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.
Barros doesn't do details as far as I can remember, kinda like Trump...and you think that won't be passed onto the consumer?
also, I am pretty sure that every country pays import tariffs not just the US...
We call it UK Duty and VAT...
Yes and no, some companies will pay the difference for awhile.and you think that won't be passed onto the consumer?
Even with that hopefully, answer you concede that this optimistic charitable notion would be short-term for even the ones that do.
I don't use twitter for example (I do have an account)
Well not sure if you are in US but for example when the price of fuel was really high food prices never went up - actually went up when the fuel price went down.
No they don't, it is the people buying the goods who have to clear the goods through customs which means paying the duty (tariff) and the other taxes ( eg VAT in Europe) where applicable.
The people who buy the goods then have the choice to pass these tariffs onto their customers, if they don't then they lose money.
I've shipped to the USA for over 30 years.
The supplier pays nothing.
Tariffs are used to try to stop people buying goods from overseas and buying local goods instead , ie by making the overseas produced goods more expensive which is what Trump is trying to do.
But if the people continue to buy the goods the plan doesn't work, all it means is the people (consumers) buying the goods will pay more. Yes the US government will receive more in taxes but it is from the buyers/consumers in the USA who will be paying them.
GDP figures look bleak.
I actually welcome the bleak economic news, not because I want people to lose their jobs or incomes squeezed but I think this is the time when consequences of the decisions we're taking need to be felt before it's too late to do anything about them. Rather a short, sharp shock now to influence the direction we take over the next few months vs a slow and gradual decline once it's too late to do anything about it.
It's not "talking my country down", it's wanting to see the country learn a lesson and wake the feck up. The sooner the reality becomes undeniable the better.
It's not "talking my country down", it's wanting to see the country learn a lesson and wake the feck up. The sooner the reality becomes undeniable the better.
Also because you're presumably well-off enough that'll have minimal effect on you. There's no guarantee people will blame an economic downturn on Brexit - every chance blame will get deflected to the EU or whoever else. Plenty have it set in their mind that Brexit cannot go badly and that if it does then it's the fault of those who tried to stop it, not those trying to implement it.
More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to stay in EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain
So what? People keep posting shit like this as if it matters. Constituencies mean nothing and doesn’t take into account how awfully negation actions are going nor how we have a largely remainer cabinet.
If the vote happened again next month remain would get walloped
I've gotta ask, who did you think would be doing the negotiating and did you honestly think they'd be doing a better job?
Seems odd to criticise a government that you voted to ostensibly give more power to over 'people in Brussels.'
Erm? The overall lead was 2%. So if just over 1% changed their mind remain would win. There have been huge swings towards remain in many constituencies that voted to leave and not only do you not think this wouldn't give the 1.1% overall swing required but you think that leave would do better than at the referendum.
Are you this bloke?
I voted remain because a referendum is mental and the farcical situation we would find ourselves in with a government that wants to remain. Nevertheless I think a lot of people voting leave didn’t want more power for Westminster, they just see it as the starting point for localising power.
Erm? The overall lead was 2%. So if just over 1% changed their mind remain would win. There have been huge swings towards remain in many constituencies that voted to leave and not only do you not think this wouldn't give the 1.1% overall swing required but you think that leave would do better than at the referendum.
Are you this bloke?
The negotiations have gone terribly and all the main leave campaigners have buggered off to mess about on the radio in America. And there’s still been an incredibly small swing in all the polls towards remain. Would take a massive idiot to think you could extrapolate that to remain winning another referendum, especially when you consider how they’ve acted for 18 months. Maybe Stewart Lee could run the campaign
Remain would win 53-47 according to the latest polls. I think it would be a far higher margin as people who are going to change their minds (or votes) are usually far less likely to tell the truth to pollsters.
And the idea that concentrating even more power in Westminster is a good way of devolving power is bizarre in the extreme, especially with the Tories in charge.
Why Britain likes being told what to do by posh white men is beyond me.
It would take an idiot to extrapolate an actual poll calculated by statisticians to given as close to an accurate reflection on how the country would vote, into how the country would vote - as that would be flawed logic. But saying thing like "look at how they've acted" and use that as a reason why this polling is wrong is surely the deduction of a genius.
Notwithstanding the fact that only a massive idiot would believe that leading figures in trade, industry, commerce, economics, medicine, farming and agriculture, knows as much about trade, industry, commerce, economics, medicine, farming and agriculture as Nadine Dorries.
