to political mismanagement and dishonesty.
Last edited:
That all depends on who's economic model you follow, Paul Krugman would disagree with you but what does he know?
Last edited:
So a referendum every 5 years is the way to go?
If you're going to quote the post, try reading the whole thing.
I did
To be fair, your posts are generally so shit I'm struggling to get to the end of this one.
I don't disagree with you entirely but we had a vote to kick this whole thing off in the 70's. Then we didn't bother with any more votes for forty years despite huge changes in the organisation we joined. Now the vote went the other way so we have to revote over and over every two to three years, you have to admit that seems a bit one sided doesn't it?
Makes your response even more nonsensical then. Lost count the amount of times this has been posted and debunked
Don't recall anyone stating that upon having another referendum there can't be anymore? The only arguement I see is that there is more information around regarding the potential outcome of what we are about to do, and generally people are now informed, so maybe... just maybe... It might be a good idea to confirm whether or not we want to go ahead and jump?
If after the fact things drastically change and Leave want to try and get another referendum of the ground they can go for it. They said they would anyway didn't they?
Last edited:
I mean, you only vote on something again if it's deemed as being worthy of a vote. For the most part people largely seemed fine with the EU, and the % when we joined who approved of it was much larger than the % who voted to leave in 2016. It was seen as a fairly comprehensive and resounding vote - 2016 was the opposite in that regard. Throughout the 90s and 2000s both major parties were generally led either by people who were highly approving of the EU, or who didn't oppose membership. It wasn't until after 2010 that UKIP started gaining a lot more traction.
Meeting at Chequers with Brexiteers, this can't be good.