|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 09:34
There are about 65 million people in the UK.
17.4 million voted to leave UK
47+ million did not.
Among the 47+ million there are, I suggest, many who are worried about the consequences of no deal. Potential food shortages, price rises, difficulty getting medicines, petrol rationing ( 2/1 at bookies I noticed - pretty short odds).
If Brexit can be delivered without all those and more harmful consequences, fair enough. But instead of Brexit or bust, PM should be saying, we've got to deliver it in a way that makes certain there aren't all those harmful consequences. Isn't that how a PM - leader of the country - should behave?
17.4 million voted in a way that might harm the interests of the 47+ million, but that doesn't count to PM. No - it's leave whatever the consequences.
Democracy.
Talk about a blunt instrument.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 10:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 29 Sep 09:40
Sorry, don't disagree with your numbers but the crucial number you missed was those who voted to remain. Stating who didn't vote at all suggests that if given the chance they all would have voted the way you want.
I voted remain, i want to remain and would argue (as a supporter of independence) that my country voted to remain and therfore we shouldn't allow ourselves to be taken out against our will...
However, the majority of people who voted (and they are the only ones who count) voted to leave so your numbers are meaningless.
If the non voters cared they should have cast their vote and had their say
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 09:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 10:07
I thank the right honourable DBP for his input!
I think you're reinforcing my point that democracy is a blunt instrument which results in winner-takes-all outcomes. It seems odd to me in this Brexit issue that it should be accepted that those who voted Leave have a right to damage the way of life and interests of those who did not vote Leave.
I for one didn't know at the time of the EU referendum that there would be the potentially harmful consequences I mentioned.
I disagree that I imply those who did not vote would have voted the way I want. The fact is the 17.4 million are having their way backed to the hilt by a PM who completely disregards the interests of the 47 million. The 17.4 million are not 'the country'. Therefore Brexit is not what 'the country wants'. It is what the 17.4 million want.
And of course you're right Scotland voted Remain. Failings of Democracy as a system, and of a Prime Minister who sees it only in terms of a winner-takes-all outcome, are what I'm getting at.
I'm not saying let's go against the EU Referendum vote. I'm saying let's have Brexit with a deal which protects the interests of 'the country', i.e. 65 million. It seems self-evident to me that Brexit at all costs cannot reflect 'what the country wants' if the interests of 47 million are to be treated as null and void.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 16:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 10:19
As I said, instead of Brexit or bust, PM should be saying, 'we've got to deliver it in a way that makes certain there aren't all those harmful consequences.'
There's nothing undemocratic in that. A good PM could respect the Referendum vote whilst also protecting the interests of the 47 million, i.e. serve the interests of the whole country.
It could bring the country together.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 16:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 12:05
Well, there certainly arent 65 million eligible to vote.
But I agree it is sensible to check opinions.
I think any future referendum needs to be very carefully thought through (the slapdash pihs that Cameron oversaw is exactly the reason we are in a mess). There needs to be a binary stay or leave. And in the event of leave there needs to be a separate question regarding how we leave.
Splitting types of leave and stacking that up against remain would be wholly unfair.
Perhaps some people would like the opportunity to change their minds given the trustworthiness which the main leaders of the leave campaign have since demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 29 Sep 12:35
Of that 47 million you would of course have to minus under age people - 14 million and immigrants/migrants - 9.5 million ineligible to vote
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 29 Sep 13:12
<<I think you're reinforcing my point that democracy is a blunt instrument which results in all or nothing outcomes.>>
But it's been fine for centuries until it gives a result that you don't like?
<<It seems odd to me in this Brexit issue that it should be accepted that those who voted Leave have a right to damage the way of life and interests of those who did not vote Leave.>>
Doesn't it seem odd that the MINORITY who voted remain have the right to damage and deny the rights of those who voted leave, and somehow believe that they are in the right to block democracy from happening, and ironically call it democracy??
<<I for one didn't know at the time of the EU referendum that there would be the potentially harmful consequences I mentioned.>>
POTENTIALLY!
All Remainer forecasts of doom and gloom are treated as accurate predictions.
All Leaver forecasts are declared to be fanciful and/or lies...
I did not know at the time of the referendum that there was an option for the losing side to ignore the result.
Would the insidious, undemocratic subterfuge that has been effected by the remain zealots have been tolerated if 'Remain' won?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 29 Sep 14:08
TBF Lux this whole mess has been entirely created by folk arguing about what Leave actually means, with those involved insistent that their personal reasons for voting Leave are the only true way/
But that is a pretty brad spectrum, all the way from No Deal to May's deal - and a huge variety in between.
