Everything is going to be alright, Uri Geller is going to stop Brexit telepathically.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
As opposed to Labour who will drive the country in to mountains of debt to get a following?
Don't try to pretend it's a one way thing!
Its pretty shambolic all round to be frank. I think this is the biggest crisis in this country since WW2 (and WW1 before that) when we had a national government of sorts and the problem is that many of our MPs, and more importantly our party leaders, are still playing party political games.
The feck off great lump on the right hand side is the Tories last decade. The small dip and subsequent small rise is the last Labour government decade.
Let's also remember that this was a period of Austerity inflicted on us by the Tories.
Cuts to the Police, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Education... of course cuts to the corporations and super rich too.
That is my whole point, it was blinding obvious from the start that there never could be a 'good deal' because; a) that would have laid the EU open to a number of other requests to leave the club from others; b) A point well made by the EU and others, was that you can't have the same situation outside the club as being a member.
Hence the UK Government should, if it wanted to honour the results of the referendum, have given notice via A50 that it was leaving and spent the next 2 years making contingency plans for a 'No deal' scenario in the UK. There was IMO never any prospect of a 'good deal,' the withdrawal agreement favours only the EU (naturally), because they always insisted they couldn't discuss trade until we left the EU, so the priority for us was to leave, then see what terms for trade we could get, balancing the needs of our exporters, with those who import from the EU, as we will finish up having to do, if we leave (deal or no deal).
There is one thing that I don't like about your post, it's that you state that there isn't a good deal when the good deal is EU full membership. It's that simple, after 3 years people need to start being honest and stop the nonsense about the EU not giving the best deal, the best deal is already in your possession that's what the UK decided to throw away.
Once we were out of the EU, it would be a lot easier because of this situation and the starting negotiation stance would have changed, i.e. as it currently stands the UK meets the EU's regulations/standards etc.
The idea the EU would just roll over and we could have our cake and eat it was a nonsense, just as much as Project Fear was
The UKs main leverage is those 39b. Once that goes out of the window and the EU is forced to adapt to it then there is little incentive for the EU to offer a good trade deal. The UK will be this pariah who can't keep its word, it refused to pay its bills and has forced a hard border between the ROI and NR
Under such circumstance the EU willl be better off disrupting UK based businesses so they will have no choice but to move to mainland Europe. A huge recession in the UK might push voters to push to return in the EU, yet another huge incentive
With the UK desperate to sign trade deals with the US, China and Co, the standards will have to drop giving the EU more reason to drag its feet No one wants the crap the Brits will be eating to enter the single market
Ps project fear is swiftly becoming project reality
Last edited:
it's basically like having a Ferrari, and someone offers to trade your Ferrari for a Lada. Sure, the Lada still works, it still functions in a way, and can do the basics of the Ferrari, but if you accept that Lada, you are truly a stupid cnut.
The real cause of brexit. And it's going to get worse.
Heh. Ireland isn't even on that list. Probably because our "GDP" figures are about twice the size of our real GDP.
Was chatting to a guy in Mauritius a few days ago that said who cares about the EU, they don't represent what the UK are, they're a colonial power, they'll just lean on their commonwealth friends and everything'll be fine. His views were oddly explicit but you get that undercurrent from a lot of folks on the leave side, even in the highest positions. Who needs our neighbours, we're too powerful to worry about little things like that. The economic facts are entirely irrelevant.
I hadn't realised the UK was not even in control of the article 50 exit date. I'd never seen this mentioned before:
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/03/23/extending-article-50-separating-myth-and-legal-reality/
There is actually no way of the UK leaving the EU on WTO or without a deal unless they allow us to. They can just extend the exit date, forever if needed without even consulting us.
That puts the negotiations in a whole new light as well. I would say definitively it is impossible to leave the EU (without permission) by using article 50. The only way of actually leaving and having it in our own hands, would be to repeal the treaties binding us in international law first.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/03/23/extending-article-50-separating-myth-and-legal-reality/
There is actually no way of the UK leaving the EU on WTO or without a deal unless they allow us to. They can just extend the exit date, forever if needed without even consulting us.
