Another new Brexit thread

[Rascal]

Lets just say this is the man who once described his ambition in politics as overthrowing capitalism! Do I have to explain it more to you? Best we leave it there me thinks. Have a good day.

Johnson the capitalist said "fuck business" just recently.

And anyone who overthrows or even attempts to curtail the capitalist excesses is a good and decent man.

 

[Damocles]

I dont see how the latter needs to absolutly follow from the former, other than that you want to present it as such as to have a tool for denunciation.

Ironicly, by virtue that you base youre concusion on "only providing 1 link that would favour one side", youre kinda wanton for doing exactly the same in youre own post as reaction, engaging in the same thing you complain about.

This time, the fallacy was "whataboutism".

I'm genuinely starting to think that you're a bit stupid mate. Especially with how badly you misunderstand what a logical fallacy is and how it should be used. Stop using them, you don't know what they are and it makes you look thick.

A provided a single link in comparison to your assertion that the no deal being removed directly led to the pound's changes. I suggested that your logic of "this was caused by this" was not supported.

 

[FlemishDuck]

I'm genuinely starting to think that you're a bit stupid mate. Especially with how badly you misunderstand what a logical fallacy is and how it should be used.

I think youre insulting and you think you can get away with intimidating someone. Not polite.

A provided a single link in comparison to your assertion that the no deal being removed directly led to the pound's changes. I suggested that your logic of "this was caused by this" was not supported.

Feel free to scrutiny the source, but i pretty much only quoted what it said.

Youre going ape over me posting some economic source, grasping for reasons why you should be able to denounce me over it. I think you need to work on youre cunning plans as how to better achieve that.

And if you want more than 1 link, here's a 2nd. Give a shout if you want more.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...after-lawmakers-reject-johnson-s-brexit-plans

 

[Rascal]

And where will the money come from to buy the shares off the shareholders in those companies? The utility companies have market capitalizations of billions of pounds *each*.

Where will Labour get these billions from?

That muppett McDonnell says he'll pay for electricity nationalisation by issuing government backed bonds to the shareholders in lieu of their shares. Well that's great isn't it, magic money from the money tree. No, it's more debt and more debt interest and more pressure to increase taxes. And where will the money come from to buy back these bonds? More debt or money printing, both of which leading to rising inflation.

Tick, tock, tick, tock. The "ruin the UK economy" clock ticks loudly in the background.

How much did the Government find for QE? How has that affected inflation? How has that led to increased taxes?

The Banks were bailed out when a true capitalist would have happily let them fail.

There is of course the option to just seize the companies as a national asset for nothing, it would take political will power, but if the public saw bills fall, they would back it all the way. They were the publics companies in the first place, so i would have no sympathy for the greedy shareholders if they lost out.

 

[George Hannah]

Their party?

I would have considered moving to Cumbria to vote for Rory Stewart but it's too late. As it stands I won't be voting for anyone at a GE for the first time in my life. It's all very upsetting and making me ill.

 

[Vic]

Which she will then actively campaign to tell people not to vote for something that she herself was involved with agreeing. All that time, money and effort spent on resolving something that she doesn't even agree with, so how can we possibly expect that she will have done her best to get "the best deal" she could, when she has admitted that whatever the Labour deal is, she herself would not even support it when it is put to the public?

It is absolute lunacy!

The inevitable consequence of the Leave vote. It was lunacy so (catch 22) the only way out of it is to behave like lunatics.

 

[domalino]

The difficult concept to understand is why the EU would bother meeting her on that basis. Waste. Of. Time.

Well that's also really bloody obvious, the EU wants Britain to stay.

If you told the EU right now that there's a 50% chance Britain might remain, they'd be ecstatic, and it's probably a deal they'd much rather negotiate than a deal with Boris which also might never happen, only the alternative is no deal.

 

[Vic]

Here's an option "No, I would not advocate going to the EU to get a deal; i'd just campaign to remain".

That would be the most honest answer, like the Lib Dems have done, but she and other Labour MP's know that that stance will not get them what they crave, No. 10. So they're going to try and slime thier way in by promising "we do want to arrange a deal, a better one than the Tories managed" and then when voted in power to do so, would not support they deal that they themselves arranged, because they don't actually support leaving.

There's a reason so many people mocked her last night when she said it.

It is absolutely nothing to do with getting into power. It's about managing conflicting expectations in order to get us out of this madhouse.

And it was originally what Johnson suggested.

 

[Vic]

Just as bad, she lied about wanting to reach a deal to leave the EU, solely to try and gain support for putting Labour into power.

She's a self-centered snake.

Cobblers.

 

[George Hannah]

Do you really think Grieve and Clarke etc would help them out now? A number aren't standing again anyway - Clarkes long term local constituency agent felt obliged to piss all over his reputation in an interview - probably for fear of getting kicked out himself. They owe everything to their party but nothing to Johnson and Cummings - I can't see them lifting a finger to help that pair out - at the very best they might abstain from any vote. The squirming of Cummings which is then just demeaning Johnson in office is becoming more and more desperate as they see themselves being locked in with no way out.

Only takes ten of the 21 to reverse their vote and 5 the rest to abstain in order to resist amendments and for the bill to succeed. Bring on the election on Oct 15th and keep the Brexit Party in its box.

 

[Vic]

No it isn’t. It’s pretty straight forward when you think about it.

She’s going to negotiate a deal that doesn’t have May’s red lines, present it to the public and say choose this or remain.

