May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Wow. A quote from one of the UK's largest selling and most popular newspapers. What a wonderful result you came up with.

 

Quote "The magazine had an ABC circulation figure of 54,070 in 2013, 6,722 of which were unpaid-for copies.[1] This was down from a peak of 76,952 in 2008."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator

 

Even Grouse's favourite newspaper The Guardian had something to say about the Spectator.

 

quote " The Spectator has recorded its highest ever total circulation figures after racking up 71,707 print and digital sales for the last six months of 2015."

 

quote "

The New Statesman saw the biggest rises in both print, increasing copy sales 9% to 31,465, and digital, which almost tripled to more than 1,900.

However, Private Eye, which is only available in print, remains well ahead of the UK-focussed competition, selling 229,777 copies, an increase of 4.7% on the same period of 2014. It was followed by the Week, which upped print circulation by 2% to 204,128 and increased sales of its separate digital version by 25% to 34,637.

The Economist saw a small decline in its UK print sales, down just over 7% to 161,783, but experienced an overall rise in circulation due to a 47% increase in digital sales to 73,567, giving it a total combined circulation of 235,350."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/11/the-spectator-magazine-records-highest-ever-circulation

 

Can you please refer to that august journal by it's proper name Bill? Its 'The Spectacularly Boring' ( @copyright: Private Eye) .

[SheungWan]

51 minutes ago, Orac said:

Sounds like the brexit planning isn't going well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37983948

 

The new dividing line is between the Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit factions in the Government ranks. If the Government loses the appeal to the Supreme Court then there is a risk that Theresa May will be unable to hold her ministers together to behave themselves. A clear risk marker for further downward pressure on sterling.

Edited November 15, 2016 by SheungWan

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

No disagreement there, but no country in the world has extended the franchise to businesses, and the money they throw around in support of their own rent-seeking is a corrupting element in a democracy. It's outrageous how few bankers have gone to prison as a result of the GFC

 

It's outrageous how few bankers have gone to prison as a result of the GFC

 

Quite.

[AlexRich]

18 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Learn to read. All the extremist websites he was looking at are foreign ones, mostly American. He has no connection to the brexit leave movement, and the brexit leave movement has no connection to him. And try to get this very simple and very important fact into your head: he has a long history of of mental illness, and his obsession with extreme right wing (American) politics is an 'outfit' which 'dresses' his mental ilness.

 

But remain don't want anyone to understand this. They desperately want to pin Jo Cox's death on the brexit leave movement, just as they desperately want the public to feel sympathy for Gina Miller and her fake 'vile abuse'. It's the most cynical of ploys: "You wouldn't want to be seen to be associated with any of that, would you?"; and has reduced remain and their desperate last-ditch campaign to the political equivalent of ambulance chasers. How totally morally bankrupt is that?

 

I feel sorry for the 'useful idiots' who propagate this cynical political ambulance chasing, believing it to be a worthy cause.

 

So, following your logic, if there had been no referendum Jo Cox would have been killed anyway? 

 

[AlexRich]

16 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

No disagreement there, but no country in the world has extended the franchise to businesses, and the money they throw around in support of their own rent-seeking is a corrupting element in a democracy. It's outrageous how few bankers have gone to prison as a result of the GFC

 

Can't fault you on that comment. Hank Paulson let's Goldman Sachs rival  Lehman Brothers collapse then blackmails Congress/Senate to bankroll bailouts for his friends at Goldman Sachs. Incredible.

[AlexRich]

One for the Brexit lovers: 

 

http://www.cityam.com/253648/no-plan-brexit-memo-companies-point-gun-governments-head

 

The memo, prepared for the Cabinet Office, also noted that the business world has come to two “unpleasant realisations”:

First, that the government’s priority remains its political survival, not the economy – second, that there will be no clear economic-Brexit strategy any time soon because it is being developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on government.

Edited November 15, 2016 by AlexRich

[jpinx]

16 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

One for the Brexit lovers: 

 

http://www.cityam.com/253648/no-plan-brexit-memo-companies-point-gun-governments-head

 

The memo, prepared for the Cabinet Office, also noted that the business world has come to two “unpleasant realisations”:

First, that the government’s priority remains its political survival, not the economy – second, that there will be no clear economic-Brexit strategy any time soon because it is being developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on government.

I've been saying something similar for ages --  the government MP's will pass whatever laws are required to keep them in power.

[SheungWan]

32 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Can't fault you on that comment. Hank Paulson let's Goldman Sachs rival  Lehman Brothers collapse then blackmails Congress/Senate to bankroll bailouts for his friends at Goldman Sachs. Incredible.

 

GS wasn't bailed out.

[AlexRich]

37 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

GS wasn't bailed out.