That puts the negotiations in a whole new light as well. I would say definitively it is impossible to leave the EU (without permission) by using article 50. The only way of actually leaving and having it in our own hands, would be to repeal the treaties binding us in international law first.
Not if you voted leave its not... isn't that the whole point? Leavers for whatever reason (and there seems to have been many and varied for leaving) were not on the whole driven by the economics of EU membership, which most leavers probably felt didn't favour them anyway, they were voting for other things. Most who voted remain seem to have only voted to remain because of the worry of damage to the economy (this point is not clear at the moment but seems to be the accepted position)
My argument is that after the referendum the Government should be honest and say "look whilst we are still a member of the EU we can't get a 'good deal' so if the majority want us to leave, then we leave with No deal and then start to negotiate once we are out. The fact that we are currently compatible with EU Regs and standards give us a chance; at negotiating a 'good deal outcome', to have control over our affairs and to negotiate freely for trade deals, not only with the EU (which wont be on as good a terms as now) but can be attainable in a balanced trade policy.
They didn't do that, May clung to the belief she could satisfy everybody and finished up satisfying nobody. Theresa should go now, have a long extension to A50 and allow a new PM to try again.
No, its that the EU exports more to us than we do to them that's the nub of it. I doubt if either wants to get into a trade war or cutting noses off to spite face.
'Project fear' was always nonsense as was 'Cake and eat it', isn't it time we left these behind now surely!
It's weird because would they make the same argument with France, Spain or Portugal? Portugal should tell Brazil to send money to Lisbon next week.
I'm not sure i can take Gove as PM it'll be like being ruled by Rimmer. I can guarantee he has Napoleans diaries and has classic war figurines set up in battle in his study.
Close to 5 million signatures on the petition, there was another one calling for a second referendum which got similar numbers but that was hijacked by bots. Nobody with any serious clout has suggested this yet and I'm sure it will pass the 5 million mark.
What more do people have to do to be listened to?
As Martin Luther King said "a riot is the language of the unheard" and I fear we could see this if things don't take a different course. I abhor destroying cities but the government can't keep ignoring the people. If anything we're to happen, I would hope nobody is hurt.
What more do people have to do to be listened to?
As Martin Luther King said "a riot is the language of the unheard" and I fear we could see this if things don't take a different course. I abhor destroying cities but the government can't keep ignoring the people. If anything we're to happen, I would hope nobody is hurt.
You may want to read it again. The UK is in control, this article tells you that as long as the UK aren't out of the EU, the UK and in this case the prime minister can lawfully ask for an extension according to EU laws. It also tells you that the official exit date is now April 12th according to EU laws, unless the UK decides otherwise and ask for an other extension, revoke art.50 or agree to the withdrawal agreement.
Ffs. I bet a colleague on Friday that she’d be gone by the end of the week.
Labour were in power during the boom and continued spending so that we had no contingency. In 2008 the banking crisis came so that rise has nothing to do with the Tories.
The feck off great lump on the right hand side is the Tories last decade. The small dip and subsequent small rise is the last Labour government decade.
Let's also remember that this was a period of Austerity inflicted on us by the Tories.
Cuts to the Police, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Education... of course cuts to the corporations and super rich too.
We are currently in the lowest ever unemployment the country has ever had, so you can't blame the business side.
And the Tories have had us in 'austerity', as you say.
Are you not missing the rather obvious point that the Tories have no option but to do what they have done as we would otherwise be closer to 100% debt!
On the flip side, if Labour acted responsibly and didn't try to buy votes that 80% peak could be at more like 60%.
Yet another completely incorrect sweeping statement.
Completely true. There is no common purpose with any of the parties or politicians for national unity. The only common interest is self preservation.
Heaven help us when there is gespacho soup on the menu at a diplomatic dinner...
In fairness as awful as POB would be he probably isn't as Machiavellian as mogg... Nor as incompetent as Johnson
I know it's damning with faint praise but he might be the most realistic option
Another who doesn't understand that we have to cut costs to reduce the debt.
Basic lesson for you, every pound spent on debt (interest) is less than can be spent on public services.
Labour spent too much during the boom so when the banking crisis happened the government debt has spiraled to ridiculous levels. This now means that rather than a continued level of public sector spend at a steady rate we have instead been forced to take massive cuts to control the debt and ensure in the longer run the country will be better supported financially.
