Rjan:
Winseer:
Whilst the Remainers like to bang on about the £350m on the side of the bus being a “lie”, we also got told that Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster was “wrong” (Was it?) and Cameron, would respect and implement what he decided…If I remember correctly, Farage himself disowned the £350m a week claim. There is one thing I will say about Farage is that he could perhaps frequently be accused of misrepresentation by omission, and he certainly associates with crooks and liars, but when put on the spot he is usually frank - he does appear to have that integrity (and of course as a one-man show he is only ever accountable for himself). Everyone really needed to disavow the £350m really, as it was only ever an estimate, and was “pre-rebate” being knocked off it, which is worth pointing out still left a 9-figure sum net deficit in what we pay the EU over what they pay back to us. Let’s agree on that.
By the start of business Monday 27th June, we should across that weekend - stopped the payments to Brussels, and honoured any payments owed for goods in transit, whilst at the same time expecting a reciprocal arrangement from Brussels. I.e. they stopped the rebates, and honoured payments for their goods in transit to us.
THIS would have been a smooth “Transitionary” arrangement to “keep on paying for the GOODS AND SERVICES ONLY” rather than “Paying the club membership monies” as it were.
The problem with that idea is that half the British working class would also have been laid off over the weekend, and the entire Brexit agenda would have sunk to the bottom of the sea immediately as soon as a large number of people lost even a single day’s pay. Even Hitler’s Enabling Act took a couple of months to implement. You really should get out of the habit of thinking that this was a realistic idea - it’s not how a multi-trillion pound economy such as ours can be run, and the more you talk nonsense to yourself the more unreasonable and remote the real world seems.
I’m completely baffled as to why ‘half the British working class would be laid off’… You’re going to have to elaborate on this one. The way I understand it, at very most, the only ones being laid off would be those civil servants who point-blank refuse to start pulling the strings and levels that prevent the money going to Brussels. Anyone involved with “Goods in Transit” is NOT going to be affected, for reasons I’ve already explained.This notion that “We must pay, and continue to pay” is the sort of deal we would have expected from Hitler, had he successfully invaded in 1940.
The reality is, it took both world superpowers running at full steam, a variety of resistance movements in almost every European nation, plus the British economy on an total war footing that left almost everything utterly worn out by the end of the war and lumbered it with 60 years of war debts, just to bring Hitler to his knees. You’re living in the clouds when you imagine that if Britain defaulted on its (modest and freely-entered-into) obligations for just the next couple of years, that it would be their problem rather than ours. I would agree that It indeeed took a gargantulan political effort to even get so much as Lend Lease out of America, with them not coming into the war for an indecently prolonged period whilst Britain stood alone, looking like losing. If only such “gargantulan efforts” politically could be made to get Brexit done, rather than support the losing side of Remain.
This notion that Hitler was “Right” rather than “Hard Left” has been pushed way into the background, as is the simple fact that the Jews were NOT the ■■■■’s “Main Victims”.
One of Hitler’s main victims was the “hard left”, and whilst the Jews weren’t his only victims, it is still fair to say that as a group they were one of the main victims - and perhaps unlike socialists who were direct targets of the ■■■■ regime, Jews as a religious group were purely scapegoats (and the main figures in the ■■■■ regime put it on record that this was the case). Even in respect of the stereotype of Jews as international financiers (which was not true even then), the reality is that wealthy Jews were untouched (having had the means and the forewarning to flee or bribe their way out), and it was mainly working class Jews that suffered who could not be considered responsible for anything whatsoever. I’ve never considered “Communism” at least proper Communism to be the “Hard Left”. If it were, then the Left in this country, Far, Center, or Tory Lites even - would all be applauding Putin right now for doing more to actually “Make Russia Soviet Again” if I were to doff my Devil’s Advocate Wig for a moment, rather than slagging the poor Ex KGB guy off, and blame him for everything, including Salisbury…
There’s no “Right Wing Hostility” in "Not wanting to pay higher taxes so Joe Lazy Barsteward can get more benefits/faster track access to NHS treatment/free prescriptions/free council tax/free accommodation, and even the ability to go on holiday at the drop of a hat, because one doesn’t have to worry about being told “No” when you submit a holiday form.
If you’re against laziness, then you are primarily against shareholders collecting dividends in exchange for idleness, or idle beneficiaries who inherit wealth and family trusts, and you are also primarily for a policy of full employment, both of which are left-wing policies, not right-wing ones. You probably don’t hear about these wealthy idlers however, because you probably don’t reside in the same areas and social circles as they do, and you don’t read the sorts of papers that constantly make an example of them. I’m not sure where your coming from there… It sounds like you are against “Unearned Income” which would have to include “Interest on Savings”, something it is the very wealthy and elderly savers who voted Brexit - are suffering over, with the prevailing low interest rates for as long as they have been. Shares paying Dividends though? - I just cannot see that as an Evil. What I WOULD like to see “Reformed” are to make it compulsory for ALL shares to pay a dividend, no matter how small - plus “One Shareholding equals One Vote” replacing the current 1 institution with a million shares gets to outvote 9,000 small investors with 100 shares apiece. THAT is a total travesty of Justice, let alone Democracy!
You and Carryfast by far have some of the most wild and confused views about what “left” and “right” are in the political context.