I do like the consistency though "If you've spent the last 18 months behaving as if economists know anything about the economy, businessmen know anything about business and experts in industry have expertise in industry, then you should go and sit in the corner and have a bit of a think about how ridiculous you look right now"
Notwithstanding the fact that only a massive idiot would believe that leading figures in trade, industry, commerce, economics, medicine, farming and agriculture, knows as much about trade, industry, commerce, economics, medicine, farming and agriculture as Nadine Dorries.
I do like the consistency though "If you've spent the last 18 months behaving as if economists know anything about the economy, businessmen know anything about business and experts in industry have expertise in industry, then you should go and sit in the corner and have a bit of a think about how ridiculous you look right now"
Last edited:
Deference to perceived superiority, I guess. Usually they have had a better education, more refined up-bringing, speak without regional accent. It's quite a British/English thing to have an inferiority complex based on those characteristics.
The problem that the anti-second referendum people have is that their argument is effectively that the 2016 referendum was simultaneously a complete endorsement two completely different outcomes. It cannot be logically argued that a little over 2 years ago a single referendum was a vote for both to stay in the aligned to the EU as a result of a trade, customs and single market deal and also at the same time support for complete misalignment with the EU as a result of negotiations on trade, customs and the single market. This is where the argument falls down, this is why all they have is "Remoaner" and "project fear", because it's a circle they cannot square.
Their argument is that it is clear what the British people voted for, but pretending that this can mean two completely different things. That's why they're afraid of a second referendum.
People wont learn their lesson until its too late.
If my child runs towards a bees nest and I'm powerless to stop him I'm going to rest my hopes on the first bee he encounters stinging him so he'll quickly feel the consequences of his actions and run the other way. I'm not going to hope the first few outlier bees ignore him in the hope that he can somehow run through the hundreds and hundreds of bees in the middle of the swarm completely unscathed.
If the first bee doesn't sting him, it isn't my job as a parent to shout "Go on son!" suddenly thinking that maybe running through the bees nest is a good idea because the initial signs look good. The responsible, parental thing to do wouldn't be to hope the child receives no early warning that what he wants to do is absolutely fecking ridiculous and carry on into a far more perilous situation.
This is the problem when people contort their logic so as to not be caught out disagreeing with the political leader they've spent their time championing. Arguing that sounding the horn to warn other road users of your presence is a bad idea because you might not crash into them anyway and that the scare the sounding of your horn might give them is only something you do because you're not going to feel the consequences of being scared by the sound of your own horn, is where we are with Brexit right now.
Yes I want the child to get stung by the first bee and run away from the nest. Yes I'll sound my horn in hope that the other driver is alerted to the danger and takes action before it's too late. Yes I want there to be an immediate shock that wakes people up to what absolute fecking disaster Brexit is going to be before we reach the point of no return.
And you and many others here would believe that too if you all weren't so predisposed with your concern that you might show a slight misalignment with Jeremey Corbyn if you did.
Last edited:
Wasn't he an expert in his field?Erm? The overall lead was 2%. So if just over 1% changed their mind remain would win. There have been huge swings towards remain in many constituencies that voted to leave and not only do you not think this wouldn't give the 1.1% overall swing required but you think that leave would do better than at the referendum.
Are you this bloke?
Historical data would probably show that annoying bees has bad consequences. Experts might say staying calm around them would result in not getting stung, feck that, i dont believe that for a moment.
Where's your historical data on the previous Brexit? Oh wait.
Huh? What are you on about?
I don't always agree with ya but this is a good post.
He thought so
Anyone who now doesn't recognise that the best case of Brexit is going to be an utter clusterfeck and that the worst case is far far worse is delusional.
Probably when we became the sick man of Europe for not immediately joining the EEC,
There are a few sick men in southern europe to this day
True but the question wasn't about them.
I’m not sure people being called racist morons for 18 months is going to make them about turn. And if Westminster doesn’t have a fecking clue what’s going on in Bradford, Birmingham or Fife, what chance do you think Brussels has?
Give one pro-Brexit argument that isn't racist (e.g keeping foreigners out) or completely and utterly moronic (e.g: everyone else but Nadine Dorries is wrong on everything)
It could finish off the parties so we wouldn’t have to see your 372847 Corbyn posts.
And you’d have to narrow the question down
I'm liberal, I just don't agree that tax & spend is the way forward, it's crippled the economy in the past. High tax isn't the path to high economic growth.
That’s not true though is it. Although being in the EU helped economic fortunes we were sick and got better for many other reasons besides it.
Or by German and French politicians. It ain't easy but surely we have have to follow democracy?