I Have Just Joined THE BREXIT PARTY!

Well it went as I thought

The Brexit Party sucked in virtually all the leave votes while the remain votes were spread over several political groups.

But if you look at in terms of Leave or Remain – the remainers won easily

Remain - 40.4%
Leave - 34.9%

And if you think about it the situation might even be worse for the leavers, I meant at least one labour voter who is remain but voted Labour Party out of party loyalty (who would vote remain in a peoples vote). And given the vote I can’t think that the ones that voted Conservative must have not been the pro-Brexit ones otherwise they would have gone for the Brexit. It’s difficult to say.

I mean it was clear cut on the Brexit side but much more confusing on the remain side as to who to vote for but in a people's vote, well just look to polling cited by Mal that predicted that in a people's vote the split would be -

Remain 55%

Leave - 38%

 

Gal

The thing is that none of the leavers seem able to address the criticisms that they were lied to and that they were conned.

As to been racist are you saying you voted to leave for racist reasons? You could easily dismiss that by explaining why you did vote?

I don’t know if the people that voted to leave are stupid but the problem I (and others) have found in talking to them is that none of them seems able to come up with any rational reasons for doing so.

Yes they repeat slogans and propaganda but seem unable or unwilling to go beyond that.

If you have some rational and thought through reasons I’d love to hear them.

 

Aussie

I’m beginning to get worried about you are you OK are you ill or has something bad happened?

(I should explain to those that don’t know - Aussie said he would be posting an ‘essay’ to explain in a rational and reasonable way why Brexit would be a good idea. He promised it last week but has gone silent.)

Or is it as I said earlier - have you discovered that there are no rational reasons for the UK to leave the EU?

If that is the case it would be nice if you told us that rather than just going silent.

 

I thought this article by RICHARD LITTLEJOHN in todays Daily Mail was excellent, and tells us a lot about the losers who will not face up to the reality of the EU election results:
-------

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: You stupid people. You got it wrong again | Daily Mail Online

-------

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Pundit after pundit was wheeled out to rubbish the election result – it's as if you'd watched Man City win the Cup Final 6-0 only to be told the real winners were Watford

On Thursday, they (The Brexit Party) fielded an impressive, eclectic slate of candidates, from diverse backgrounds, and were rewarded with millions of votes — unlike the entitled, professional malcontents who make up No Change UK.

Can they kick on from here and become a proper, rounded party, as opposed to a single-issue pressure group? They've certainly got the talent and, er, momentum.

The upcoming Peterborough by-election might be the acid test.

We may be about to see a long-overdue realignment in British politics. As Bob Hoskins, aka Harold Shand, remarks in The Long Good Friday: there's been an eruption.

Not before time. So well done everyone who backed the Brexit Party on Thursday.

Take a bow, Britain!

 

Mal

The problem with this is that – the remainers here have pinpointed the specific lies that were told by leaver politicians to convince people to vote for leave (the NHS one is the best known but not the only one).

But I’m unsure you and other leavers have actually looked into these lies, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to address them.

There are also other things been said by leavers that could be seen as of as ‘lies’ because they don’t seem to have been looked into, for example the claim that EU immigration is at fault for problems with such things as housing and the benefits system that seem more about the neoliberal policy of ‘austerity’ than EU immigrants who actually pay in more to the system than they take out.

Other things are difficult to classify as ‘lies’ as they are not explained like those that claim that the EU is causing the British to lose their ‘identity’ but seem unable to say why.

If you as an individual have looked into these things can you answer the questions put to you about them and address the many outstanding criticisms?

 

Booze

Hell man you do like (repeatedly) shooting yourself in the foot don’t you LOL

And what a fucking mad football match the EU elections would have made with NINE main teams and several other minor ones.

But you could split it down to two - Leave and Remain - but the big problem for poor little John is that then its clear that remain won

Remain - 40.4%
Leave - 34.9%

Take a bow, Britain!

 

https://brexitcentral.com/audacious-lie-referendum-campaign-remainers-claim-immigration/

 

Mal

Sorry is this it?

