-
Posts
-
Yet every serious question you fail to answer
Try this one
Minford and his mates are prime movers of making Britain a Singapore-on-the-Thames. Get rid of unions, get rid of regulations to free up trade and bring back profits. That’s why they’re right-wing. That’s why Rees-Mogg looks to them. That’s why Thatcher looked to them.
They are free market. I’m pro-free trade. I’m not in favour of a totally free market.
The comment by the Moose that all economists are right-wing is bizarre. If you don’t know anything, that’s fine, but why pretend that you do?
Minford and co are seen by most economists as “off-the-wall”, as Martin Wolf, chief economist of the Financial Times calls them
Health, hygiene, safety, the environment are part of the EU as a rules-based order – there are so many rules because 28 countries had to have standardised rules on these things.
That’s why Master Rude Boy’s comment that “60 per cent of regulations originate from the EU and the 28-member Commission in Brussels — none of whom were elected” from his page 1 post doesn’t bother me. The Civil Service which organises regulations here in the UK aren’t elected, either. Another attempt by the liars of Leave to pander to prejudice.
Or should I say try these two.
I answered your point on the EU regulations, but you’ve made no answer yet.
Like Gerry Smashface, you’re strong on the abuse.
Not so good on the actual argument.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by
sceptical guy.
Doesn’t stop you calling members “prigs ” etc tho does it? Nothing offensive there..
Aw, shucks, Master Rudeboy.
Here be you wandering up and down the playground swinging your tiny fists at everyone and trying to frighten the women with abuse and insults and…..
what do I find??
A hint of a defence of me against the charge of being a prig.
My Sir Galahad
However, as has been pointed out, prig isn’t an offensive word.
It does happen to be an inaccurate word, but on second thoughts I’d rather that Ms Mooosey continued to use inaccurate words rather than use her intuitive skills to find out my real weak spots.
Now that would be a problem. I’m sure that she’ll find out them out at some point and then it might hurt.
1 member liked this post.
Yet every serious question you fail to answer
Try this one
Minford and his mates are prime movers of making Britain a Singapore-on-the-Thames. Get rid of unions, get rid of regulations to free up trade and bring back profits. That’s why they’re right-wing. That’s why Rees-Mogg looks to them. That’s why Thatcher looked to them.
They are free market. I’m pro-free trade. I’m not in favour of a totally free market.
The comment by the Moose that all economists are right-wing is bizarre. If you don’t know anything, that’s fine, but why pretend that you do?
Minford and co are seen by most economists as “off-the-wall”, as Martin Wolf, chief economist of the Financial Times calls them
Health, hygiene, safety, the environment are part of the EU as a rules-based order – there are so many rules because 28 countries had to have standardised rules on these things.
That’s why Master Rude Boy’s comment that “60 per cent of regulations originate from the EU and the 28-member Commission in Brussels — none of whom were elected” from his page 1 post doesn’t bother me. The Civil Service which organises regulations here in the UK aren’t elected, either. Another attempt by the liars of Leave to pander to prejudice.
Or should I say try these two.
I answered your point on the EU regulations, but you’ve made no answer yet.
Like Gerry Smashface, you’re strong on the abuse.
Not so good on the actual argument.
Every post you type refers to right wing/left wing.. any more wings and you will be taking off old man as the 21st version of the Wright brothers.
What difference does it make to credibility if a person or organisation is right wing or not? As usual in your pitifully one dimensional mindset, your vision of right wing is someone waving a BNP flag around with a British bulldog tattoo instead of actually understanding what right wing is. Nationalism would fit within a right wing label which is defined as putting the needs of a nation first which is what any sane person living in a specific country would want- it doesn’t equate to racism. Trump often quotes the slogan ” America first” and the economy is booming compared to when he took over yet liberal Sceptical is happy to see UK people accessing foodbanks whilst we fund the Ethiopian spice girls with foreign aid or funding a huge vanity project in the shape of a colossal statue with hundreds of millions of pounds whilst here we have pensioners shivering unable to stay warm due to “doing out bit”
You always preach about how terrible right wing policies are, how much do you donate Sceptical to foreign causes? In the Uk we have an NHS overstretched unable to cope with both numbers and costs due to a government frittering away countless millions on EU regulations leading to people having to self fund their own cancer treatments on go fund me websites whilst tax payers money goes to projects like this
Here be you wandering up and down the playground swinging your tiny fists at everyone and trying to frighten the women with abuse and insults and…..
