Are the filthy rich for no deal?

Coulson

Well-known Member
It's not that they can't do them now, it's that traditionally, the people they would harm, voted Labour, but now they'll vote Tory, against the own personal interests because a single issues has pushed all sensible thought and reason out of their heads.
Brexit can work. Of course it can! But it only works if the voters are informed. No matter the denials there was one reason why "many" (not all) people voted Brexit. That single issue was a massive driver and as I said before, many of them don't have the problem they were worried about. Where I live I genuinely believe has issues, but still voted Remain. Just weird!
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
It's not that they can't do them now, it's that traditionally, the people they would harm, voted Labour, but now they'll vote Tory, against the own personal interests because a single issue has pushed all sensible thought and reason out of their heads.
Hang on.

I thought it was a Trojan horse for tax changes?

So now you are saying it isn't?

Are you a puppy? You seem to rollover very easily when challenged.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Hang on.

I thought it was a Trojan horse for tax changes?

So now you are saying it isn't?

Are you a puppy? You seem to rollover very easily when challenged.
Not being “able” to do and not doing because it will harm your votes are two different things that you seem to be conflating in your rush to belittle another poster.

With the majority of the Conservatives voters ready to forgive Johnson anything, so long as he delivers their Brexit, are you naive enough to believe that it’s not a perfect time to introduce tax benefits for his more prominent supporters?
 

PatMrex

Active Member
A good article with some interesting links to support this gist of its argument against 'the myths of Brexit disaster capitalism'.

 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
It's not that they can't do them now, it's that traditionally, the people they would harm, voted Labour, but now they'll vote Tory, against the own personal interests because a single issue has pushed all sensible thought and reason out of their heads.
Are you saying that all Labour voters are stupid?
 

Coulson

Well-known Member
So you are saying they are stupid if they are so easily led.
You don't have to be stupid to be fooled. Especially if it tallies with your fears or your existing biases.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
You mean you need another confirmation after I've post hoc added smileys to the original comment because others didn't realise it was a joke? Also your quoted post from me that says "it was a joke". You want another confirmation after all of that? Am I missing something?
Well you still made the ridiculous untrue statements. The joke seems an afterthought to not have to admit that you were very very wrong.
 

Coulson

Well-known Member
Well you still made the ridiculous untrue statements. The joke seems an afterthought to not have to admit that you were very very wrong.
The fact that they were ridiculous I assumed "incorrectly" made it obvious. I mean think about it ".. and you call yourself British". How is that not a joke?

If you think that's an afterthought then that is on you mate.
 

Coulson

Well-known Member
Anyway back to work.....
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Show them your frites :laugh: :eek:
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member

Offhand, Hammond referred to support for the prime minister among ‘speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit’. In doing so, he both echoed and anticipated conspiracy theories common among the most emphatic opponents of leaving the EU.

A post at the website Byline Times suggested that Brexit itself was an exercise in “disaster capitalism” which either by design or happenstance – design most heavily implied – made undesirable capitalists a lot of money. Citing Hammond’s piece, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, tweeted that he would write to the head of the civil service to ask him a few questions.

A post on the Financial Times’ Alphaville blog explained why the Byline Times allegation did not hold water. Variously, its numbers did not make sense, and it assumed a unity of purpose and intention among hedge funds which would be strange and unlikely. Journalists and researchers condemned the original report as unsubstantiated demagoguery. The Byline Times piece and its central point saw massive, largely uncritical circulation nonetheless.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Top Bottom