|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 29, 2019 23:11:18 GMT
What kind of politician is Boris Johnson? An alpha male Chad with massive fucking balls. Just a shame he's a Tory.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 29, 2019 23:30:12 GMT
Parliament has had 3 readings of various Withdrawal agreements in the last 3 years that have been comprehensively been defeated. I don't think any anyone would suggest that an agreement could be reached in 6 days or 6 months or 6 years. Time for a leader of the country to lead for a change. So you're happy for a Prime Minister to make a huge decision with next to no scrutiny from Parliament? Imagine if it was Corbyn doing it to nationalise the railways. I would agree with it if he'd been blocked from doing it for 3 years and it was in his manifesto! I very much doubt we will leave with a no deal, Rip.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 30, 2019 6:09:48 GMT
What kind of politician is Boris Johnson? An alpha male Chad with massive fucking balls. Just a shame he's a Tory. Ok, thanks. I haven't followed this and him at all over here. So you think he might be good. Not that populistic village idiot kind of guy he was called yesterday over here by some stranger I heard downtown then ...
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 30, 2019 6:16:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 30, 2019 6:17:25 GMT
What kind of politician is Boris Johnson? We will find out over the coming months.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 30, 2019 6:22:10 GMT
What kind of politician is Boris Johnson? We will find out over the coming months. Ok. I overheard a discussion irl and that's why I asked. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Aug 30, 2019 6:25:42 GMT
If the Tories have become right wing and populist, it's only because Labour have been hijacked by the far left.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 30, 2019 6:32:45 GMT
If the Tories have become right wing and populist, it's only because Labour have been hijacked by the far left. True. But I think the swing here is caused by their unclear stance on Brexit. At this moment in time it seems that clarity (ie for or against) is what voters are looking for. The last election wasn’t fought on Brexit, the next one, if it happens before Brexit takes place, will be about that one subject. Which I’ve suggested ain’t good for Labour because they’ll be under huge pressure in their northern heartlands from the Brexit Party and in their metropolitan strongholds from the LibDems.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 8:52:50 GMT
So you're happy for a Prime Minister to make a huge decision with next to no scrutiny from Parliament? Imagine if it was Corbyn doing it to nationalise the railways. I would agree with it if he'd been blocked from doing it for 3 years and it was in his manifesto! I very much doubt we will leave with a no deal, Rip. I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 8:58:56 GMT
I would agree with it if he'd been blocked from doing it for 3 years and it was in his manifesto! I very much doubt we will leave with a no deal, Rip. I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong. Why would the vast majority of a party think that something in a manifesto? I'm no Brexiteer but I've never spoken to one that was who thought voting to leave meant leaving in name but really staying in?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 9:04:21 GMT
I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong. Why would the vast majority of a party think that something in a manifesto? I'm no Brexiteer but I've never spoken to one that was who thought voting to leave meant leaving in name but really staying in? Leaving with no deal was not in the Conservative manifesto. I've never met anyone who believes that if we leave the EU then we will still be in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 9:05:57 GMT
Why would the vast majority of a party think that something in a manifesto? I'm no Brexiteer but I've never spoken to one that was who thought voting to leave meant leaving in name but really staying in? Leaving with no deal was not in the Conservative manifesto. I've never met anyone who believes that if we leave the EU then we will still be in the EU. If you leave the EU but stay in the single market etc you are pretty much still in the EU?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 9:10:46 GMT
Leaving with no deal was not in the Conservative manifesto. I've never met anyone who believes that if we leave the EU then we will still be in the EU. If you leave the EU but stay in the single market etc you are pretty much still in the EU? No you are not. Are Switzerland a member of the EU because they are part of Schenghen?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Aug 30, 2019 9:14:53 GMT
If you leave the EU but stay in the single market etc you are pretty much still in the EU? No you are not. Are Switzerland a member of the EU because they are part of Schenghen? The Swiss negotiate deals on their Toblerone. That arrangement is cuckoo to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 9:17:46 GMT
If you leave the EU but stay in the single market etc you are pretty much still in the EU? No you are not. Are Switzerland a member of the EU because they are part of Schenghen? No but when it comes to these arrangements there are various different models. Each with different restrictions on what can and can't be done what degree of EU control is retained. It's been three years and no-one has agreed on which one. It's always been the case that if a deal can't be agreed we leave with no deal. It's been 3 years. I think it's a daft idea personally right now but I can't sit and whinge about it because people were given a vote and this was the decision. The government have faffed around for 3 years. Treated the general public like they are all idiots. Everything has been about Brexit while loads of other things are going to shit - police, schools, social welfare etc. They've been an utter embarrassment but at the end of the day it's happen. As I said I haven't met a single Leave voter that doesn't think "Leave means leave".
