superspread
Well-Known Member
I can render it
Who's changed there minds on Brexit
- Thread starter Arti
- Start date
Stevieo
Royal Spin Doctor
20 april 1653, London, EnglandYup but remember the country is run by workshy lazy tossers so that would never have happened
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
algeeman
It’s A Boy
We don't have an Oliver Cromwell these days !
Stevieo
Royal Spin Doctor
Worse luck.
Dollar
Well-Known Member
Was speaking to two no backbones
At weekend !
Who were brainwashed with the past media for 3 yrs on brexit scaremongering..
& thus they were back tracking their decisions from leave to I do not know
I however straight on the eu & intentions & the destruction planned for the uk
At weekend !
Who were brainwashed with the past media for 3 yrs on brexit scaremongering..
& thus they were back tracking their decisions from leave to I do not know
I however straight on the eu & intentions & the destruction planned for the uk
If we want our own laws and not to be told what to do with almost every detail of our lives, then we have to go. The EU have threatened Hungary and Poland already, that if they don't take loads of immigrants, what they don't won't there, there will be consequences.
I personally already struggle to see signs of the country I was brought up in, in many parts of this country. I'm proud of my culture, my people, my heritage and what my forefathers did with blood sweat and tears to help establish a country and one that we could prosper in and raise families and be safe. I see that all diminishing completely if we stay in the EU. We will become a country that no longer supports the indigenous population if we continue in the EU just like what happened to many down through the ages. If the EU continues on it's journey, in the not so distant future you will not even know a Europe even existed and that's a fact. The EU is killing itself and I don't want to be part of it.
My only concern is, if we do leave what clout will we have with the top economies in the world.
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
"The EU have threatened Hungary and Poland already, that if they don't take loads of immigrants, what they don't won't there, there will be consequences."
Eh? Freedom of movement means they don't have a choice but to accept immigrants, that's kind of the whole point?
I assume you mean asylum seekers? 2 very different things.
"If we want our own laws" which EU laws are you not happy with that the UK voted against?
I didn't read the rest
You assume wrong immigrants pretending to be asylum seekers and whatever they are I don't want them. You only have to look around Europe and see the problems they cause. Multiculturalism doesn't work unless one submits to the other to some degree. I do not wish to have different cultures trying to come and coming into my country with the intention to not integrate, cause disruption amongst my people and to my way of life and to try and change my culture, my heritage and all that I hold dear, end of.
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
Again though, the EU are unhappy because they aren't taking asylum seekers not immigrants like you first said.
And again name the laws you are unhappy with that the EU have brought in that the UK voted against
You need to read the EU agenda that has been in place for quite some time that is now coming to fruition and what they want for the future, if you want to know any truth. People like you don't listen. I'll say it again immigrants pretending to be asylum seekers and like I said before many in Europe do not want them whatever they are.
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
And AGAIN the laws that you are unhappy with that the UK voted against?
Also you're saying EU citizens are pretending to be asylum seekers in order to get to the UK?
D
Deleted member 32554
Guest
Boris could black up , cross dress and arrive on stage on a pogo stick as far as I'm concerned , as long as he gets UK out of the EU . If after that , his government , not him on his own , fuckup they'll be looking for a job for the next term , his " lies " over dead in a ditch are irrelevant as he couldn't get his deal through with all the other MPs who said they would honour the referendum failed to deliver
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
I know you probably think I'm a c**t, and I'm 90% sure you're right. But that is Boris Johnson lol. Jd or ameretto?
algeeman
It’s A Boy
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
You're a terrible judge of character ☺I dont think your a c**t mate
jd
tapit
Well-Known Member
tapit tape 100% British, coming soon.
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
You know you're allowed your own views not just what twitter tells you? The guys bene in QT audience 4 times lol
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
@Selfbuild anything?
tapit
Well-Known Member
SAY AGAIN?
tapit
Well-Known Member
TWO TARTS DRINKS!
ChrispyUK
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
Which bit doesn't add up? The rasing taxes, cutting marriage allowance and raising inheritance tax to pay for all the policies?and full of holes like your mans manifesto
Or the Tories not raising any taxes to pay for all the policies?