I didn't vote leave for the same reasons as CDF for example: I voted Leave because the EU props up the neoliberal experiments of Thatcher and Reagan and, as a Socialist, I would prefer to see those neoliberal policies dismantled.
As such, the goals I was hoping to achieve from Brexit were different. I wanted a different Brexit. We were voting for different things.
So, we need a confirmatory referendum to sort that out.
You see, we either find out what folk really want.
I also suspect that I'm not alone in having changed my mind since the referendum so it doesn't seem ludicrous to re-run it, just to check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 29 Sep 14:59
For me the referendum result was based on a dishonest campaign so I would have no qualms if it isn't recognised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 29 Sep 15:28
To be honest I could handle the BS in the lead up to the referendum. Both sides were always going to be at it with hyperbole and exaggeration to get people to buy into their point of view.
My cut off came after being promised that our employment and environmental rights wouldn't be diminished after we left the EU and the first thing the EU Withdrawal Bill did was remove the protections of the the Charter of Fundamental rights, revoking the ban on hormone disrupting chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects and removing the 'precautionary principle' from law.
All of those changes were described as technical changes that wouldn't have any real changes for us which is utter horse ****.
As soon as they started trying to backdoor Tory policy changes into Brexit legislation rather than through proper Parliamentary debate on the issues themselves, i lost sympathy for those whinging about a lack of democracy as they're complete hypocrites.
I now couldn't care less if they revoked Article 50 without a 2nd vote as if the Brexit voters have no respect for the institutions of democracy in the UK then I've no longer got any time for it either when it impacts what they consider important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 16:17
1. 'Leave' won and everyone should respect it.
2. The PM should respect that others want their interests protected, (e.g. getting medicines.)
I suggest that the way to bring the country together is to do both 1 and 2. They can be achieved with a deal (then nearly! everybody happy?)
(NB. It doesn't matter if some of the 65 million were ineligible to vote, or chose not to vote. They shouldn't have their interests damaged just because of that. 'Leave means 'Leave', if that's what you voted for that's what you'll get. It doesn't mean 'Leave and also freely damage other folks' interests at the same time.' )
If you made me PM you'd get 1. and 2. above.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 16:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 29 Sep 16:28
<<TBF Lux this whole mess has been entirely created by folk arguing about what Leave actually means, >>
Not at all.
David Cameron was VERY clear right at the beginning.
Leave meant Leave
Quote
“Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’, not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide.
“At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision."
“So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say think again."
What we actually had was MP's who wanted to remain voting against everything.
May's extension treaty (no, it wasn't a deal, read it) was voted down, not because it was abysmal, but because it was confirmation that we would actually leave - (albeit 3 years later)
The remainers, who are a majority in the HoC, not representing their constituents, would have voted down ANY deal.
IF BJ manages to get a change to the Irish backstop, and comes with another 'better' deal - i guarantee that it will be rejected by the HoC too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 16:39
Ref: Luxembourg Par
Sun 29 Sep 16:28
<<< IF BJ manages to get a change to the Irish backstop, and comes with another 'better' deal - I guarantee that it will be rejected by the HoC too.>>>
I'm not so certain, Luxembourg. Some seemingly political unsolvable situations have been resolved:
Berlin wall came down.
Apartheid ended.
Brexit isn't bigger than them?
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 16:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 29 Sep 16:48
We had a vote and the HOC represents the will of the people. Trying to have another vote would be completely undemocratic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 29 Sep 16:50
"Leave means Leave" is meaningless though until all the folk saying it can agree what it means, which they can't, so we have this.
Leave MPs also rejected TM's deal, and it doesn't matter what you call it - they had a chance to "Leave" and rejected it because, for some, it wasn't Leave-ey enough.
So already we have two distinct factions within the "united front" that is Leave - we have the pro and anti TM deal camps. Both are technically Leave but neither can agree with the other.
Then there are factions within the anti-TM camp - some of whom want no-deal and some who want an even less Leave-ey version of Leave.
Then there are those who rejected TM's deal because secretly they think that Brexit chaos might pave the way for a united Ireland or Scottish Independence.
To claim that the Leave vote is in any way cohesive or pushing in the same direction is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:04
Was TM's deal acceptable to the EU, Wotsit?
And Ireland?
Why is BJ so much against TM's deal?
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 17:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:08
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 29 Sep 16:48
We had a vote and the HOC represents the will of the people. Trying to have another vote would be completely undemocratic.