This is your BIG lie on a par with the ‘sunny uplands’ , ‘having our cake and eating it’ a deal would be ‘easy’ and all the money that would go to the NHS etc etc.

OK let’s look at this

“And there are almost as many Brits living elsewhere in the EU as there are other EU nationals in Britain.”

Was it - I can’t remember it, (LOL I mean it’s not like it was plastered on the side of a bus) - if I had heard it the first thing I would have done was laugh – I mean British people are also EU nationals we are still part of the EU we are EU citizens.

And one of the great things about freedom of movement is that you can go and live or work anywhere in the EU - it’s something to celebrate.

So I’d ask - what’s the problem.

The person here put the argument that it was meant to

Again I’d ask - why is it a bad thing.

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), …By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero. (Oxford Economics)

*

We are saying that lies were used to convince people to vote for leave – if I had heard this comment, I would have probably looked into it but even if I’d heard that there were more none British EU people working in the UK than British living in other EU countries I probably wouldn’t have care.

Again is this it, is that all you could find?

 

Funny you seem to rememberstuff that happened before you were born though

 

Mal

Thank you again for making my point for me

The leaver arguments are empty, devoid of substance or content – all they ever seem to do is fall back on slogans or silly asides

They want to hurt the country and most probably themselves over what – well over things that they can neither explain or defend.

 

It should also me remember because I think a lot of people have forgotten it - is that this was meant to be the easy part (that is for a degree of easy) – this was the withdrawal agreement – we haven’t gotten to the hard bit - the trade deal (or rather trade deals) which are liable to go on for years.

And most analysts and trade negotiators I’ve heard seem to think that we are likely to get screwed over trade because we are going to be in the weaker position and that would be true even if we had a withdrawal deal – if we are stuck in WTO rules our position will be far, far worse.

Now some will say I’m running my country down but really just look at the last three years, we are a country divided with many that do not seem to be thinking straight having been mesmerised by the jingoistic rantings of those that wish them no good.

I love my country but I’m talking about the real country not the mythical fantasy island dreamed up by the owners of the Daily Express and Daily Mail.

 

http://is-a-****.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/mightbehardposter5.jpg I see Project Fear Faze Two is under way, just as Project Fear Faze One went down the shite pan.
Please read this, and then come back and apologise.
Cheers!

https://brexitcentral.com/stand-firm-face-onslaught-project-fear-propaganda/

But the Government’s favoured road away from this crossroads is a denial of the restoration of sovereignty that underpinned the vote to Leave.
It keeps us in the customs union potentially indefinitely. It makes us subject to the rules of the EU’s single market while denying us any power to influence those rules. It annexes Northern Ireland, part of our sovereign territory, into the Single Market regulatory structure.
It will cost us £39 billion and rising. It sets the European Court of Justice, a foreign court, superior to our own.

It deprives us of one of the chief economic benefits of Brexit by preventing us striking free trade deals with fast-growing countries and markets across the globe.

Worst of all – it makes us prisoners of a Hotel California customs union. We can check out any time we like but we can never leave.
This gives them unbelievable negotiating leverage on every single issue – as the EU negotiators have bragged to Brussels ambassadors.

And the other road? I will not pretend it is free of bumps and turns. But these are essentially short-term obstacles. We should press for an exit on a Canada-plus-plus-plus free trade basis. If that is denied to us by the intransigence of Brussels, we will have to leave on World Trade Organisation terms.

At this point all the choking tentacles of the EU fall away. No customs union. No backstop. No single market. No denial of new trade deals. No money paid over. No threat to the integrity of the Union.

These are the two main choices facing Members of Parliament as they prepare to pass judgement on the Government’s proposals next month.

Today, I want to look into the critical few weeks ahead, offer my view to the British public and to my parliamentary colleagues of what to expect, and urge them to stand firm in the face of the propaganda onslaught that is about to be unleashed.

The Government cannot currently expect to win the meaningful vote on their deal. To date, over 90 Conservative MPs have publicly declared an intention to oppose the agreement. With Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats also lined up against – and with the DUP infuriated by the threat to the Union – defeat for the Government seems inevitable.