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 30, 2019 9:23:43 GMT
The Scottish judge has thrown out the appeal against the prerougue 👍👍
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Aug 30, 2019 9:29:55 GMT
The Scottish judge has thrown out the appeal against the prerougue 👍👍 Quite right too it's perfectly legal, might not be "fair" but neither is the traitorous plotting serves them right.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 9:35:39 GMT
No you are not. Are Switzerland a member of the EU because they are part of Schenghen? No but when it comes to these arrangements there are various different models. Each with different restrictions on what can and can't be done what degree of EU control is retained. It's been three years and no-one has agreed on which one. It's always been the case that if a deal can't be agreed we leave with no deal. It's been 3 years. I think it's a daft idea personally right now but I can't sit and whinge about it because people were given a vote and this was the decision. The government have faffed around for 3 years. Treated the general public like they are all idiots. Everything has been about Brexit while loads of other things are going to shit - police, schools, social welfare etc. They've been an utter embarrassment but at the end of the day it's happen. As I said I haven't met a single Leave voter that doesn't think "Leave means leave". I think "Leave means Leave". It's fairly obvious to me that's what it means - to no longer be a member of the EU. There's actually two option if a deal is not agreed - leave with no deal, or negotiate an extension. I agree on the rest of the post though - the amount of time wasted over this has been collosal. I said as much when, two years after the vote, there was a big grand headline declarind that May's cabinet had all agreed a negotiating strategy for Brexit. Two fucking years after the vote had taken place. Mind you, all the delaying has played into right-wing Tories hands so it was probably always supposed to be that way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 9:39:34 GMT
No but when it comes to these arrangements there are various different models. Each with different restrictions on what can and can't be done what degree of EU control is retained. It's been three years and no-one has agreed on which one. It's always been the case that if a deal can't be agreed we leave with no deal. It's been 3 years. I think it's a daft idea personally right now but I can't sit and whinge about it because people were given a vote and this was the decision. The government have faffed around for 3 years. Treated the general public like they are all idiots. Everything has been about Brexit while loads of other things are going to shit - police, schools, social welfare etc. They've been an utter embarrassment but at the end of the day it's happen. As I said I haven't met a single Leave voter that doesn't think "Leave means leave". I think "Leave means Leave". It's fairly obvious to me that's what it means - to no longer be a member of the EU. There's actually two option if a deal is not agreed - leave with no deal, or negotiate an extension. I agree on the rest of the post though - the amount of time wasted over this has been collosal. I said as much when, two years after the vote, there was a big grand headline declarind that May's cabinet had all agreed a negotiating strategy for Brexit. Two fucking years after the vote had taken place. Mind you, all the delaying has played into right-wing Tories hands so it was probably always supposed to be that way. Where there is division the right wing will always clean up. When Labour don't address the concerns of the normal working man the right-wing Tories will always play their hand. It's happened thousands of times in history. I'm a Labour supporter but they've got to take a good long look at the themselves here for their role in this mess.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Aug 30, 2019 9:44:18 GMT
No deal holds me fears for me I'm lucky I guess, but I know for the majority leaving with a deal will be the better options. However due to all the bullshit plotting a part of me hopes we leave no deal then ALL of the plotters will have this squarely on them. There has been three years to sort this and three times a vote was rejected for nothing but party political reasons. Labour who allegedly support leaving have now allowed this to happen by not supporting a deal the ERG and other no deal extremists could not have stopped this if they had done the right thing. I hope they all rot in hell.... but from purely a personal point happy days.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 9:54:12 GMT