Not really.....it might be worth double checking given the magnitude of this. If folk who voted leave end up losing as a result of this they ain't going to accept responsibility for creating a bunch of crap. Itll be someone elses fault.
..and it wasnt binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:13
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sun 29 Sep 17:08
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 29 Sep 16:48
We had a vote and the HOC represents the will of the people. Trying to have another vote would be completely undemocratic.
Not really.....it might be worth double checking given the magnitude of this. If folk who voted leave end up losing as a result of this they ain't going to accept responsibility for creating a bunch of crap. Itll be someone elses fault.
..and it wasnt binding.
Sorry mate that was meant to be a complete urine extraction of the Brexiteers position on a second referendum and applying it to the HoC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:14
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 29 Sep 16:17
1. 'Leave' won and everyone should respect it.
2. The PM should respect that others want their interests protected, (e.g. getting medicines.)
I suggest that the way to bring the country together is to do both 1 and 2. They can be achieved with a deal (then nearly! everybody happy?)
(NB. It doesn't matter if some of the 65 million were ineligible to vote, or chose not to vote. They shouldn't have their interests damaged just because of that. 'Leave means 'Leave', if that's what you voted for that's what you'll get. It doesn't mean 'Leave and also freely damage other folks' interests at the same time.' )
If you made me PM you'd get 1. and 2. above.
You can't promise 1 and 2.....noone can... sorting (2) is out of Britain's complete control.
And your representation of the 65m does matter. What's to say leaving is worse.? You could equally argue that the 17m have done a favour for another 30m. It doesn't really mean anything in my view.....simply an attempt to undermine the democratic postion as 17m is only around a quart of the UK population. Of those eligible to vote at the time, more folk voted Leave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:15
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 29 Sep 17:13
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sun 29 Sep 17:08
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 29 Sep 16:48
We had a vote and the HOC represents the will of the people. Trying to have another vote would be completely undemocratic.
Not really.....it might be worth double checking given the magnitude of this. If folk who voted leave end up losing as a result of this they ain't going to accept responsibility for creating a bunch of crap. Itll be someone elses fault.
..and it wasnt binding.
Sorry mate that was meant to be a complete urine extraction of the Brexiteers position on a second referendum and applying it to the HoC.
Lol....I think I need to do a little less today as this isnt the first nuance I've missed.
I'll go and shout at kids instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:19
Poor weans 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:32
Was TM's deal acceptable to the EU, Wotsit?
Yes.
And Ireland?
Yes.
Why is BJ so much against TM's deal?
That's the biggie, isn't it?
My guess would be personal ambition and opportunism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:39
Ref: Wotsit
Sun 29 Sep 17:32
<<<Was TM's deal acceptable to the EU, Wotsit?
Yes.
And Ireland?
Yes.
Why is BJ so much against TM's deal?
That's the biggie, isn't it?
My guess would be personal ambition and opportunism.>>>
Or is it just because it's been defeated before?
I would have thought if it's close to being workable it'd be worth adjusting to use again?
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 17:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:54
Ref: ipswichpar
Sun 29 Sep 17:14
<<<...What's to say leaving is worse.? You could equally argue that the 17m have done a favour for another 30m. >>>
And of course you could just as well argue they haven't
Either way, it's not the point. Voters are not worried about if Leaving makes things better, they're worried about it making things worse and so far there's no assurances on things that matter very much to some of them , such as getting their regular, necessary medicines and things mentioned by Londonparsfan at 15:28 above, etc.
It's no reassurance at all to just say to someone who depends on them, 'well never mind, your medicine supplies MIGHT NOT be disrupted.' They want them to be unaffected. If Brexit means medicines will certainly be disrupted then you can bet some voters would switch sides given a second vote.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 18:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 29 Sep 18:04
Quote:
Wotsit, Sun 29 Sep 17:32
Was TM's deal acceptable to the EU, Wotsit?
Yes.
And Ireland?
Yes.
Why is BJ so much against TM's deal?
That's the biggie, isn't it?
My guess would be personal ambition and opportunism.
Well yes. Worth remembering Johnston actually voted once for May's deal but only on the promise she'd step down if passed which it wasn't of course.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 18:13
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 29 Sep 17:54
Ref: ipswichpar
Sun 29 Sep 17:14
<<<...What's to say leaving is worse.? You could equally argue that the 17m have done a favour for another 30m. >>>
And of course you could just as well argue they haven't
Either way, it's not the point. Voters are not worried about if Leaving makes things better, they're worried about it making things worse and so far there's no assurances on things that matter very much to some of them , such as getting their regular, necessary medicines and things mentioned by Londonparsfan at 15:28 above, etc.