This may be so. But a couple of weeks in politics are a long time. And as Charles Moore observed in The Daily Telegraph at the weekend, parliamentary rebellions have a habit of melting away.
And, of course, Downing Street, the whips, the Treasury and the rest of the establishment have yet to do their best – or worst.

We are on track for a condensed version of the referendum campaign of 2016, along with all the lies, half-truths, exaggerations, spin and scare tactics.

Ultimately, this time, the decision rests with Parliament. This includes a Commons and a Lords that was overwhelmingly for Remain a couple of years ago.

Nor are the public to be left out of the propaganda operation. Downing Street has noticed that many of its troops are deserting to the Brexit camp, so the Prime Minister has headed for the airwaves. She’s doing more phone-in programmes than Nigel Farage.

Her aim is to appeal over the heads of recalcitrant Tory MPs in the hope that the public will pressure dissidents into backing the deal. The first shots came at the weekend with headlines about a new post-Brexit crackdown on unskilled migration from the EU.

Maybe, or maybe not, I think. Migration policy is a matter to be decided after the Withdrawal Agreement has been enshrined in law.
It is covered by the non-binding – and decidedly woolly – Political Declaration. It is also almost certainly destined to become a bargaining chip, used by the EU after the legally binding part of the deal comes into effect.
“Want to protect your fishing grounds? Then relax the cap on Romanian workers.” This is the kind of haggling we can confidently expect.

In any case, I have my doubts about the wisdom of Downing Street’s strategy. Of course, our inability to control EU migration was a significant factor in the vote to leave. But it was not the fundamental reason – that was all about reclaiming national independence from Brussels.
This was never just about immigration. It was always about control. It was always about democracy.

Like last time, the decisive battle will be fought on the economy. The bullets will fly fastest when we come to argue about the relative merits of the Government’s Brexit in Name Only approach and the Clean Brexit favoured by those, like me, who are determined to respect the referendum result.

Downing Street and the Treasury believe that they are on their strongest ground when they are lined up alongside Big Business and the City. These multinationals and big corporations, led by CEOs with multi-million pound bonuses riding on the next couple of years performance, unsurprisingly favour absolute stability in the short term over long-term opportunity.
And, of course, they find that the current EU arrangements work splendidly for them – not least because they help to freeze out competition from smaller, more nimble firms.

Project Fear is set for a last hurrah.

The Treasury and the Bank of England will later today be issuing new forecasts comparing the Government’s Fake Brexit deal with a WTO exit.

I don’t often quote the FT, but I will do it this time: “Theresa May is preparing to use an economic assessment of her much-criticised Brexit deal to try to win over sceptical MPs.”

The FT makes no comment about the reliability of the Treasury’s last attempt at playing Mystic Meg.

My point is simple enough. The Treasury’s forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
The Treasury forecasts for the effects of a Leave vote made in May 2016 are these.
They said that in the 18 months after the referendum the economy would contract by at best 0.1 per cent and at worst 2.1 per cent. What happened? It grew by 2.8 per cent.

The Treasury was wrong to the tune of between 2.9 – 4.9 per cent. This is a sum of up to £100 billion. Quite a lot of money. Quite a big mistake.

Of course, not all of us are brilliant at computing percentages of GDP, so George Osborne spelled out the numbers in starker terms. Unemployment would jump by 520,000 under the “cautious” projection and by 820,000 if the exit was on WTO terms. Voting to leave the EU would, over time, render the average UK family £4,300 a year worse off.

Osborne also used a visit to B&Q’s head office to predict a “Do-It-Yourself” recession as a result of a Leave vote. He prophesised falling house prices and severe damage to the public finances.
A “punishment Budget” featuring tax rises and spending cuts was on the cards immediately after a Leave vote. Astonishing idea, of course, to respond to an expected downturn by clamping on a tight fiscal squeeze.

Needless to say, none of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass. Families are no worse off and the economy has since grown by around 4 per cent. Unemployment has fallen by hundreds of thousands.