No deal holds me fears for me I'm lucky I guess, but I know for the majority leaving with a deal will be the better options. However due to all the bullshit plotting a part of me hopes we leave no deal then ALL of the plotters will have this squarely on them. There has been three years to sort this and three times a vote was rejected for nothing but party political reasons. Labour who allegedly support leaving have now allowed this to happen by not supporting a deal the ERG and other no deal extremists could not have stopped this if they had done the right thing. I hope they all rot in hell.... but from purely a personal point happy days. To be honest, I'm pretty similar. I don't think no deal is a shit idea because it will affect me directly (indirectly and in smaller ways I think it will affect everyone), I just think it is a shit idea.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 9:59:04 GMT
I think "Leave means Leave". It's fairly obvious to me that's what it means - to no longer be a member of the EU. There's actually two option if a deal is not agreed - leave with no deal, or negotiate an extension. I agree on the rest of the post though - the amount of time wasted over this has been collosal. I said as much when, two years after the vote, there was a big grand headline declarind that May's cabinet had all agreed a negotiating strategy for Brexit. Two fucking years after the vote had taken place. Mind you, all the delaying has played into right-wing Tories hands so it was probably always supposed to be that way. Where there is division the right wing will always clean up. When Labour don't address the concerns of the normal working man the right-wing Tories will always play their hand. It's happened thousands of times in history. I'm a Labour supporter but they've got to take a good long look at the themselves here for their role in this mess. Who was the last Labour leader/administration to address the concerns of the normal working man in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 10:12:23 GMT
Where there is division the right wing will always clean up. When Labour don't address the concerns of the normal working man the right-wing Tories will always play their hand. It's happened thousands of times in history. I'm a Labour supporter but they've got to take a good long look at the themselves here for their role in this mess. Who was the last Labour leader/administration to address the concerns of the normal working man in your opinion? Well that's a question and a half! What I meant was they've turned their backs on all the Labour voters that voted leave. I won't go on about it again but I agree with Tricky they would have been better off standing on a "workers Brexit" than what they are currently do it now. Corbyn is traditionally anti-EU. The Tony Benn school of thought which I full agree with. So it's all been a complete joke!
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 10:23:14 GMT
Who was the last Labour leader/administration to address the concerns of the normal working man in your opinion? Well that's a question and a half! What I meant was they've turned their backs on all the Labour voters that voted leave. I won't go on about it again but I agree with Tricky they would have been better off standing on a "workers Brexit" than what they are currently do it now. Corbyn is traditionally anti-EU. The Tony Benn school of thought which I full agree with. So it's all been a complete joke! Last I read (which admittedly was a few months ago) there was quite a lot of research to show that Labour would gain votes if he supported a second referendum - the figure that sticks in my mind is 10%. He's ultimately leader of a party whose voters in the majority voted to remain, so I'm not sure this idea of him gaining votes if he pushes for Brexit is neccessarily true. I guess we'll never know unless there is an election.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 30, 2019 10:50:31 GMT
I would agree with it if he'd been blocked from doing it for 3 years and it was in his manifesto! I very much doubt we will leave with a no deal, Rip. I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong. I don’t buy into your theory but I’ll go along with it for now for the discussion. So if, as you say, this is all part of a master plan by the extreme right of the Tory party, what is in it for them? Most of them are business owners, landowners, investors and other forms of wealthy individuals. If as some predict, we as a country will go down the shitter if we leave with no deal, why would the extreme right be promoting this when it is likely to damage their Businesses, their property values, damage their investments and damage just about everything else that they might hold dear. Why would they do this?
|
|
|
Post by lommack on Aug 30, 2019 11:03:13 GMT
No deal holds me fears for me I'm lucky I guess, but I know for the majority leaving with a deal will be the better options. However due to all the bullshit plotting a part of me hopes we leave no deal then ALL of the plotters will have this squarely on them. There has been three years to sort this and three times a vote was rejected for nothing but party political reasons. Labour who allegedly support leaving have now allowed this to happen by not supporting a deal the ERG and other no deal extremists could not have stopped this if they had done the right thing. I hope they all rot in hell.... but from purely a personal point happy days. I'm alright Jack!