There’s no woman ” frightened ” on an internet messageboard, just your warped mind at work again… you are though as you twist and squirm when called away from the safety of your computer talking about people being Nazis. Feel free to stop yapping and pm me anytime instead of your continual implications of ” frightening women… are you in a dress yourself?
It does happen to be an inaccurate word, but on second thoughts I’d rather that Ms Mooosey continued to use inaccurate words rather than use her intuitive skills to find out my real weak spots.
Jesus, you are a desperate, snivelling little sod aren’t you lol.. cringeworthy stuff. No woman is interested enough in you sceptical to be using their intuition at discovering what motivates a sexually frustrated sap with his tongue so far up females backsides online it’s tickling their tonsils , who bends over backwards in order to appear a noble gentleman instead of the withered husk of masculinity you appear to be. I’m sure “Mrs M” will be PMing “Mr S ” later to find out using her deductive powers what motivates a senile old man to be equating a nazi with someone who dislikes gypsies – maybe she will employ Dr Watson if Sophia is around. The Moose of the Baskervilles maybe?
I suspect the most likely thing you will be receiving from females in future Sceptical wont be the latest sherlock holmes deduction into your mindset but a restraining order for your creepy ways.
Answer the post, Mr Bright Boy.
I said don’t use abuse and insult. We all know how good you are with that.
That is your talent. Something to boast about hey?
Argument, please!!
Not a digression into the meaning of right-wing nationalism.
Look, Mr Clever, fora s tarter, I am answering your ‘factual’ post on p.1. It’s an important post in that it regurgitates and panders to the fears whihc moved so many ordinary people to vote Leave.
You made an argument about EU regulations, and I directly answered it. Directly!
If you can’t answer it, at least be honest enough and I’ll go on to that dreaded EU budget which you claim is draining us of money.
When I’ve finished with that, I can answer the much more substantive point made by one of your ‘inferiors’ about the Treaty of Lisbon.
But stick to the bloody point, if you’re able to.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by sceptical guy.
Like Gerry Smashface, you’re strong on the abuse.
The proof is in the pudding Geoff, now off you toddle and preach to your congregation, which has shrunk to zero here in JC.
Argument, please!!
Hahahahahaha. Coming from you? Who just makes it up as you go along, who moves to goal posts to avoid answering.?
So funny.
Answer the post, Mr Bright Boy.
I said don’t use abuse and insult. We all know how good you are with that.
That is your talent. Something to boast about hey?
Argument, please!!
Not a digression into the meaning of right-wing nationalism.
Look, Mr Clever, fora s tarter, I am answering your ‘factual’ post on p.1. It’s an important post in that it regurgitates and panders to the fears whihc moved so many ordinary people to vote Leave.
You made an argument about EU regulations, and I directly answered it. Directly!
If you can’t answer it, at least be honest enough and I’ll go on to that dreaded EU budget which you claim is draining us of money.
When I’ve finished with that, I can answer the much more substantive point made by one of your ‘inferiors’ about the Treaty of Lisbon.
But stick to the bloody point, if you’re able to.
There’s nothing to answer, you’re just dribbling written shite out and there isn’t a question to be seen in the entire post.
Right, let me set it out as clearly as I can.
You stated on p. 1 of this thread that” 60 per cent of regulations originate from the EU and the 28-member Commission in Brussels — none of whom were elected”.
This was in keeping with the Leave campaign’s demands to get rid of EU regulations which were hampering us by foreign rule.
In response, i argued that health, hygiene, safety, trade union organisation, the environment are part of the EU’s fabric as a rules-based order – there are so many rules because 28 countries had to have standardised rules on these things.
If there are rules protecting animal welfare in force in the UK, there must be the same rules in Romania, Hungary, France etc. Otherwise, if cruelty to animals or dirty food takes place in one country, then the free movement of goods throughout the EU will break down – dirty but low-cost food from one country will flood out the more hygienic but higher-cost food in another. They have to be standardised. They have to be enforced on all nations.
These standards are organised by the European Civil Service, which is no more elected than our Civil Service is elected.
The free market economists who dominated much of the Leave campaign see this as bureaucratic and believe that if all restrictions on trade are removed – health, animal welfare, labour unions – then Britain will move into the sun-lit seas of prosperity.
That means that a rules-based order is replaced by a risk-based order, in which food and labour union standards of the Philippines and Albania and the USA (eg chlorinated chicken is the famous case) will trade without the strict rules which hold in the EU.
That means a hard border in Northern Ireland, with all that implies in violence and the breaking of an international treaty. Ireland, in the EU, won’t allow- such goods into the EU because of the EU rules.
If you disagree, then please state why.
If not, then accept that your statement about EU regulations is not relevant.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!