Their plan appears to be the free marketeers dream of a deregulated Singapore-on-Thames offshore haven with a privatised NHS and corporation tax rates of 10% (plus a big trade deal with the Donald).
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Their plan appears to be the free marketeers dream of a deregulated Singapore-on-Thames offshore haven with a privatised NHS and corporation tax rates of 10% (plus a big trade deal with the Donald).
Pretty much.
Reads like wishful thinking to me. Why would the EU be freer to make concessions than they are now? It’d be in the interests of both sides to make a deal but the EUs leverage would be even greater. Imagine the UK negotiating with emptying shelves, huge queues at Dover, a possible run on the pound, massive politicial pressure... and much of the EU keen for Britain to learn some lessons about fecking with an economic superpower.
Never understood how (a) they think there is any appetite for this in the UK (b) why they think Singapore is any kind of a model for us, I mean Singapore sits at the nexus of SE Asia’s major trade routes, as SE Asia gets richer so does it. More likely we end up like Vienna, cut adrift as trade routes evolve. (c) how they think there is a political settlement which will allow anything like it. It was only 52/48 and quite clearly it’s not settled especially given demographics.
They ought to look at the extreme wealth inequality that exists in Singapore before dreaming about it´s economy as the ideal economic framework. Singapore is great if you only look at it superficially but deeper down it is less so.
I have looked around on several information sites and they all have very similar numbers as this one: https://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createDataTable.action?refId=12307
Singapore is not a cheap country to live in either in general. People are being sold the millionaires dream like the euro jackpot while forgetting the number winning in it is very low in procent.
Last edited:
I totally agree that a remain programme which did not recognise the pressures that led to Brexit would be unviable. But pressing for change as the EU level also would need to be accompanied by changes at the UK level. The UK is no poster child for democracy itself, frankly, and arguably many of the problems we blame the EU for are completely home grown.
We already have a Singapore in the UK, it is called London.
Indeed, there's no democratic mandate for a hard Brexit - I doubt very many of the people who voted Brexit had 'no deal' in mind. I don't suppose that will matter much to Johnson/Raab/McVey.
I somehow doubt that extreme wealth inequality is something which keeps Rees-Mogg et al awake at night - they know which end of it they will find themselves on. A 'new Singapore' has been their wet dream for years.
Guy on Newsnight just now: "we're fed up with people saying we don't know what we voted for, with saying we're racist. We're not racist. We do know what we voted for. We voted to leave Europe" ...okkkk but why?
This makes up the overwhelming number of comments I read online from Leave voters, to the point where I've completely given up engaging with anyone over it. I'm just looking for another layer of thought or reasoning and I don't get it outside of this forum. Even then the well thought through stuff is few and far between!
It just seems to almost always come down to moronic nationalism and/or stubbornly sticking it to everyone else for some reason, and they're either kidding themselves that it's not, too dumb to realise, or proud of it. It's so strange, and it's scary that we're having to, or at least expected to accept it as if it's a sensible reasoning and anyone who is angry about all this happening because of them is out of order.
Because they would be dealing with a third country whom many of the states within the EU wish to have access to its markets in the same way the UK wants access with other EU states; issues around the four freedoms will be able to be negotiated freely as they have with other third countries, and would not be a breach of internal EU rules, because the UK will no longer be internal, in other words, every thing is possible.
I'm afraid the project fear aspect has been done to death, yes there will be some disruption, but it cuts both ways and if all the politicians are to be believed (in the EU and UK) then contingencies for a no deal scenario are well underway. We have other ports besides Dover, so called stockpiling will alleviate any empty shelves aspects , runs on the pound are nothing new they ebb and flow, and of course political pressure, but it cannot be much worse than now and will be just as intense in the other EU states, especially those who are standing to lose very large and important markets, Ireland for one will be hard hit!
Unfortunately it has been an underlying fact since the 23rd June 2016 that after that result the outcome would always be either a revoking of A50 (should have happened 29th March 2019) or a No deal outcome, which will be the default position on 31st October 2019, nothing else passes muster!