Earlier this year, the Treasury leaked its “Cross-Whitehall Brexit Analysis” in the shape of 24 PowerPoint slides to the website Buzzfeed. It caused quite a buzz – not least because it now predicts a huge 7.7 per cent of GDP hit to the economy in the event of a WTO exit.
An exit with a Canada-plus deal was forecast to be painful, too, with GDP 4.8 per cent smaller than would be the case if we stayed in the EU.

Quite why the Treasury and its offshoots get things so wrong is an intriguing question.

The truth is that the Treasury is more often wrong than right. And the same goes for the OBR. They missed reality in 2009 by almost 6 per cent. That is equivalent to a miss of £120 billion today.

George Osborne was initially predicted to be more than 50 per cent likely to eliminate the deficit.
The productivity growth forecasts of 2010 were 6 times larger than reality. The UK was supposed to enter a recession if there was a vote to leave the EU.

And just this year it emerged that the OBR’s previously predicted borrowing for 2017/18 would be £16 billion more than the out-turn.
It is amazing the amount of money Whitehall finds down the back of the sofa.

Unsurprisingly, the dramatic numbers take the headlines, and people fail to notice that they are caused by forecasting errors.

Take Osborne’s £27 billion windfall in 2015, for example. The Chancellor hurriedly moved to spend it on tax credits and departmental budgets.

But, just a year later, he had to take it back. The OBR had undershot their borrowing forecasts by some £58 billion. As the OBR boss, Robert Chote, said at the time, “what the sofa gives, the sofa can also take away.”

But don’t take my word for it. I see from the Prime Minister’s interview with the Sun that she also has doubts about the Treasury and its forecasts. After all, and I quote, “they don’t always reflect every factor that can be taken into account… these things are always based on a set of assumptions.”

And it is notable – and frankly disgraceful – that the Chancellor has done his studio round today without publishing the underlying assumptions. Remember: forecasts are not facts: and theses are just polemical projections.

Professor Minford, of the Economists for Free Trade, has sought to explain the forecasting errors. First, he believes that the Treasury’s past reliance on the gravity model of trade has led it astray.
A word on the gravity model, this assumes that trade flows are highest – and the economic benefits are greatest – when trading partners are in close geographical proximity. Europe is on our doorstep, ergo trade deals with the EU are of more value than those with more distant lands.
This was possibly true when the commodities were bulky, heavy and of moderate value – coal, steel, wheat, sugar, for example – and the cost of transport was a significant proportion of the product cost. But not today.

The alternative model, the classical one developed by Ricardo in the 19th Century, assuming high competition across world markets, better fits the modern facts and predicts bigger gains from global trading on WTO terms.
Transport costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of, say, an iPhone – or a near zero fraction of trade in services. This has the effect of making the entire globe the market in which we exercise comparative advantage.

Other things matter more than distance – a common language, for example, or communication links.

The good news is that – following strong criticism – the Treasury claims to recognise the limitations of its gravity model and has now switched to an improved alternative.
But it has undermined its own work. If they are the same as previous work this year the assumptions it has fed in to this new model are faulty for three crucial reasons.

Firstly, the Treasury’s Cross-Whitehall analysis has made pessimistic assumptions about the positive effects of free trade on UK growth. If the UK were to adopt global free trade, the forecast predicts modest long-term gains of as low as 0.3 per cent of GDP.

This is extraordinary. One of the few things upon which economists agree is the great beneficial effect of free trade. Australia’s trade liberalisation delivered a 5.4 per cent long-term boost to GDP.
This figure corroborates the Economists for Free Trade calculation of a 4 per cent boost for the UK.

The Treasury seems to assume that free trade matters when it is with the EU, but not when it is with anybody else.

The second flawed assumption in the Whitehall analysis is that there will be high border costs, from processing customs declarations and rules of origin certificates.
They believe there will be extensive physical inspections at the border, even under a UK-EU free trade arrangement.
This belies the way modern computerised pre-declared border procedures actually work. After all, only two to three per cent of goods are ever inspected.

Unlike the 6 per cent cost assumed by Whitehall, modern border costs are typically well under 1 per cent of the value of goods – and Switzerland measures its actual cost to be only about 0.1%.