It's no reassurance at all to just say to someone who depends on them, 'well never mind, your medicine supplies MIGHT NOT be disrupted.' They want them to be unaffected. If Brexit means medicines will certainly be disrupted then you can bet some voters would switch sides given a second vote.
Well if anyone hadn't clocked the bleeding obvious beforehand, it is Darwinsim in action.
And I'm sure that those with dependents who couldnt vote took their interests into account last time...and, if they didnt last time they very well may not next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 29 Sep 18:23
Or is it just because it's been defeated before?
He was against it before it was defeated. He was instrumental in defeating it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 18:29
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 17:39
Ref: Wotsit
Sun 29 Sep 17:32
<<<Was TM's deal acceptable to the EU, Wotsit?
Yes.
And Ireland?
Yes.
Why is BJ so much against TM's deal?
That's the biggie, isn't it?
My guess would be personal ambition and opportunism.>>>
Or is it just because it's been defeated before?
I would have thought if it's close to being workable it'd be worth adjusting to use again?
If some of the Sunday rags are to be believed his main backers have gambled billions in a no deal outcome
Personally I hope they lose the lot
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 17:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 29 Sep 19:02
I say David Cameron, who campaigned as a Remainer, made it far too easy for Leave to win. 50% +1? What kind of majority is that?
In any other walk of life, if you want to change the established way of doing something, a substantial majority is usually necessary. e.g. If Scottish clubs want to increase the number of clubs in the Premiership, they need to vote 11 to 1 in favour. Now that is excessive but if 8 of the 12 voted in favour of change that is a compelling vote for change.
I have no evidence to back this up, but people who want change are usually well motivated, so they are more likely to get off their backsides and go out and vote for it. For this reason, I think it's a safe bet that most of those who didn't vote were not in the Leave camp. Doesn't mean they were avid Remainers of course, but perhaps they were not fussed either way.
Having said all that, Leave won the Referendum and it should happen, but not at any cost. I agree with the OP that any Brexit should not be detrimental to the people of this country.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 29 Sep 19:35
GG,
This is the kind of common sense which was being talked soon after the Referendum result in 2016.
Since then the language has hardened considerably. There are Remainers who are determined to flout the result and Brexiteers who will accept nothing less than a crash-out.
Both claim to be representing public opinion, although the best guess is that little has changed: the UK electorate are lukewarm about being in the EU but little more committed to actually coming out. No amount of high-flown rhetoric and dog whistles will change that anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 29 Sep 19:50
I think using the football example shows exactly why there shouldn't be a high mark to get over. Apart from the fact it suppresses change, you can't have a situation where a majority vote for change but it's denied to them because the people who don't want it have set an arbitrary hurdle figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:07
Ref: ipswichpar
Sun 29 Sep 18:13
<<< Well if anyone hadn't clocked the bleeding obvious beforehand, it is Darwinsim in action.
And I'm sure that those with dependents who couldnt vote took their interests into account last time...and, if they didnt last time they very well may not next time. >>>
I get that, as a Leave voter you're angry and sore that Brexit hasn't happened yet. But you don't have to be on my account. I'm not a threat to you, Ipswich.
You've said some funny things there. When I say the interests of everybody else besides the 17.4 million should be protected, that's the PM's business not the voters, who you're on about for some reason.
So what about "Darwinism in action"? Well I better look it up, since I'm supposed to be guilty of it. No, you've lost me there.
Anyway, rest assured I will not try to prevent Brexit, so you have nothing to fear from me and you are perfectly entitled to not care a hoot about anyone else's interests. It would be nice if you did but it's the PM who is running the country so he is the one who should give more than a hoot.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 20:15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:07
Quote:
DBP, Sun 29 Sep 19:50
I think using the football example shows exactly why there shouldn't be a high mark to get over. Apart from the fact it suppresses change, you can't have a situation where a majority vote for change but it's denied to them because the people who don't want it have set an arbitrary hurdle figure.
I agree that the football example wasn't a great choice and I did say it was excessive. I think a majority of somewhere between 60% and 2/3 would have been far more sensible than 50%+1.
Another reason the whole thing sticks in my craw is that Cameron only promised a Referendum to try and ensure that the Tories would win a majority in the 2015 GE. It certainly wasn't because our MPs thought It would be in the best interests of UK citizens.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:09
Ref: GG Riva
Sun 29 Sep 19:02
<<< Leave won the Referendum and it should happen, but not at any cost. I agree with the OP that any Brexit should not be detrimental to the people of this country.>>>
Thanks for that GG Riva.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:22
Ref: Buspasspar
Sun 29 Sep 18:29
<<<If some of the Sunday rags are to be believed his main backers have gambled billions in a no deal outcome >>>
Couldn't happen - could it?? Bookies would only take limited bets wouldn't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:33
You think that billionares got that way by walking into the bookies with a massive wedge?
