boring accountant wrote: » Your Pavlovian response to my singling out Remain sources is irritatingly predictable. I thought it was particularly notable that Remain leaning broadsheets went from factual-but-with-an-editorial-perspective to tabloid toilet paper overnight. I never read right wing sources.
CelticRambler wrote: » A perfect description of Brexit. Which is mostly being peddled by the Right and Far Right, isn't it?
listermint wrote: » Then you must be really pissed off with the Tories and their 'f business' mantra and messing with the market access that they have been doing for two years.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities. that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.
BonnieSituation wrote: » What aspect of free-market captialism is so great? Why do you "believe" so hard in it? What would be your preferred model for the UK? Say America or Denmark? What aspect of his contact with the IRA in the 70s/80s do you particularly dislike and reckon risks the integrity of the UK now? Doesn't the GFA guarantee that the North is continues to be part of the UK until the consent of those therein is given to change it? Does Corbyn as PM threaten the GFA? The reunification of Ireland can only occur with teh consent of all the peopls iof this island via 2 referenda, north and south. Corbyn as PM can only work within the framework as laid out in the GFA. As PM he would be guarantor of that framework. Do you think he shoudln't as PM be a guarantor or be pro-GFA? How did he mislead the country? The referendum has been respected. The nature of the exit has yet to be agreed and that is all on the Tories.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.
Imreoir2 wrote: » There is very little evidence of this. It is true that the UK lacks a competant trade cadre because of it's membership of the EU, but it does not follow that the UK would be better off having to do trade deals of its own.
Rjd2 wrote: » Hope when we get a second referendum the likes of Swinson, Lucas etc show some class and give Nigel Farage some credit for ensuring no brexit. It would look like sour grapes if they didn't.https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1192146480167104513
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I'll ignore your ad hominem remark. Two questions. How can you assess British "tabloid toilet paper" if you don't "read right wing sources"? If you don't trust "Remain leading broadsheets", and you don't "read right wing sources", how do you inform yourself?
boring accountant wrote: » 1. Not even an ad hom. My remark was based on your response, not you. 2. You don't have to trust a paper to read it occassionally. I can use my own judgement and don't have to take things at face value. 3. The vast majority of my news comes from papers with a paid subscription. I highly recommend trying it if you haven't. Clickbait news is bad for one's health.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » So you don't read Remain papers and you don't read right wing papers. But the papers you do read are secret. Grand.
prawnsambo wrote: » The US China trade war has badly hit Singapore with growth forecasts set for anything from 0 to 1%. They depend heavily on China for their growth and China is suffering a slowdown. The model is great when things are going well, but they are heavily exposed to much larger economies. As you do when you go it alone.
quokula wrote: » With the Brexit votes so important to Ireland and on such a knife edge, and the possibility of another hung parliament looming large, I assume there's still no talk from Sinn Fein on the possibility of turning up and voting? I know they were pushed on it for some of the key votes last year, and the response was that voters elected them on a promise of abstentionism, but a new election is a new opportunity to revisit that surely?
boring accountant wrote: » You know there's a such things as the centre. I also never said I don't read remain leaning papers. I'm also not going to bother telling you what paper I do read, mostly one. If you're in any way sophisticated you'll figure out which one it is based on my username and the paid subscription.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Does anyone have any credible economic argument for Brexit? Lots of people just drop cliched slogans about FTAs or point at Singapore, but nobody can offer any substantive pro-Brexit economic analysis that says the average British person will be better off after Brexit.
boring accountant wrote: » The most credible Brexiter argument is that it allows for greater deregulation along the same lines as the United States. It has worked for the US, but whether that will work for the UK, a much smaller economy, smaller military and with fewer resources is highly doubtful, but it is an argument.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Would you have a link to any analysis of that point?
hotmail.com wrote: » Constituency polls in the UK are almost pointless.
boring accountant wrote: » Tragically, this is not the case. Europe, by that I mean European companies, are very far behind the curve. Completely missed the boat on Internet 2.0. Missing out on 5G. Likely to be 3rd best or maybe a distant second in electric vehicles.
boring accountant wrote: » No, I'm afraid. I'd be interested to see some proper analysis myself because it does seem to be the way the UK is intent on heading, but there aren't any reliable organisations performing research like that that I'm aware of.
prawnsambo wrote: » The Singapore model is the one most widely used by people who would benefit most from it. Singapore benefits from its proximity to China and the money flowing into their banking system from there. I wouldn't say 'dodgy' money, but those accusations have been levelled. From a UK point of view, the only large economy nearby that would want to avail of such 'services' would be Russia. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Russia is suspected of having a hand in brexit.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Do you think no politician should have tried to have a dialogue with them? Where do you think that would have led? I think refusing to speak to the IRA - or the equally vile and murderous Loyalist paramilitaries who seem to rarely be mentioned - would have led exactly nowhere and the atrocities from all sides would have continued unabated. Thankfully, sense prevailed, dialogue happened, an agreement was reached, and peace has (for the most part) occurred.
gooch2k9 wrote: » Pictures from Conservative launch strangely reminiscent of Trump rallies. Podium set up with big crowd behind them.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Equally coincidental is the number of wealthy Russians donating large sums of money to the Tory party. It's all just a misunderstanding.
He says he will continue to campaign for the party, and that the decision was "personal, not political".
quokula wrote: » It’s amazing how stuff like this gets minimal coverage while they go on calling Corbyn a Russian stooge. It’s like seeing 1984 play out before our eyes.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Another causality casualty.Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson stands down I keep being reminded that Tony Blair MP is an anagram of I'm Tory Plan B.
quokula wrote: » This is probably a good thing for Labour given how consistently he briefed against party policy the last couple of years. Feels like Labour have been much more united in general lately, the threat of a Boris Johnson majority has perhaps focussed the minds of more centrist Labour MPs in the same way it alienated more centrist Tories.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