Finally, Whitehall’s third flawed assumption is the belief that various non-tariff barriers will spring up immediately after Brexit.
But after decades of integration, it’s absurd to suggest the EU will suddenly decide that our regulations aren’t good enough.

Whitehall assumes the cost of such NTBs will be equivalent to a 16 per cent tariff if we have a free trade agreement and 20 per cent if we leave under WTO rules.

These figures are truly massive. The total effect of Whitehall’s assumptions is that the UK – beginning with identical product standards and regulations – would face an effective EU tariff of about 30 per cent under WTO rules.
This is about one and a half times the actual tariff faced by the US. Of course, given that we currently have shared product standards, this would be illegal under WTO rules.

These flawed assumptions have led to Whitehall’s central forecast – a 6% loss of GDP under WTO rules.
Using the same modelling approach but with more reasonable assumptions, Economists for Free Trade calculates a GDP boost of about 3 per cent.

This helps to explain why the Treasury’s latest stab at forecasting produced a result fully in line with the 2016 version of Project Fear.

The Treasury insists that leaving the Single Market and customs union would do grave damage to the economy due to the loss of trade.
However, it also insists that signing FTAs with other major world economies would do little good. Talk about facing two ways at once.

There is another problem with the Whitehall analysis that must be considered. There is a consistent overestimation of the positive impact the Single Market has on the British economy.

The Single Market was touted as a “vital national interest” during the referendum campaign.
Project Fear constantly pushed doom-laden messages of economic ruin following a Leave vote.

However, this belief has no basis. The Single Market’s regulations are much less beneficial than assumed for the British economy.

Its rules are rigged in favour of big corporations. It suppresses innovation, competition and growth.

Sober analysis of the trading relationship between the UK and the EU spectacularly dispels the myth that the Single Market is vital for the British economy.

The researcher, Michael Burrage demonstrates that growth of UK exports to the EU has been lower during the era of the Single Market than it was during the common market decades between 1973 and 1992.
Our export growth to the EU lags far behind much of the world. We are surpassed by many countries that trade with the EU on WTO terms.

Moreover, UK exports to non-EU countries under WTO based rules have grown four times faster than UK exports to the EU.

As Burrage’s work shows, EU-UK trade has been steadily declining whilst UK trade with the rest of the world has been rapidly increasing.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the European Union but with the wider world.

Contrary to the Whitehall dogma, the Single Market has not been the accelerator claimed for the British economy. We must stop worshipping at the altar of false gods.

Everyone supports evidence-based policy-making, but only the Treasury supports policy-led evidence.

Of course, apocalyptic Treasury forecasts of the grim effects of leaving the EU’s orbit are only part of Whitehall’s armoury of intimidation.

Plenty more will be hurled in the direction of MPs considering voting against the Government’s deal.
Cheered on by the establishment media, we will be warned against “crashing out” of the EU and tumbling over a “cliff edge”.

They’ve claimed that planes will be grounded, and hauliers will suffer unprecedented delays. There’s been vehement insistence that Kent will become a lorry park, and hysteria over the rationing of food and medicine.
Even Mars Bars will apparently become a thing of the past.

For example, the Healthcare Distribution Association has claimed that the UK will run out of insulin. However, when Channel 4’s Fact Check spoke to the UK’s leading suppliers (Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Lilly) the companies all said that they don’t expect significant problems in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Another foolhardy claim is that the UK will run out of food “within days”. Allegedly this would be because of a paralysed Port of Dover.
Nothing, apparently, would be able to get into the country.

We’ve had long-term stoppages before, such as 26 days through the summer of 2015. Whilst this was costly, it was not as crippling as the wilder claims have inferred.

As my colleague John Redwood has pointed out, this is all nonsense. The EU is running a near £100 billion a year trade surplus in goods with the UK.
The implication of this is just as we work to eliminate problems at the border, so will our European colleagues in Calais, Zeebrugge, Antwerp and Rotterdam.