They gamble by crashing an economy so that they can short sell their way to our financial oblivion.
See George Soros and Black Wednesday - when one person gambling on the pound managed to trash the UK economy, drive us out of the ERM and, in a way, leave us where we are now - and make himself over a billion dollars in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:58
Ref: Wotsit
Sun 29 Sep 20:33
and
Buspasspar 's hot-link above
Highly disturbing article. Makes Busspasspar's earlier comment (18: 29) chillingly believable:
<<< his main backers have gambled billions in a no deal outcome>>>
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 20:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 21:10
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 29 Sep 20:07
Ref: ipswichpar
Sun 29 Sep 18:13
<<< Well if anyone hadn't clocked the bleeding obvious beforehand, it is Darwinsim in action.
And I'm sure that those with dependents who couldnt vote took their interests into account last time...and, if they didnt last time they very well may not next time. >>>
I get that, as a Leave voter you're angry and sore that Brexit hasn't happened yet. But you don't have to be on my account. I'm not a threat to you, Ipswich.
You've said some funny things there. When I say the interests of everybody else besides the 17.4 million should be protected, that's the PM's business not the voters, who you're on about for some reason.
So what about "Darwinism in action"? Well I better look it up, since I'm supposed to be guilty of it. No, you've lost me there.
Anyway, rest assured I will not try to prevent Brexit, so you have nothing to fear from me and you are perfectly entitled to not care a hoot about anyone else's interests. It would be nice if you did but it's the PM who is running the country so he is the one who should give more than a hoot.
I voted to remain.
I just think your positioning of this whole thing is massively flawed, if I'm honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 21:18
Apologies Ipswich for calling you a Leave voter.
D'you mean I'm unrealistic in wanting both things: Brexit and safeguards to the interests of the general public ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 21:24
None taken :)
Yes, I just think it is going to be impossible for someone to negotiate all that's needed to keep folks safe without it being at massive cost, which will cause problems with other dissenters.
I dont trust the EU to behave reasonably. And I think our links are far too deep to untangle now, without massive costly disruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 21:29
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 20:22
Ref: Buspasspar
Sun 29 Sep 18:29
<<<If some of the Sunday rags are to be believed his main backers have gambled billions in a no deal outcome >>>
Couldn't happen - could it?? Bookies would only take limited bets wouldn't they?
Aye onandupthepars unfortunately it happens these are not your vape tropical fruit smokers trudging between the Local pub and Macbet to put their loose change into the roulette machine or stick £20 on the filly in the mile at Epsom. These are serious hedge fund entrepreneurs making a killing from our Country's current political demise and mis-management I cannot believe in my wildest nightmare that Boris is our PM ..... On the bright side he is a dead man walking .....
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 21:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 21:45
Thanks Ipswich. I understand what you've said there. The fact that BJ isn't saying anything to reassure those of the public who are worried, lends support to what you and Busspar and Wotsit have said lately.
D'you think there's no intention to get a deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 29 Sep 22:33
Yep. I think he has no intention to get a deal. While I'd much prefer not to be leaving at all, I am interested to see what happens in the event that the EU offer Johnson something reasonable.
Because I firmly believe he would still try and get us out on a No Deal basis as there is something lying beneath all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 22:56
"A democracy means a 48% minority has some rights, and parliament’s duty is to honour them with compromise."
(Somebody else who thought like me.)
Oh let's not get into all that again. Well said though, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 29 Sep 23:00
Thanks Ipswich. I feel better for having some other viewpoints and info.
I've just been reading again the 'Byline Times', hot-linked by Busspasspar above. Article about the role of hedge fund backers of Johnson and his Party. Sometimes I've thought posters are just over-cynical. But to be given source material like that - thanks Busspasspar - very helpful.
Post Edited (Sun 29 Sep 23:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 30 Sep 13:35
It's nothing new unfortunately: it became more known after Black Wednesday but that was only due to a biggger economy being targetted. Third World economies have to deal with similar deliberate currency sabotage every day because they are in less of a position to do anything about it, whilst the impact on smaller economies is obviously much much harder to absorb.
The economic chaos supports political chaos, which leads to even more vulnerable economies.
Caputalism and kleptocracy are very closely related.
Post Edited (Mon 30 Sep 13:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