 

If the US Government hadn't taken action to support the US banking system they would have all gone under ... and despite that support they still had to raise cash from Warren Buffett.

[AlexRich]

45 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

GS wasn't bailed out.

 

Read it and weep:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-aig-bailout

 

[SheungWan]

57 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Read it and weep:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-aig-bailout

 

 

Not a bailout.

[AlexRich]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Not a bailout.

 

Without the support the US Government provided to the sector they would have gone out of business, the article shows that they also made use of taxpayer money. Call it what you like, the state saved their bacon.

[SheungWan]

47 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Without the support the US Government provided to the sector they would have gone out of business, the article shows that they also made use of taxpayer money. Call it what you like, the state saved their bacon.

 

I call it not a bailout of GS.

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

I call it not a bailout of GS.

 

A state bailout of the banking system ... courtesy of ex Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson and friends. Without it GS and the rest would have gone into meltdown. 

[billd766]

7 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

So are you implying that this Brexit-supporting magazine was wrong on facts? You asked for a reference, you got one from a respected source that supports the Brexit cause. If you are claiming that it is wrong and factually incorrect please provide YOUR evidence to back that claim up?

 

The reason why I am weary of providing sources is that the only reason they are asked for is so that the requester can find some snippet of information to deflect or obfuscate the argument ... and circulation is absolutely irrelevant ... the truth is the truth ... just acknowledge you are wrong. 

 

 

 

Yes I do think that the Spectator is wrong on facts.

 

The majority of people that I know who voted for Brexit were middle and upper management in the UK. Most of them are comfortably well off, all own their own houses and have worked their way up. They also believe in Great Britain and that GB can survive without the EU.

 

What you have in Brendan O'Neill is yet another champagne socialist who simply cannot understand that not everybody lives, works and likes the things that he does, and who is hopelessly out of touch with the real world.

 

Like you, he does not like anyone to disagree with him and, also like you and Grouse, simply insults people that he believes are his social inferiors.

 

From Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_O'Neill_(journalist)

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by billd766
correcting spelling mistakes

[SheungWan]

10 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

A state bailout of the banking system ... courtesy of ex Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson and friends. Without it GS and the rest would have gone into meltdown. 

 

AIG isn't a bank. All GS transactions taken out under the Federal Reserve Emergency Liquidity Program fully repaid.

Edited November 15, 2016 by SheungWan

[billd766]

7 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

So are you implying that this Brexit-supporting magazine was wrong on facts? You asked for a reference, you got one from a respected source that supports the Brexit cause. If you are claiming that it is wrong and factually incorrect please provide YOUR evidence to back that claim up?

 

The reason why I am weary of providing sources is that the only reason they are asked for is so that the requester can find some snippet of information to deflect or obfuscate the argument ... and circulation is absolutely irrelevant ... the truth is the truth ... just acknowledge you are wrong. 

 

 

 

Perhaps you are weary of providing sources is that you have to scratch around to find an obscure newspaper to support your theories.

 

Why would I acknowledge that I am wrong, when like you, I believe that I am right and you are wrong.

 

You state that the truth is the truth.

 

Whose truth would that be?

 

Yours, mine, the Spectators, the Brexiteers, the Bremainers, Private Eye's, anybody elses that you can think of?

 

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Perhaps you are weary of providing sources is that you have to scratch around to find an obscure newspaper to support your theories.

 

Why would I acknowledge that I am wrong, when like you, I believe that I am right and you are wrong.

 

You state that the truth is the truth.

 

Whose truth would that be?

 

Yours, mine, the Spectators, the Brexiteers, the Bremainers, Private Eye's, anybody elses that you can think of?

 

 

 

 

 

Truth is not arbitrary unless one disappears down a post-modernist plughole. For the sake of informed discussion a modicum of empirical reference is a reasonable point of departure. One can argue around the veracity of evidence provided but at least it keeps disputants hopefully in the same room.

Edited November 15, 2016 by SheungWan

[AlexRich]

46 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Yes I do think that the Spectator is wrong on facts.

 

The majority of people that I know who voted for Brexit were middle and upper management in the UK. Most of them are comfortably well off, all own their own houses and have worked their way up. They also believe in Great Britain and that GB can survive without the EU.

 

What you have in Brendan O'Neill is yet another champagne socialist who simply cannot understand that not everybody lives, works and likes the things that he does, and who is hopelessly out of touch with the real world.

 

Like you, he does not like anyone to disagree with him and, also like you and Grouse, simply insults people that he believes are his social inferiors.

 

From Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_O'Neill_(journalist)

 

 

 

 

 

There you go again. Attempting to discredit the article but not with any evidence to support your view that the author is wrong. Anecdotal evidence of a few people you know does not count. 