If Parliament rejects the Governments’ current proposal, then the Government can press for a Canada-plus free trade deal backed by technical solutions on the Irish border.
If intransigence from Brussels denies this, we should announce an exit on WTO terms and accelerate preparations for such an outcome.

I am afraid we must be ready for Project Fear 2.0. In a desperate attempt to reverse the result of the 2016 referendum, we are undoubtedly going to hear the most hair-raising stories and improbable forecasts.

Let’s remind those who might waver that we have heard this all before.
Let’s expose the glaring weaknesses of the Government’s Fake Brexit. Let’s highlight alternative analyses showing that a World Trade Deal can work for us as it does the vast majority of countries.

“Trust the people” is an old Tory adage. Well, the people were right in 2016 and they are right today.

The task facing the Conservative Party, the governing party, is to deliver the will of the people as set out in June 2016.
That means Brexit – and it means a clean Brexit that ensures a decisive break from the influence of a foreign power.

Downing Street and the Treasury will argue they are delivering a clean Brexit. But the facts point in the opposite direction.
The Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration are a bogus prospectus. They will keep Britain in orbit around the EU.
We will be nothing more than a satellite state ruled from afar.

It is our duty to reject that prospectus and genuinely take back control

 

Booze

Have you any thought of your own – I mean can you think for yourself because so far you don’t seem to have given us anything of any length that you have written?

Anyway I had to laugh - you are giving us something written by fucking David Davis - sorry I’ll stop laughing in a minute.

The guy is an incompetent fool and coward who ran away from been Brexit minster because he realised it was a poisoned chalice that was likely to end is disaster and that it was much better been outside blaming others for not been able to fix the unfixable.

This is the man that said before the referendum that - “There will be no downside to Brexit only a considerable upside’

And now admits that were will be pain although he hope it will only be short term pain.

The man who implied negotiations would be easy before the referendum only to say afterwards that they would be “the most complicated negotiation of all time”.

*

As to the article most of the things in it have already been covered and since you seem incapable of address the already outstanding criticism can you please ask your friend David to come and answer them?

OK again

He wants to be “striking free trade deals with fast-growing countries and markets across the globe” he wants to be exporting UK goods and services to countries outside of the EU - BUT - as already pointed out - why are we not doing that already from within the EU? Germany already exports more to China and India than we do.

What are we going to suddenly manufacture and sell outside the EU that we are not doing because we are in the EU?

On the other hand are we just going to allow other countries free trade deals for their goods and services into the UK that would most likely destroy our home-grown manufacturing and agricultural base? And if we just did it how are we going to get ‘trade deals’ when the other countries already have free trade with us?

Canada

But that means having a withdrawal deal first and the CETA agreement took seven years to negotiate (you couldn’t just cut and paste because the UK and Canada are different economies with difference produce and scales) (Canada trade with EU 94.7 billion euro compared with the UK’s 616 Billion)

Also since we would not be aligned on goods there would have to be checks at borders and more paperwork (more cost to UK firms) it would be the end of frictionless borders.

And I don’t think it covers services now that is at the moment one of the UK’s biggest exports to the EU (44% of all UK exports go to EU) in 2017 the total UK exports of services (excluding travel, transport and banking) was £162.1 billion (about 80% of the UK economy comes from providing services)

And to export to the EU we would still have to comply with EU regulations (which while been outside of the EU we would have no say over, as we do at the moment)

WTO

This is a negotiation – both sides want to get the best for themselves what one side would call getting the best deal the other calls intransigence.

So far the EU negotiators have been rather accommodating especially with all the hostility been thrown at it by right wing politicians and media, but they are going to do their best to protect the interests of their members not the UK.

The problem with the UK’s position is that we don’t have very good negotiators (like the failure David) and we don’t have a very strong position. The deal we already have is a very good deal and we want to get a worse one and we are threatening to shoot our economy in the head if the EU doesn’t give it to us.

As said the EU supposedly exports about 10% to the UK but the UK export 44% to the EU – if we just stopped trading with them we take a much bigger hit than they do. And given scales they are in a much better position to survive such a economic shock than we are.

Professor Minford,

We have talked about this guy

He is a free trade nut that is dismissed by most reputable economists.

