|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 13:09:57 GMT
Thatβll be the same proven pathological liar Blair, who is still busy amassing a fortune swanning around on the talk circuit for some of the world's worst human rights abusers when he should be serving time for war crimes? He wears a red tie tho so alls good with him in Jims world!π This is the Blair who overthrew family responsibility in favour of the state. Blair, with a wife in the legal business, who nurtured and encouraged toxic compensation culture. Blair, who chose to dispose of his traditional voting base, now considering them working class trashy racist xenophobes, in favour of metropolitan elite virtue signallers. Blair who, along with his metropolitan supporters, aided by various sympathetic areas of the establishment, in an authoritarian manner, without recourse to democracy, introduced codes of behaviour upon citizens. He couldn't monitor their thoughts, he didn't have the technology, but he could certainly monitor their movements, and their speech.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 12:55:15 GMT
I'd describe the negative impacts of Brexit as modest, insignificant. Similarly for the positive impacts. Not for individuals negatively or positively affected of course but when we discuss politics, we discuss for the 70 or so million, as a group. What's huge to you? Β£2,000,000. Massive.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 10:42:57 GMT
In terms of Brexit 'huge' could be one or more of the following examples, some of which were (incorrectly) predicted before the referendum: Large numbers of people dying through lack of availability of medicines; a collapse of the housing market; massed unemployment; a collapse in the standard of living of the average person; widespread chronic food shortages. Any of these would be huge. A modest dip in gdp, much of it naturally occurring due to a period in which freedom of movement wasn't replaced by a new liberal migration system doesn't qualify as 'huge'. Apart from in the eyes of those naturally drawn to gross exagerration and hyperbole. 'Collapse' by the way, is just that. Modest dips shouldn't be described as collapses. Not if we wish to be accurate, and honest. Yeh thought it might be something like that. I'd describe the negative impacts of Brexit as modest, insignificant. Similarly for the positive impacts. Not for individuals negatively or positively affected of course but when we discuss politics, we discuss for the 70 or so million, as a group. What's huge to you?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 10:29:24 GMT
'Huge costs' was the term used, the one I responded to. What does huge mean to you? In terms of Brexit 'huge' could be one or more of the following examples, some of which were (incorrectly) predicted before the referendum: Large numbers of people dying through lack of availability of medicines; a collapse of the housing market; massed unemployment; a collapse in the standard of living of the average person; widespread chronic food shortages. Any of these would be huge. A modest dip in gdp, much of it naturally occurring due to a period in which freedom of movement wasn't replaced by a new liberal migration system doesn't qualify as 'huge'. Apart from in the eyes of those naturally drawn to gross exagerration and hyperbole. 'Collapse' by the way, is just that. Modest dips shouldn't be described as collapses. Not if we wish to be accurate, and honest.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 10:13:26 GMT
You made a claim that Brexit had brought 'huge costs'. I made no claim that Brexit had brought huge benefits. The onus is on you to justify your claim. There is plenty of information that suggests Brexit has increased costs to the average UK resident. Whether Brexit is good or bad for the UK is a matter of opinion. It has though definitely come at a cost to the majority of us. 'Huge costs' was the term used, the one I responded to.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 10:08:12 GMT
You made a claim that Brexit had brought 'huge costs'. I made no claim that Brexit had brought huge benefits. The onus is on you to justify your claim. I sent it. I could send more, but what did your last slave die of? Dysentery from washing your arse? You are a proponent of brexit yet you don't seem to know of any benefits. You'd be happy to share them if only to shut me up. I wasn't responding to a post about Brexit benefits. I responded to a post about perceived 'huge costs' of Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 9:56:46 GMT
GDP isn't a measure of wealth. You need to look up gdp per capita. As I suggested earlier, nothing of much significance has changed, for the vast majority. You should embrace change, that's what progressives do. Evasion again. I suspect you can't find any brexit benefits or you would post them. Surely you read all those graphs etc, practicing for when you are chancellor of the anarchist cabinet? You made a claim that Brexit had brought 'huge costs'. I made no claim that Brexit had brought huge benefits. The onus is on you to justify your claim.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 28, 2023 9:05:57 GMT
Making up other people's opinions to justify yours? Denying facts "no huge costs for no benefit". Show us how cheap and what the benefits are for the hard working man then. A few facts for you. Most of the uk's recent problems can be traced back historically to Labour and the Blair Brown years. Ruining pensions, practically giving away gold, hospital PFI contracts, making people welfare dependent, mass immigration, dumbing down of education and the loss of apprenticeships. I could go on, but you being a factless object full of denial would have a result of it all going over your head. A couple of big ones to add: Increasing the size of the state and creating various new expensive benefits during a time of relative boom, with no eye to the fact that booms don't last for ever. Many advocates of 'everything is the fault of the Tories' don't like to trace back historically. They claim to be progressives, everything must be viewed in the prism of right now. Having said this, they are more than happy to go back even further than this and blame Thatcher for a lack of social housing, ignoring the fact that Blair/ Brown had plenty of time to make changes, had they deemed this necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 23:42:32 GMT
