Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2019, 02:59:37 PM
Nationalists are rational. Unionists drank the Brexit Kool Aid.
a bit too sweeping for my liking
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: seafoid on March 07, 2019, 02:59:37 PM
Nationalists are rational. Unionists drank the Brexit Kool Aid.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 06, 2019, 06:26:32 PM
Are the democrats still pinning their hopes on a porn star?
Whatever happened to that Russian collusion? It's all gone a little quiet from Adam Shitt and company.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 04, 2019, 04:56:37 PM
Who's the Nazis??
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2019, 06:31:20 PM
Some arseholes about. Irish open would've folded a few years ago if it weren't for him. People would rather fawn over Mickelson that give Rory the credit he deserves.
Quote from: LCohen on February 19, 2019, 08:17:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on February 19, 2019, 05:18:23 PM
Brexit is going really well
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/ridiculous-say-no-one-ever-voted-poorer
It is ridiculous to say no one ever voted to be poorer
•
Daniel Hannan
17 February 2019 • 4:00pm
•
•
•
•
Save
People have every right to vote to be poorer. That, though, is hardly an argument for cancelling elections CREDIT: ANTHONY UPTON
"No one voted to be poorer". It has become a Europhile mantra, a slogan rattled off almost unthinkingly by Remainer MPs, especially Labour moderates. If we're talking specifically about Brexit, it may or may not be true. Personally speaking, I expect Brexit to make me poorer (I am an MEP) but, over time, to make Britain richer. How much richer depends, obviously, on the choices we make as a country.
As a general proposition, though, the idea that no one ever votes to be poorer is utter tosh. We vote to be poorer all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. We vote to be poorer whenever we vote for stricter rules on where houses can be built. We vote to be poorer when we turn away able-bodied economic migrants.
We vote to be poorer when we back schemes to preserve the habitats of rare species. We vote to be poorer when we subsidise orchestras or art galleries. We vote to be poorer when we privilege particular industries with tariffs or grants.
My point is not that these choices are right or wrong, simply that GDP is not our sole concern as voters, any more than money is not our sole concern as individuals.
To take an extreme example the decision to go to war with Hitler plainly could not be justified on economic grounds, yet it was backed by an overwhelming majority in the country.
Likewise the decision to retake the Falkland Islands.
It is bizarre to hear such blockheaded materialism from middle-class Labour MPs who are normally the first to boast about their readiness to "pay a little more tax to help the less privileged" (though they rarely actually do so, despite HMRC offering a provision for individuals to volunteer additional contributions).
If wealth were our chief measure, we would scrap almost all lifestyle taxes, most environmental regulations and a fair number of welfare payments.
Returning to Brexit, the act of leaving the EU will not, on its own, add a farthing to our national wealth. What it will do is to remove constraints, allowing us to make different choices. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to fail. As a fully sovereign country, we might become a free-trading Singapore or a Corbynite Venezuela. It will be our decision.
My guess is that Brexit will involve transitional costs and long-term gains – what Boris Johnson, during the referendum campaign, called the "Nike swoosh". Most of us understand deferred gratification. We practise it in our own lives all the time. A computer programmer might, for example, experience a loss of income while learning a new and more profitable form of coding.
We could make a hash of Brexit, of course. If we end up remaining in the EU's customs union, and giving Brussels permanent control over our trade with third countries, we will lose the benefits of staying without gaining the benefits of leaving. But I'd rather live in a democracy, and sometimes be on the losing side, than have my choices delineated by unelected officials.
People have every right to vote to be poorer. Indeed, a vote for Labour is in general a vote to be poorer: every Labour government, without exception, has put up unemployment. That, though, is hardly an argument for cancelling elections. MPs, of all people, should understand as much.
There are points of principle in that that can be admired but as soon as any Tory uses the term "a Corbynite Venezuela" you know he is disingenuous