Do you know for example that Patrick Minford has said that if the U.K. left EU it would result in the automotive sector suffering a “big transitional loss” that it would be destroyed. “You [the UK] are going to have to run it down,” he said “in the same way we ran down the coal and steel industries,”

At the moment the automotive sector employs around 856,000 people and accounts for 12% of UK exports.

[edit] The ‘free market’ theory is that in time (say 30 years) market forces would fill the job market loss with service or tech industry jobs (this was the same belief for what would happen after the coal mines were closed)

In practice many former industrial towns and coalfield areas have ‘switch to gig employment and short-term work in areas such as distribution in warehouses and our public sector means that too many people…cannot be certain that their job will last longer than the next rota’.


Ricardo ha ha ha

Booze have you read anything about economic?

Ricardo recognized that applying his theory in situations where capital was mobile would result in offshoring, and therefore economic decline and job loss.

And do you how he hoped it would be stopped well he thought - most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek[ing] a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations.

Yeah right like that worked, I mean tell that to Dyson.

Look as David points out this was 19th Century thinking and economic theory has moved on.

For fuck sake man if you were sick would you want the doctor that treated you to have no knowledge of 20th or 21st century medicine but only one that still believed in the 19th century idea of releasing the 'bad' humour through bloodletting?

Sorry Booze you clearly have little knowledge of economics so try reading – The Penguin History of Economics – it’s an easy to read introduction that might help you. Once you have read that I can suggest some more in depth reading.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-History-Economics-Roger-Backhouse/dp/0140260420/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=51710818245&gclid=Cj0KCQjw_r3nBRDxARIsAJljleHpWnErT0x7VZVUVVZK-efVGzY8kKtUcwwSyEPuxQ0QcVTuGZ-95ZoaAiIREALw_wcB&hvadid=259077634065&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9046004&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=9757998109436491490&hvtargid=aud-613701470109:kwd-301214566018&hydadcr=18520_1817331&keywords=the+penguin+history+of+economics&qid=1559210644&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

Galty

But why do you like boozes post? Have you thought of your own?

 

Leavers

Look I really do want to understand why leavers want to leave, just repeating slogans like ‘Brexit means Brexit’ at me doesn’t give me that understanding - telling me I’m fucking stupid or as thick as a plank for not just understanding doesn’t help me to actually gain understanding.

And the thing is why can’t you just explain your views in a clear and coherent way?

Why does it seem such a big problem to you to explain your thinking?

 

So how many businesses do we think were funding the leave campaign? Hmm lets start with the american medical insurance industry. Farage says in the film that he favours an insurance based system much and Boris is of course Trump's bosom buddy. If you value the NHS you'd better hope we stay in the EU. Even then we'll have to fight for it. Hard. The Tories will sell it out from under us if we let them. The idea that we'll have more control is a dream sold to us by those who want to keep us looking the wrong way. In fact we will be even more at the mercy of big business who can continue to skew our employment laws and tax system for their own benefit.

 

I think nationalism is awful.

 

I beg to differ Soul, though I see you put a rather cheeky grin there!
I admit that the below letter was nicked from elsewhere, but basically says what I would like to say but this person says it better than I could.
But you have inspired me to start a new thread on this subject called:

Is Nationalism A Good Thing?
And you my dear better contribute to the discussion!
--------
Nationalism creates belonging and balance.

First of all, Nationalism brings people together through common goals or ideas.
This is especially important in countries like the United States, where citizens are from all over the globe and often share little in common.
With no commonalities, It is a beautiful thing for those to come together and cheer on their country, and the ideas it holds dear.
Second, Nationalism is the best balance of government in the world.
It is practically in the middle between anarchy, In which clans or families are independent and constantly at war with each other, and a central global government which would not be desirable.
Nationalism provides that balance so that individual nations can seek what is best for their people and hold up the ideas that are dear to them.
Yes Nationalism can be perversed into being a hatred of other countries, but that is not a realistic interpretation of it.
It is a love of your country and it’s people, which doesn’t have to be at the expense of other countries.