Genuinely interested how the Tories manifestos makes economic sense and Labours doesn't.
tapit
Well-Known Member
My man?and full of holes like your mans manifesto
D
Deleted member 40920
Guest
He's assuming as you aren't hugely biased towards Boris Johnson it means you support Corbyn
ChrispyUK
Well-Known Member
just a bit of fun.Sorry tapit...your woman.
tapit
Well-Known Member
ok, i am not showing my hand.
my vote like my wage and my lunch is private.
However any questions on a new and soon available way to fix plaster beads are welcome.
Smudger1
Well-Known Member
The new “democratic socialists” want to make their followers believe that one could redistribute wealth and income and socialize a large part of the economy without harming production and productivity. They claim that a comprehensive control of the economy by the government would bring more justice and more prosperity. The democratic socialists want more planning and less market. Yet this postulate ignores that socialism does not fail by accident or circumstance. Socialism fails because it suffers from four fundamental design defects.
Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on the consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.
Many supporters of socialism suppose that business management is nothing more than a kind of registration or simple bookkeeping. Vladimir Lenin believed that the knowledge of reading and writing, and some expertise in the use of the basic arithmetic operations and some training in accounting, would be enough for the conduct of business operations. The socialists promote engineering and science, but they believe that there is no need for the entrepreneur. The regime may spend heavily on education but when there is no entrepreneurial economy, the people will stay poor, nevertheless.
The Role of Scarcity
The socialists ignore scarcity. They assume that a plan could stipulate the allocation of goods and services according to needs and wants. Yet the planners must answer how such a plan should find its standards of valuation. Without prices and markets, there is no orientation about which factors of production are more and which are less valuable. The socialist planners have no knowledge of the costs of the production process. Without markets, the prevailing value structure remains unknown.
Supply in relation to want makes goods valuable. In a market economy, the relative prices show the degrees of scarcity. By observing the prices, the market participants receive the information that guides them to align their economic decisions to the market signals. The price system informs about relative scarcities. There is no need for a comprehensive system of detailed information about the origin and nature of the scarcity beyond the prices to make a rational decision. The price system reduces complexity for the individual decision maker to the single number of the price. In a market economy, the economic participants need only partial knowledge to act rationally. In capitalism, the motivation to gain profits and to avoid costs work as an incentive to behave rationally. In a market economy, the prices provide information and incentives simultaneously for the seller and the buyer.
All production faces the problem of an almost unlimited number of ways how to produce a good. One can manufacture a commodity with very different raw materials, technologies, and combinations of the production factors and in an endless variety of designs.
Setting Priorities
Along with the technological feasibility of a project, one must calculate its profitability. Without costs in relation to sales, a technical evaluation makes no sense. That a project is technically viable does not mean that its realization is also worthwhile. What appears efficient from a technical point of view need not be so in terms of economic expediency. With costs left out of the consideration, socialist production is blind to the risk of producing goods that cost more than they are worth. In a socialist economy, even a benevolent dictator could not provide the right mix of goods in terms of price and quality
Socialists suppose that to implant their rule on the economy all that is necessary is to socialize the private companies, replace the management, and install worker councils, and the new economic order would flourish. The early socialists expected that abundance would follow not least because now the workers would get what before went into the hands of the capitalists as profits. Yet the socialists ignored that the socialization of the means of production was just the beginning. They failed miserably in running the economy.
The error of socialist economic planning is to assume that business management could also continue as before after socialist operators take over the capitalist management. While the socialist regime can train administrators and engineers and put the party members in the position of directors, these new leaders cannot decide according to relative scarcities because there is no longer a private property-based entrepreneurial price system available.
The reality of socialism is the command and obedience. Without orientation from markets and prices, brute force rules the allocation of the goods. The claim to combine socialism and democracy is as much a fraud as the assertion that socialism would bring prosperity. Socialism’s true face is totalitarian despotism .
It is no wonder that even a degenerate capitalism produces more prosperity than the best socialism. Therefore, the task ahead cannot be to remove capitalism in favor of socialism but to make capitalism better. In other words: make it more capitalist.
- First, socialism eradicates private property and markets and thus eliminates rational calculation.