I don't need pints of wine either but now having the opportunity to buy them, should I wish, dosn't constitute a 'huge cost'. Staunch leavers could put together a list of benefits after reading your list of 'huge costs'. It's a pity, in my opinion, that the government has chosen to continue with the low wage, import labour, grow gdp model, following brexit. Still, while these hundreds of thousands each year previously qualified for benefits, and instant parity for social housing etc. new arrivals, following Brexit, now have to pay hefty visa fees, a payment towards the NHS and receive a zero entitlement to benefits. There's a Brexit benefit for you. Unless you consider the British government looking after the interests of British people, above others, is xenophobic, of course. A quick search, for starters. Brexit had reduced GDP by 5.5%, investment by 11%, and goods trade by 7% in the second quarter of 2022 And there's far more in the article. www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2022Over to you, stop wittering and dissembling, where's the list of benefits for the ordinary man, I've seen nothing of benefit, what have I missed? GDP isn't a measure of wealth. You need to look up gdp per capita. As I suggested earlier, nothing of much significance has changed, for the vast majority. You should embrace change, that's what progressives do.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 19:15:53 GMT
Delors wasn't my cup of tea but unlike some of our apparently caring and sharing so called progressive friends, I'll avoid wild celebrations on the death of a significant political oppenent.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 14:33:26 GMT
I don't need pints of wine either but now having the opportunity to buy them, should I wish, dosn't constitute a 'huge cost'.
Staunch leavers could put together a list of benefits after reading your list of 'huge costs'.
It's a pity, in my opinion, that the government has chosen to continue with the low wage, import labour, grow gdp model, following brexit. Still, while these hundreds of thousands each year previously qualified for benefits, and instant parity for social housing etc. new arrivals, following Brexit, now have to pay hefty visa fees, a payment towards the NHS and receive a zero entitlement to benefits. There's a Brexit benefit for you. Unless you consider the British government looking after the interests of British people, above others, is xenophobic, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 12:49:20 GMT
Huge cost? Snip. Bear in mind that those arguing 'huge cost' also consider you to be, by default, a xenophobe. Making up other people's opinions to justify yours? Denying facts "no huge costs for no benefit". Show us how cheap and what the benefits are for the hard working man then. I don't need to prove any benefits for the 'hard working man' in order to refute any claim of 'huge costs' of Brexit. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove this, not the person refuting the claim to provide facts to back up their position. So, over to you. Try not to use hyperbole. I know this will be difficult. 'Huge' will be something, or a combination of things, that seriously compromises the standard of living of a large proportion of the population. This would not include, for example, businesses needing to complete additional paperwork, a small minority of people having to restrict the time they spend on holiday in Europe, small minorities e.g. musicians finding it more difficult to travel to do their jobs, folk finding it more difficult to take their dogs abroad etc. etc. While these things are undeniably irritating and inconvenient for those negatively affected they don't justify the leaders of a nation overthrowing a democratic vote, nor do they qualify as 'huge costs'.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 12:19:40 GMT
We voted to leave somewhat surprisingly. We were warned disentangling ourselves would set the country back substantially and at huge cost for a period of years. I look forward to seeing the promised benefits of our departure, but we all have to accept it is a 'done deal' and move on. I'm sure we'd all have greater faith in our shared future if we had confidence in our politicians. Rog Huge cost? This is what many bitter losing voters would argue of course but the reality is that for the vast majority, very little has changed. Bear in mind that those arguing 'huge cost' also consider you to be, by default, a xenophobe.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 27, 2023 12:03:55 GMT
Those of us who are pleased to be out of the EU will be delighted that those bitter at the democratic result continue to describe everyone with a different political opinion as 'xenophobes'. We can only hope that such an archaic outlook will continue thereby guaranteeing Britain's continuing absence from the EU table.
I mean, the very worst way of trying to make new friends is to describe potential suitors as xenophobes etc. etc.
It seems that the progressives have become the modern day dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 26, 2023 10:55:57 GMT
Didn't they ban the glue traps which rip the legs orf quite recently ? I wonder if flies are afforded such protection. Reminds me of when I shared a rat infested house in Jakarta. We thought it would be fun to get some traps, fiver in a pot each, first to get a rat wins all. It only took a day. Came back from work, blood all over the tiled floor. Traced it to behind a cupboard where there was a demised rat, minus a leg. We assumed it had bitten its own leg off but perhaps, having read your post, it ripped it off instead.
|
|