Yeah, like the lager louts of Brexit are concerned about, or even capable of comprehending, the medium- and long-term economic arguments for and against Brexit.
Young people, rise up - for Brexit!
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
That's another problem. Even if a few economists see the potential for a no-deal Brexit and unilateral global free trade to benefit the UK somewhat more than remaining in the EU at least over the long term, I imagine that that's based on a presumption that the people continue to elect MPs with an inkling of a knowledge of economics.
If someone breaks his leg, it makes sense in principle for a physician to treat him; but if all we have are fools, then it might be best to just let the bone heal crookedly so as to not cause more damage than has already been done. If the people are going to vote fools to Parliament, then Remain is undoubtedly the wisest practical move regardless of what some theoretical economic models might suggest, especially when their own models propose only a moderately superior long-term benefit at most. In a technocracy, it might make sense to at least consider what those economists have to say. In the UK democracy, it makes more sense to look at the practical reality of voters' voting habits, and that brings us to Brexit as the safest option, unilateral global free trade only as a plan B if bush comes to shove.
Consider too that if most Brexiteers are voting with their hearts rather than with their brains, then can we trust that after Brexit, they'll vote in accordance to economic theory or will they start electing protectionists to Parliament as a gut reaction to the economic problems while ignoring that that will only aggravate the problem?
There's economic theory, and then there's the reality of how people vote.
Hey, Blackshirt, what's the deal with prosecuting Soldier F from Bloody Sunday? Who did he piss off? Who are they trying to appease or scare?
They shouldn't be prosecuting him.
I'm glad to see a number of Paras are handing their medals back to the Queen in protest.
I agree. They shouldn't.
But what I was hoping for was some sort of (preferably cogent) explanation or analysis.
Needless to say, I'm in the wrong shop.
You could always read the BBC news or Sky News website if you want on the whole debacle, written by people who are a tad more knowledgeable about it than I am.
As far as I know, they want to put on trial an elderly former Para for the 1972 Bloody Sunday shootings even though, thanks to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, loads of IRA terrorists have been let off the hook.
But as we all know with Brexit, the people who run Britain today are immensely anti-British and are working tirelessly to harm and humiliate the country.
Last edited:
Hey you dumb fukker, I asked you a question in the History thread, go answer it like the good little bitch you are.
Were the 1,000 soldiers black and set up for a massacre (looks good in the history books but it just shows that Jews have no qualm about killing innocents in large numbers) by the Jews and (their slaves since 1815) the Brits
Were the 1,000 soldiers black and set up for a massacre (looks good in the history books but it just shows that Jews have no qualm about killing innocents in large numbers) by the Jews and (their slaves since 1815) the Brits
The Shadow Attorney General, Chamois Leather Chakrabarti, was on The Andrew Marr Show this morning and Marr asked her if it was right to prosecute the Para.
She said that it was right and that "the rule of law must prevail" and that if he didn't go on trial "it would set a dangerous precedent."
Yet it's okay, apparently, to let IRA murderers off the hook and not put any of them on trial.
She said that it was right and that "the rule of law must prevail" and that if he didn't go on trial "it would set a dangerous precedent."
Yet it's okay, apparently, to let IRA murderers off the hook and not put any of them on trial.