 

Please show your own sources to back up your claim that the majority of poorer people and those on benefits did NOT vote for Brexit?  My point, and the author's, is that the majority DID vote for Brexit.

 

As for personal insults? I've no idea what you are referring to ... you are the one who accused me of being "too lazy" to provide a journalistic source. Or does that not count?

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by AlexRich

[AlexRich]

42 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

AIG isn't a bank. All GS transactions taken out under the Federal Reserve Emergency Liquidity Program fully repaid.

 

Paid or not, without it GS would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. They raised money from Buffett because they needed it ... not because they were in robust financial health. Whatever way you look at it the US Government bailed out the entire sector ... without their intervention it would have went into meltdown, taking GS et al with it. AIG not a Bank? You don't say. 

[AlexRich]

46 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Perhaps you are weary of providing sources is that you have to scratch around to find an obscure newspaper to support your theories.

 

Why would I acknowledge that I am wrong, when like you, I believe that I am right and you are wrong.

 

You state that the truth is the truth.

 

Whose truth would that be?

 

Yours, mine, the Spectators, the Brexiteers, the Bremainers, Private Eye's, anybody elses that you can think of?

 

 

 

 

 

But your 'truth' has nothing to back it up ... nothing but delusion and denial.

 

• "A majority of those working full-time or part-time voted to remain in the EU; most of those not working voted to leave. More than half of those retired on a private pension voted to leave, as did two thirds of those retired on a state pension".
• Lord Ashcroft blog

 

[SheungWan]

34 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Paid or not, without it GS would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. They raised money from Buffett because they needed it ... not because they were in robust financial health. Whatever way you look at it the US Government bailed out the entire sector ... without their intervention it would have went into meltdown, taking GS et al with it. AIG not a Bank? You don't say. 

 

The financial system would have gone into meltdown. Everybody would have been badly affected so Paulsen et al attended to the financial 'plumbing' and a good job that they did. Now what I find a little bit interesting as far as this thread is concerned is of both pro- and anti-Brexiteers using the issue of Brexit to front their pet anti-capitalist and and anti-socialist nostrums. All a bit of a sideshow really, except for one important feature namely that one becomes increasingly aware that the hard-left populist sing-song about GS echoes that of the hard-right's harping on about the Rothschilds. It is more and more difficult to separate the two.

[Laughing Gravy]

16 hours ago, AlexRich said:

So, following your logic, if there had been no referendum Jo Cox would have been killed anyway? 

 

Quite possibly yes. Nobody knows. The man who seems to have (until convicted) killed her, seems so far from the reporting, to be unstable and was stalking other MP's. Nobody can put a link to the referendum being held, as the reason for Jo Cox death, which you are trying to imply from your statements and posts.

[Laughing Gravy]

This article below is exactly the problem. The BBC and other establishment media just won't accept the result and that leave meant leave the EU, single market and control its borders and have sovereignty to make its own laws.  It has been mentioned over and over again, that it was clear. The BBC again with the quote below, just keep showing the arrogance and out of touch with the people, they really are. a protest vote. The abysmal bias and reporting has made the BBC so less credible that they are becoming a laughing stock.

 

The sadness is their is no opt out for the UK people on paying the licence fee. The next referendum the UK people should have, is shall we opt out of paying the BBC licence fee, simply yes or no. I can tell you there is no need for a poll for that outcome.

 

“We did opinion polls afterwards that showed that, actually, if we were to hold the referendum again, Remain would win.

“There were people who came on the BBC who said, ‘You know what? I voted to leave but I didn't actually think we were going to leave.’ It was a protest vote."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/732528/Katty-Kay-Brexit-BBC-presenter-regrets-NBC

[billd766]

12 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

There you go again. Attempting to discredit the article but not with any evidence to support your view that the author is wrong. Anecdotal evidence of a few people you know does not count. 

 

Please show your own sources to back up your claim that the majority of poorer people and those on benefits did NOT vote for Brexit?  My point, and the author's, is that the majority DID vote for Brexit.

 

As for personal insults? I've no idea what you are referring to ... you are the one who accused me of being "too lazy" to provide a journalistic source. Or does that not count?

 

 

 

Discredit what article?

 

You managed to find one quote in one very small national newspaper that has a paid circulation of less than my local newspaper back in the UK.

 

You dislike the results and reports in the Sun, Mirror, Express, Mail etc so you dont accept that they are speaking for millions of people yet you are happy with an obscure newspaper with a circulation of less that 75,000 that condemns a large majority of the population of the UK.

 

It is his opinion. I have just reread his article. He interviewed nobody. Gave no links or references as to how he came to that conclusion, so where did he get his references from? He apparently spoke to many Bremainers  but seemingly could find no Brexiteers anywhere.