John Cleese reiterating his love for Brexit whilst having a dig at London, as he prepares to move to the Carribean for tax purposes.
He says that London is “not really an English city” like it’s a bad thing. What are these wonderful English cities that London should aspire to be a bit more like?
Or as if there was such a thing as a "English city" that one would be just as likely to find in Cornwall as on the Tyne.
What he means is that none of the service personal serving him speaks English as their first language. At least that was my observation (opposed to, say, Scarborough).
Milton Keynes. Roundabouts are the pinnacle of British engineering.
I suppose he means its full of 'foreigners'; remember Snows comments about "cannot remembering seeing so many white faces..."?
The country is only in a decent position for those doing well economically. A lot of people who've been hit hard by austerity haven't recovered despite economic improvements and rightfully argue that they were punished for the errors of rich bankers. The argument that their arguments are based on fairytales are largely bollocks anyway - governments find money when they want to spend it and I'd much rather they actually spent it on people to reduce inequality instead of bribing other parties like May did.
Along similar lines a lot of younger people have supported Labour because they see rising house prices and reducing opportunities for employment and get annoyed that they're being told it's somehow all their fault after older generations largely fecked them over economically. The current settlement of capitalism just isn't working for a lot of them.
I have a lot of issues with Corbyn, primarily relating to his stance on Brexit and a lot of the dodgy associations he's had over the years, but there's a lot he's right on and there are reasons a lot of people want him in power. What do the Tories offer anyone under the age of 65?
There's something really insidious about this sort of nonsense - there's a lot of issues with how London dominates the UK economy to a ridiculous extent but when people say it's not really British what they tend to mean is they don't like most of the immigrants there.
Oh God, not Cleese. That's just depressing. I really didn't think he'd think this way given some of his previous tirades against the use of Social Justice Warrior, etc.
I think that's exactly what he means. So just like every other modern cosmopolitan city.
This whole nostalgia thing is actually quite dangerous. People wanting the sort of change you could only implement with a time machine. When the electorate start demanding things that no political party could ever reasonably promise to deliver, you end up with bullshit artists like like Trump and Johnson coming into power.
We still have Palin, he's very much pro EU.
I'm not English and I haven't been in London for a long time but I've heard a number of people coming out with similar sentiments to Cleese, most of whom have now left the city.
There was a documentary about it on the BBC a number of years ago (I can't remember the title) and I found it both sad and a possible portent of things to come. You could see a lot of the Brexit stirrings in it in other words.
There was a documentary about it on the BBC a number of years ago (I can't remember the title) and I found it both sad and a possible portent of things to come. You could see a lot of the Brexit stirrings in it in other words.
I haven't ever really noticed. I just go to London and get pissed off with how busy the tube is.
I don't even understand the issues with a multi cultural city, I think its a good thing for society myself.
London has always been multicultural and is an international hub. It was one of the reasons I loved living there and that was almost two decades ago now. London is in England, but it belongs to the World too, just like Paris or New York, etc, etc.
This is to be celebrated.
I'm not even sure what "English" feels like. There is little commonality between, say, Warrington or Ascot or Taunton as a random set of examples. All are English.
I never understand this kind of national identity position however, so I'm not best placed to comment.
Why is it British people going to Spain to live are referred to as expats and not immigrants?
Skin colour.
There are a small number of issues. One is that the cultures tend to be very segregated. Tourists and visitors won't notice this because they tend to only visit central London, but if you go to some parts in Greater London, its very noticeable. As a result, there seems to be a lack of effort to integrate, socially, between the communities. Polish people will stick with other polish, almost religiously. Same with Chinese people. Same with English people. However, it has improved in some areas over time.
Another issue is just purely based on numbers. The infrastructure is crumbling to pieces. The city has improved its railways but they remain crowded, the roads are poor (holes in the roads are common). The NHS and police are also particularly struggling in London (which is why gang related crime is an issue here) and housing prices are ridiculously high anywhere in London. This is partly due to the number of people moving to London and also an aging population, but the primary cause is the government not spending wisely enough to tackle these issues.
Cleese. 
Eric Idle is anti Brexit. Nobody mentioned him.