- Second, socialism allows soft budgets, so there is no mechanism in place to discard inefficient production methods.
- Third, abolishing private property and replacing it by the state distorts the incentives.
- Four, the socialist system with its absence of private property and of free markets inhibits the economic coordination of the system of division of labor and capital.
Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on the consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.
Many supporters of socialism suppose that business management is nothing more than a kind of registration or simple bookkeeping. Vladimir Lenin believed that the knowledge of reading and writing, and some expertise in the use of the basic arithmetic operations and some training in accounting, would be enough for the conduct of business operations. The socialists promote engineering and science, but they believe that there is no need for the entrepreneur. The regime may spend heavily on education but when there is no entrepreneurial economy, the people will stay poor, nevertheless.
The Role of Scarcity
The socialists ignore scarcity. They assume that a plan could stipulate the allocation of goods and services according to needs and wants. Yet the planners must answer how such a plan should find its standards of valuation. Without prices and markets, there is no orientation about which factors of production are more and which are less valuable. The socialist planners have no knowledge of the costs of the production process. Without markets, the prevailing value structure remains unknown.
Supply in relation to want makes goods valuable. In a market economy, the relative prices show the degrees of scarcity. By observing the prices, the market participants receive the information that guides them to align their economic decisions to the market signals. The price system informs about relative scarcities. There is no need for a comprehensive system of detailed information about the origin and nature of the scarcity beyond the prices to make a rational decision. The price system reduces complexity for the individual decision maker to the single number of the price. In a market economy, the economic participants need only partial knowledge to act rationally. In capitalism, the motivation to gain profits and to avoid costs work as an incentive to behave rationally. In a market economy, the prices provide information and incentives simultaneously for the seller and the buyer.
All production faces the problem of an almost unlimited number of ways how to produce a good. One can manufacture a commodity with very different raw materials, technologies, and combinations of the production factors and in an endless variety of designs.
Setting Priorities
Along with the technological feasibility of a project, one must calculate its profitability. Without costs in relation to sales, a technical evaluation makes no sense. That a project is technically viable does not mean that its realization is also worthwhile. What appears efficient from a technical point of view need not be so in terms of economic expediency. With costs left out of the consideration, socialist production is blind to the risk of producing goods that cost more than they are worth. In a socialist economy, even a benevolent dictator could not provide the right mix of goods in terms of price and quality
Socialists suppose that to implant their rule on the economy all that is necessary is to socialize the private companies, replace the management, and install worker councils, and the new economic order would flourish. The early socialists expected that abundance would follow not least because now the workers would get what before went into the hands of the capitalists as profits. Yet the socialists ignored that the socialization of the means of production was just the beginning. They failed miserably in running the economy.
The error of socialist economic planning is to assume that business management could also continue as before after socialist operators take over the capitalist management. While the socialist regime can train administrators and engineers and put the party members in the position of directors, these new leaders cannot decide according to relative scarcities because there is no longer a private property-based entrepreneurial price system available.
The reality of socialism is the command and obedience. Without orientation from markets and prices, brute force rules the allocation of the goods. The claim to combine socialism and democracy is as much a fraud as the assertion that socialism would bring prosperity. Socialism’s true face is totalitarian despotism .
It is no wonder that even a degenerate capitalism produces more prosperity than the best socialism. Therefore, the task ahead cannot be to remove capitalism in favor of socialism but to make capitalism better. In other words: make it more capitalist.
Mouldyoldspudgun
Well-Known Member
It’s the simple things, like when David Cameron said he wanted to ban micro beads in our toiletries, the EU said no and for you the more serious things like nationalisation which the EU don’t allow, subsidising companies like British Steel which the EU don’t allow. That’s just the obvious, I keep telling you to read about what the EU actually is but your not interested in learning
You wouldn't understand because you don't even know who you are or may be you hate who you are or just lost in the world of the lefties beautiful melting pot.
Yep. so many do not read or understand the bigger agenda of the EU and what's really going on. We are not allowed to be proud when all others are, we are not allowed organisations that represent us when all others are. We are not allowed free speech when others are. Freedom, hahaha don't make me laugh.