 

Show your sources to back up your claim that the majority of 17 million people were poorer people and on benefits. That is 8 1/2 million people or more that a quarter of the people who bothered to vote.

 

Who actually went around interviewing the voters both for Brexit and those against? What percentage were chosen from each group or area? What were the questions asked and were they the same for each group and area?

 

I have no idea. Do you?

 

BTW I made no claim at all that the majority of poorer people and those on benefits did NOT vote for Brexit? 

 

Try reading and comprehending a post and check what the posters actually wrote.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

This article below is exactly the problem. The BBC and other establishment media just won't accept the result and that leave meant leave the EU, single market and control its borders and have sovereignty to make its own laws.  It has been mentioned over and over again, that it was clear. The BBC again with the quote below, just keep showing the arrogance and out of touch with the people, they really are. a protest vote. The abysmal bias and reporting has made the BBC so less credible that they are becoming a laughing stock.

 

The sadness is their is no opt out for the UK people on paying the licence fee. The next referendum the UK people should have, is shall we opt out of paying the BBC licence fee, simply yes or no. I can tell you there is no need for a poll for that outcome.

 

“We did opinion polls afterwards that showed that, actually, if we were to hold the referendum again, Remain would win.

“There were people who came on the BBC who said, ‘You know what? I voted to leave but I didn't actually think we were going to leave.’ It was a protest vote."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/732528/Katty-Kay-Brexit-BBC-presenter-regrets-NBC

 

So the BBC is biased but you are happy to accept the direction from the Express, which is owned by the pornographer Richard Desmond, who previously owned Channel 5 and a TV porn channel, and still owns such esteemed organs as Asian Babes and Horny Housewives?

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Discredit what article?

 

You managed to find one quote in one very small national newspaper that has a paid circulation of less than my local newspaper back in the UK.

 

You dislike the results and reports in the Sun, Mirror, Express, Mail etc so you dont accept that they are speaking for millions of people yet you are happy with an obscure newspaper with a circulation of less that 75,000 that condemns a large majority of the population of the UK.

 

It is his opinion. I have just reread his article. He interviewed nobody. Gave no links or references as to how he came to that conclusion, so where did he get his references from? He apparently spoke to many Bremainers  but seemingly could find no Brexiteers anywhere.

 

Show your sources to back up your claim that the majority of 17 million people were poorer people and on benefits. That is 8 1/2 million people or more that a quarter of the people who bothered to vote.

 

Who actually went around interviewing the voters both for Brexit and those against? What percentage were chosen from each group or area? What were the questions asked and were they the same for each group and area?

 

I have no idea. Do you?

 

BTW I made no claim at all that the majority of poorer people and those on benefits did NOT vote for Brexit? 

 

Try reading and comprehending a post and check what the posters actually wrote.

 

What I stated, as did the author in a respected magazine, is that the majority of the poorest and lesser educated voted for Brexit. I even added a quote from Lord Ashcroft's blog (another Brexit lover) to back up that claim. The two sources are pro-Brexit, so you can hardly accuse me of bias.

 

Correct, you do have "no idea". And you very quickly fell into the same routine of those that constantly ask for references but then conveniently ignore them (or try to discredit them) when they are supplied and fail to support your view. 

 

There are plenty of stats around to back up my statement. Try Lord Ashcroft's blog, you'll certainly find the answers to your questions on there. 

 

But the sad truth is that you are not interested in the truth.

 

 

[AlexRich]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Quite possibly yes. Nobody knows. The man who seems to have (until convicted) killed her, seems so far from the reporting, to be unstable and was stalking other MP's. Nobody can put a link to the referendum being held, as the reason for Jo Cox death, which you are trying to imply from your statements and posts.

 

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it. Without the referendum and all the public hatred stirred up by the likes of UKIP, Jo Cox would be alive today. 

[AlexRich]

A Supreme Court judge let's slip ... will the Government's appeal of the Article 50 judgement be successful?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-supreme-court-judge-says-eu-vote-not-legally-binding-and-brexit-could-be-delayed-a3396431.html

 

"A Supreme Court judge who will hear the Government’s Article 50 appeal has said the EU referendum result was not legally binding and Brexit could be delayed by two more years.

During a speech to lawyers in Kuala Lumpar Lady Brenda Hale also claimed the Government could require more than a “simple Act of Parliament”, the Independent reported".

[Orac]

 
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it. Without the referendum and all the public hatred stirred up by the likes of UKIP, Jo Cox would be alive today. 

Surely not....

http://newsthump.com/2016/06/17/daily-mail-trying-hard-to-avoid-saying-thomas-mair-agreed-with-everything-they-write/