We're celebrating in the streets!! Although was quite fancying going up to Dublin or Clare to join a demo!
Brexit: Do claims for a 'clean break' add up? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45488124 Quite clearly, Rees-Mugg and your EFT buddies, they DON'T!!
This is as ignorant and just plain wrong as you can get. Minford is behind this the doddery old goat. https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/World-Trade-Deal-pocket-guide.pdf
They could be correct. But as hardly anyone can even cogently present the basics of what it means for any nation to "reset" on day 1 and apply WTO rules (must tariffs be charged, on what, max tariffs, is it product/service type specific etc) , I take no notice either way as independent due diligence cannot be done.
They are actually helping a sensible deal being made. The EU want a deal as much as the middle ground of UK politics. The fear of a clean Brexit is likely to force the two sides together and agree a deal. The last thing the EU want is a clean Brexit and they know that it is a matter of time before Grease-Bog and his cronies oust Mrs May. There are enough of them to force a leadership battle at any time they choose. For me it doesn't really matter either way. The fall in the pound will compensate for any trade tariffs and owing to the low value of the pound, the fundamentals of the British Economy are good, we will be strong either which way it goes. A clean Brexit is likely to make the pound fall further, which might actually turbo boost the economy in the short term. Providing foreign nationals are allowed to stay, even if we have to offer them nationality and seasonal workers are allowed in there should not be any problems. If eastern Europeans don't want to come to pick fruit I could find 1000's of Africans tomorrow who would be more than willing to come and work. There is too much sh!te put forward re: economic benifits/pit-falls. The only thing that is certain is that none of the models are right. There are too many unpredictable internal and external factors involved. The mental stability of the Orange-Overlord being a major one.
I totally forgot to mention this yesterday, but Twitter was so much fun as Americans were telling Chileans that Salvator Allende was their worst-ever president and they should shut up Words almost failed me...
The problem with any mineral rich country is that there are quick fortunes to be made and one ends up with very rich and very poor people which encourages the extremes of politics. Chile, DRC or even Venezuela at the moment. Either the right takes control because money and power go together, or the looney left take control and screw the economy. As Thatcher quite correctly said, socialism doesn't work because eventually you run out of other peoples money. That's why I am a socialist Tory, one has to first earn the money and then put the measures in place to build a strong economy. This starts with education, but takes at least two generations before benefits start to filter through. It cannot be done overnight. Watch Rwanda, in 30 years time, providing stability remains, Rwanda will be the powerhouse of Africa.
Read (consider as acknowledged) . The point I am making is that I cannot even do a coarse 'let the numbers decide' analysis, because there is no laymens definition of the fundamentals of WTO rules. Therefore, as I stated most cannot comment either way. And those laymen who claim they have done due diligence on these articles, and say they agree/disagree with the claims, I will immediately pounce on them and say : show your workings ...
The financing of government is quite simple. Everyone with a brain cell knows the fundamental premise is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" . The CONSEQUENCES are clear : people can become either RESENTFUL or INGRATE/LAZY. 1. Take too little from Peter, and Paul becomes resentful. 2. Take too much from Peter and give it all to Paul, then Paul becomes lazy and/or ingrate, and Peter becomes resentful at best, at worst gives up on wealth creation and becomes Paul. Government therefore has to manage the robbing to minimise the level of resentment on both sides, and to perpetuate the incentive for Paul to try and become Peter while ensuring Peter remains as Peter and does not give up and decide to become Paul.
But if the money Peter gives goes to provide education, infrastructure and health services, then Paul becomes useful and starts giving himself and when Peter becomes too old to work, Paul can help him. On the other hand, if Peters money is used for social security handouts to Paul, all lose.
Apparently it's racist to satirise Serena Williams in a newspaper cartoon by portraying her as a big, black angry woman throwing a temper tantrum on court. Even though she is a big, black woman who gets angry and has thrown temper tantrums on court on a number of occasions, the cartoon is unacceptable as it is stereotyping black women as being big and angry. Ridiculous PC nonsense. Their better argument would have been to claim that it wasn't satire.
I would have asked you to post the cartoon here, but I have just learnt that the EU MEP politniks have passed key parts of the "article 11/13" directives.
please log in to view this image The mouth and hair are probably what's done it, in my opinion. I can see why. It's a little too reminiscent of various racist images. Wouldn't pick the opponent as Naomi Osaka, either. Not sure what's sexist about it, though.
To be fair, she was playing with a strange yellow/ginger coloured hair extension- thingy under her cap...... But cartoon is feckin' caricature.... Physical features are always exaggerated. So not sure how they could have toned down the image of Williams. Should for example every physically exaggerated image of a May, Johnson or Corbyn be regarded as racist if drawn by a non-white? Mind you, probably the fact that the cartoon has originated from that well respected haven for racial equality, Australia, may be fanning the flames somewhat
If anything needs to be criticised it's their whitewashing Naomi Osaka, considering her father's side of the family are from Haiti - which also happens to be a real issue for the absolute worst of the Serena Williams Defence Team because that fact defangs the worst accusation they can make, which is why instead they throw it towards random journalists critical of Serena's behaviour. It's telling that, initially, Billie Jean King was following the sexism Narrative of the story - but she's since flip-flopped and said that Serena was out of line.
I still think S Williams should be playing the men.She appears to be bigger than most male tennis players. Oh for the ladies of the past...grunt or no!!!!
By the celebrations after the vote outcome you would have thought they had passed legislation to eradicate malaria or global poverty. The French really do hate the "Anglo-Saxon" nature of Silicon Valley, and the EU politniks hate any media platform that can unleash grass-roots political dissent against the "project" . IMHO it also implies that the likes of youtube are PUBLISHERS, as publishers are responsible for correctly sourcing copyrighted material (payment etc) . And of course the Silicon Valley cabal are claiming they are not publishers when they take down anyone whose content is not violating actual law but could affect the balance sheet (which real publishers continually do in their day job) . Anything that causes cognitive dissonance and dichotomy bleed in the pea brains of those who claim to be on the side of free speech / equality of outcome etc, is ok by me.