Eric Idle is anti Brexit. Nobody mentioned him.
That isn't isolated to just London, those are issues country wide. Yell at the Tory Government for barely spending any money into our infrastructure, that's the real issue here.
Well its a bit of both tory and labour governments but yes, I agree.
To be fair that type of thing is fairly common across the world. When the English go to Spain, they don't always assimilate and we don't cry home about it.
Personally as someone that comes from a community, I don't really see a problem with integration as it's another buzzword that doesn't mean much. The crucial thing is to respect the country's laws, not to create walls and to participate in the important events such as voting. Am I that bothered that there is enclave of Vauxhall that is Little Portugal? No and I don't see why people should be.
Every major city in almost all Western countries are cosmopolitan in nature and have been for years. I don't think its nostalgia as such for most people who actually live there but only for people like Cleese who have for all intents and purposes left to reside elsewhere. Sean Connery's the same always banging on about Scotland, but doesn't live there.
Brexit, at least for the leavers I've met, goes much deeper, most don't want to be part of a European super state which is where the EU is heading and don't like the idea of someone telling them what to do, which how the EU Commission and other aspects of the EU is perceived.
Brexit, at least for the leavers I've met, goes much deeper, most don't want to be part of a European super state which is where the EU is heading and don't like the idea of someone telling them what to do, which how the EU Commission and other aspects of the EU is perceived.
I disagree that the country is only doing ok for the wealthy. Unemployment is at a historic low. The majority of new jobs created are full time. The minimum wage has increased 25% from £6.50 to £8.13 over the past 5 years, whilst inflation has increased at less than half this rate. General Wage growth is strong (average 3%). The tax free allowance has increased from £8k to £12.5k over the same period. The bottom 10% in terms of earnings (the poorest workers in society) are seeing % wage growth at the fastest of all bands. I'd absolutely say that the country is doing decent by any normal metric. Obviously the country isn't back to where it was pre-crash and obviously there are still people who're absolutely struggling every day; however if you don't believe the country as a whole have done "decent" over the last 5 years then I'd say that your expectations need to be tempered.
I don't want this turning into a Tory vs Labour discussion as I support neither, but to believe that the Labour manifesto of 2017 would do anything to help the people you speak about is simply bizarre. Implementing it would have tanked the economy which would have made everyone poorer, especially the young who already outpace other age groups in terms of unemployment.
My view is that between the implementation of that Labour manifesto and more fundamentally the key (sole in my view) purpose of any government in keeping people safe with Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry leading things; compared with a no deal Brexit with literally anyone else in charge I'd choose the latter every time.
Last edited:
Politician lies to the public and its now Misconduct in Public Office almost like "Dog bites man" headline!
Apart from it gaining Boris another slew of votes for his leadership bid amongst the tory faithful, we can look forward to a few more of these accusations being slung around.
Theresa May's first up with "We are leaving the EU on the 29th March"
I actually don't agree with the Boris charge but your comparison isn't right. Boris is charged with knowing the facts and purposefully misleading with false facts whilst May's is a statement of intent she didn't deliver on.
Most politicians shift the question to an alternative fact that creates a different angle rather than flat out deceive. Boris isn't bright enough to do that.
Boris could argue the same, it was his intention, but he didn't deliver because Brexit hasn't happened yet. In theory if he becomes Tory leader/PM and delivers on Brexit, then he has to live up to his £350M statement. Similarly May kept repeating her mantra about leaving on the 29th of March even after her 'deal' had been defeated twice in the HoC.
As I say look forward to many more such accusations arising, right across the political spectrum, just what we need to divert attention from the pickle we are in!
I don't believe this is in regards to the investment into the NHS, it's the claim we're sending 350 million a week which is just flat out false.
As i said i don't think such private prosecutions are the form to challenge blatant lies. The electoral commission should be given extra powers to enforce corrections being published immediately and fine further discretions heavily.
He was challenged on it by the BBC in the referendum campaign. He was sat on the bus whilst being interviewed. The interviewer repeatedly said it was false information and why it was false information while Boris repeatedly claimed it wasn't with no qualification to back up his claim.