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 30, 2019 11:03:34 GMT
I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong. I don’t buy into your theory but I’ll go along with it for now for the discussion. So if, as you say, this is all part of a master plan by the extreme right of the Tory party, what is in it for them? Most of them are business owners, landowners, investors and other forms of wealthy individuals. If as some predict, we as a country will go down the shitter if we leave with no deal, why would the extreme right be promoting this when it is likely to damage their Businesses, their property values, damage their investments and damage just about everything else that they might hold dear. Why would they do this? Wealthy people can create profit from chaos - it's the smaller people/companies that can't react quick enough. Put it this way, if it did go tits up (and I'm not saying it will) who do you think will be more affected - the rich or the poor?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 11:04:06 GMT
I wouldn't agree with it, even in those circumstances. If a Prime Minister is struggling to get things through parliaments it means either their majority is wafer-thin, meaning the public have decided that they don't want him/her to have that much power and he/she should be scrutinised rigiourously by parliament, or they are trying to implement something that vast swathes of their own party think is a shit idea. In both of those circumstances I don't believe removing parliament from the process is the answer. I think we'll leave with no deal. I think for the last two or three years the right-wing of the Tory party have been planning this. May was a puppet who they did not allow to deliver Brexit because it didn't fit in with their idea of Brexit. Now Johnson is drafted in at the last minute with the excuse that there's simply not time to scuritinise his Brexit plans, and the extreme side of the Tory part will get what it wanted all along. The estabishment always gets what it wants and it's been hankering for no deal for a long time. They've been waiting and waiting for the British public to lose patience and just want it to be all over, then they draft their man in to do the deed without the normal 'checks and balances' that any self-respecting democracy should have. With a decent control of the message, all the deflection of "will of the people" and "traitors" have just pushed pepople further to the extremes whereby now some people think leaving with a no deal is actually the only way to give people what they voted for. If you'd said that before the referendum, or even in the months after the referendum you would've been called an idiot and an extremist. Now we're supposed to be believe 17m+ people all had the exact same idea of a post-Brexit Britiain when they put their 'x' in the box - imagine how unlikely 20,0000 Stoke fans agreeing on something is on a matchday, then times that by 850 and see if you believe it's realistic that all people would agree. The whole process has played into the hands of a few very well-connected, very wealthy string-pullers, and if it wasn't such an important issue then I'd say fair play to them on a well-planned, deviously-constructed plan. If we leave with a no deal, hopefully the initial disruption (of which there will be some) is not too much that it doesn't stop us re-building in the near future. I tend to think we will be at a low ebb when we're doing at the re-building, which is my main problem with leaving without a deal, but I hope I'm wrong. Anyway, this turned into a long one when it wasn't supposed to be. Given that I think we'll leave with no deal and you think we'll leave with a deal, it's fair to say that we can both agree in hoping that we're wrong. I don’t buy into your theory but I’ll go along with it for now for the discussion. So if, as you say, this is all part of a master plan by the extreme right of the Tory party, what is in it for them? Most of them are business owners, landowners, investors and other forms of wealthy individuals. If as some predict, we as a country will go down the shitter if we leave with no deal, why would the extreme right be promoting this when it is likely to damage their Businesses, their property values, damage their investments and damage just about everything else that they might hold dear. Why would they do this? Because they get out of the EU regulations that stop them bringing taxes down, selling stuff off etc etc etc. Because it does away with all a lot of the controls that safeguard from those type of things. Because it's stops Donald Trump buying up the national health services and selling us cheap nasty American food and the like! Because it stops them dishing out contracts to themselves and their mates! They are promoting it because it will make the rich richer (whilst making the poor poorer). The owners of the car factories aren't going to lose out are they? No of course not, they will just move and use it as an excuse to find a cheaper labour force. Anyone that isn't a millionaire or absolutely rolling in who thinks Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage has their best interests at heart really does need to give their heads a wobble!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 30, 2019 11:05:25 GMT
I don’t buy into your theory but I’ll go along with it for now for the discussion. So if, as you say, this is all part of a master plan by the extreme right of the Tory party, what is in it for them? Most of them are business owners, landowners, investors and other forms of wealthy individuals. If as some predict, we as a country will go down the shitter if we leave with no deal, why would the extreme right be promoting this when it is likely to damage their Businesses, their property values, damage their investments and damage just about everything else that they might hold dear. Why would they do this? Wealthy people can create profit from chaos - it's the smaller people/companies that can't react quick enough. Put it this way, if it did go tits up (and I'm not saying it will) who do you think will be more affected - the rich or the poor? The poor/ unemployed are suffering more than the rich within the EU
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 11:11:18 GMT
Wealthy people can create profit from chaos - it's the smaller people/companies that can't react quick enough. Put it this way, if it did go tits up (and I'm not saying it will) who do you think will be more affected - the rich or the poor? The poor/ unemployed are suffering more than the rich within the EU Yeah I don't think a Tory led Brexit is going to help with that . And if you think that some of those rich people aren't going to get even richer from a Tory Brexit then you're also wrong! The Tories don't give a fuck about the poor or unemployed! They've literally made them poor and unemployed - the fucking UN wrote a report that it was their bloody fault! The EU didn't implement their austerity plan!
|
|