She will say remain is better but it’s honouring the fact that the public voted to leave in 2016.

It’s giving the public a chance to decide and will end this once and for all but she’ll advise on which is better.

I can’t see another way out.

And if the deal is to join EFTA then MB will welcome it....

 

[west didsblue]

And if the deal is to join EFTA then MB will welcome it....

And then deny he meant his post to be read that way.

 

[Ban-jani]

And if the deal is to join EFTA then MB will welcome it....

No he’ll reject it because Thornberry really wants to remain.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Johnson seems to ha e one promising more money her there and everywhere

Well first of all, he's only been promising it since the UK deficit has become under control and debt has stabilized; McDonnell has been calling for it for 40 years. And second, there's the small matter of degree. The spending plans in Labour's last "fully costed" (joke) manifesto amounted to perhaps £1 trillion. That figure was disputed, but you can see how it's plausible. £50bn/year on schools, hospitals etc is in the manifesto. That's £250bn. Another manifesto commitment to £250bn of infrastructure projects, so £500bn so far. And then all the re-nationalisations - who knows but that's hundreds of billons. And then £100bn for a new investment bank. So £1 trillion is probably not far off.

That level of spending would be crippling. But McDonnell does not care.

 

[aguero93:20]

He would only need a simple majority for the anticipated one clause Election Bill setting aside the FTPA, which will follow the current scheduled motion should it fail, which as you say the Opposition coalition have withdrawn their support from and consequently won't reach the threshold. The 21 Tory rebels, having seen their Extension pass into law, are obliged to give their party its best chance to beat Corbyn on October 15th and give the country the final option to decide if No Deal stays on the table. As Tories they can't claim they don't believe Boris won't change the election date to November to enable a crash out. It offers an opportnity for them to return to the fold accepting an olive branch from Boris, as he just hinted this morning. None of them wants to be damaged by a Brexit Party association post October 31st. I don't know if this sequence has already been gamed out by Cummings but it's possible, even likely.

Even if all 21 voted with him he'd be a vote short.

 

[Vic]

Remain is currently the only logical option given how Government and Parliament have completely messed things up.
But still, if in another referendum the option to join EFTA or something that was catagorically similar was present, i'd absolutely vote for it.

Trust in Thornberry then!

 

[Rammyblues]

I see the leavers wanted to take back control and have OUR Parliament determine everything. If by a twist of fate, if the last three years are anything to go by we should abolish the place, sack the lot of them, knock the fucking thing down and save ourselves a fortune and be fully integrated in a United States of Europe.

 

[Chippy_boy]

There is of course the option to just seize the companies as a national asset for nothing, it would take political will power, but if the public saw bills fall, they would back it all the way. They were the publics companies in the first place, so i would have no sympathy for the greedy shareholders if they lost out.

Honestly, you'd be a total **** and dickhead if truly thought that, so I am assuming it was silly talk.

The shareholders you seem to despise are not some Jabba the Hut style fat cats lying back having peeled grapes dropped into their open mouths, they are people like you and me, scrimping and saving as best we can and putting what little extra we may have (if any) into an ISA or pension plan, with the vague hope of trying not to be such a burden on the state in retirement. And the pension companies investing on your and my behalf.

If you'd happily see all of these people lose their money, well I don't know what to say really. I thought you were better than that.

Where do you think the proceeds of these nationalisations went? The money these investors - their own money - that they handed over. What do you think the government spent it on? Ferraris and holidays in Barbados for the civil servants?

No, it got spent on schools and hospitals and everything else. People like you and me bought a few shares with our own money, and now you'd take the shares off us as well as the money? Un be fucking lievable.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Johnson the capitalist said "fuck business" just recently.

And anyone who overthrows or even attempts to curtail the capitalist excesses is a good and decent man.

But not exactly a friend of business! Many people in this country forget that its business that pay the tax and enables all the public spending. Towards the end of the last Labour government a labour minister (possibly Jacqui Smith, apologies the person's name eludes me) said that they had created nearly a million jobs in the public sector, but clearly completely oblivious to the fact that public sector jobs have to be paid for by private sector taxes. Sure there are some significant and obvious benefits to having a decent health service , education system and policing etc but these services generally repay their investment over many years and in the short term they need to be paid by nasty capitalism. Something I dont think John McDonnel understands.

 

[Rascal]

Honestly, you'd be a total **** and dickhead if truly thought that, so I am assuming it was silly talk.

The shareholders you seem to despise are not some Jabba the Hut style fat cats lying back having peeled grapes dropped into their open mouths, they are people like you and me, scrimping and saving as best we can and putting what little extra we may have (if any) into an ISA or pension plan, with the vague hope of trying not to be such a burden on the state in retirement. And the pension companies investing on your and my behalf.

If you'd happily see all of these people lose their money, well I don't know what to say really. I thought you were better than that.

Where do you think the proceeds of these nationalisations went? The money these investors - their own money - that they handed over. What do you think the government spent it on? Ferraris and holidays in Barbados for the civil servants?

No, it got spent on schools and hospitals and everything else. People like you and me bought a few shares with our own money, and now you'd take the shares off us as well as the money? Un be fucking lievable.

It was spent on tax cuts for the people who bought the shares. Who then sold them for a quick profit to a corporation who doesn't pay tax at all. The capitalist con trick of privatisation. The people who paid the taxes to build up the companies were rewarded with higher prices. That is capitalism for you.

And your hero McDonnell will bring the capitalist con trick crashing down, that is what really scares the Tories.