It's exactly the same problem as everyone moans about with the Glazers, money in debt is money not being spent on players....well in the UK it's less money on public services.
And I bet that a large percentage of the miserably small figure for the UK is the NHS.
The Tories austerity plan has much to answer for because even with this appalling cap on public services our debt has actually increased so the question is. Was it worth it.
listen to yourself. You make it sound like it's a scene out of 28 days later. It's a shit situation defined by a lack of leadership across every political party, but it's nowhere near to the extreme of rioting.I think its because the media is owned by people whose best interests are served by those right wingers. People are influenced by that media.
I think it's a progression that might happen, particular under no deal with shortages of food and medicine. It's an extreme situation yes but it's not out of the scope of possibility
As another lesson - and further proof of Labour's massive public spend - could you link me the maximum %gdp the Blair/Brown spendthrifts wasted prior to the 2008 banking crisis?
The feck off great lump on the right hand side is the Tories last decade. The small dip and subsequent small rise is the last Labour government decade.
Let's also remember that this was a period of Austerity inflicted on us by the Tories.
Cuts to the Police, cuts to the NHS, cuts to Education... of course cuts to the corporations and super rich too.
It's a touch more complicated than than that, and a leveraged buy out of a football club is not comparable to a country. Even if all if the above was an accurate representation, which it is not, it is a delightful coincidence for the Conservative party that the required solution to the economic situation just happened to be identical to their ideological preference? Pretending Tories are all about economic common sense no longer stands up to even the most cursory examination.
Yes of course people are influenced by the media. Just look at the massive advertising budgets.
That is why the Daily Mail is so popular and that is where the Tories get most of their support.
To me it is a depressing paper. Full of sensationalised bad news which it's readers seem to love.
They should give free razor blades with every copy so after reading the rubbish you can go away and slit your wrists.
I would be pretty confident in saying that it's not going to happen. If you define 'scope of possibility' as a percentage, then it'd be less than 0.1%. Whilst people are unhappy with politics, they're not anarchists.
Well. It’ll be “interesting” to see what happens if we stay in, with exactly the same relationship with the EU, effectively ignoring all those Brexit votes if that’s what ultimately happens won’t it?
I for one don’t see a major resurgence of Farage & UKIP in that scenario at all. No siree.
You made the ascertation that Labour would spend this country into oblivion and I’m simply showing you that the Tories aren’t spending at all, despite recent economic growth.
Also you shouldn’t throw around such hyperbole about who understands economics and who doesn’t, particularly when you quoted the unemployment figures being a win for the tories, but conveniently didn’t mention the zero contract hours which are a significant contributor to the unemployment numbers.
Further to that, this idea that due to Labour’s spending the Tories simply HAD to cut to balance the books and recover the deficit is false and oversimplified. When recovering from a severe downturn such as 2008 — and with interest rates at nearly zero — the deficit should not be the target of policy. Instead, it should be allowed to expand until the economy has recovered. Also Osborne said austerity would last until 2015, and by then public spending would increase because the economy will have fully recovered - he failed spectacularly and now that has been delayed to 2025, a 10 year revision.
As for your Glazers analogy, well the less said about that the better.
1. Debt decrease can be obtained by getting more revenues or/and cut costs. BUT BUT if you reduce costs and fire public employees, then it could increase the unemployment rate (bad for future public revenues) and decrease the profitability of private firms (less future taxes so bad for future public revenues). From a financial/financing/accounting standpoint, the State has to be viewed as a public investor. So, the question should be more about the efficiency of costs and the investment philosophy/social&ecomomic priorities...
2. Recourse to debt is used to repay existing debt, existing financial costs (interests, fees..)... but also can be a way to finance public services directly or indirectly
3. The issue is all the Western countries have saved the banking industry by the recourse to public debt i.e. Privatise the Profits - Nationalise the Losses
4. Glazers use LBO financing to boost the return on equity. Absolutely nothing to do with sporting/operating considerations. A high gearing ratio to limit the equity spent and diversify a portfolio. Also, Glazers spent a lot of money on players so the question is more about the quality/price ratio of the recruits
Last edited: