The EU debate - Part III

It's uncertainty that they expect to lead to something horrific. If it was uncertainty with a likely positive outcome, the currency wouldn't have plummeted and you wouldn't have a problem buying Pot Noodles at Mitcham Tesco.

 

Hamster poo ... (blend with Worcestershire sauce to desired consistency) ... one of Nigella's ...

 

We already made one!...and if Fox, Davis & co get their way, we're about to make an even more catastrophic one!...

 

Yep, if there was uncertainties that the market felt would lead to a more positive outcome then the market would price that in and the pound would strengthen on anticipation that something positive is possible.

 

You really wouldn't want Pete as your accountant.

 

On it's own perhaps, but in association with he other comments, I think not.

The uk/EU do not operate in an isolated bubble.

 

I wouldn't want him as a ****ing cleaner.

 

Anyway that is a populist reason. If you are going to have a democratic process then the larger the pool of people you have then the more likely it will be to make the right decision. Leaving the EU will necessarily mean that we make decisions without influence from people who have different experiences, languages and background from us which will inherently mean we are less likely to get them right.

 

I think the new standard is a worker at Seven-Eleven

 

I wouldn't want him as a cleaner in Seven-Eleven. In Thailand.

please log in to view this image

 

So you think that countries with bigger populations make better decisions?
Do you think that the EU is democratic?

 

Yeah Power, never thought I would say this, but I am with Uncle Pete on this one.
Not sure how that logic applies, that the more people in the country, the more likely it is they will make the right decision.
One only has to look at the USA and their current Presidential candidates to point out the flaw in that argument.

 

And who'd want you as their tea boy/estate agent?

 

Unfortunately, true. Increasing the numbers would not necessarily change the percentages.

But then, tbf, the Americans are about as gullible as you can get.

 

Conversely a country with a population of one will always represent the people and act in a way that the people see as their best interests. They will always view their decision as right.
A larger population means more people who feel their interests are not represented by the minority that gain power over decision making

 

Yes

 

I think that's a bit simplistic, Steven.

Virtually all truly democratically elected Gvts do not represent at least 50% of the voters. Therefore more people are against them, than for them. And therefore feel Unrepresented.

 

The EU was more Bureaucratic, than diplomatic, imo.

 

That was my point. There isn't a critical mass for how many only that it is inherent to a democracy where the majority didn't choose the winner.

There really is no right decision, just decisions made based on what you think is right.

 

I make a good cup of tea but I'd be a terrible estate agent. No time for tyre kickers.

Are you on Pete's payroll or do you also felch for free?