London post-brexit as a financial center

Stockolio said:
Haha Russia isn't a democracy, Russian Democracy is the same as Central African Democracy if you wanna call it that...
More...
With the help of fake social media, just like the Brexit campaign.

Stockolio said:
The initial reason voter's wanted to leave EU was due to Immigration in general it seems, a lot of Anti-Immigration and some even racists voted to leave EU...
More...
I read a UK study based on University College London info that these immigrants are contributing to the taxes, they pay more then immigrants receive from government. But social media was used to fake the opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-rudd-tory-conference-speeches-a7346121.html
"The tax benefit of the presence of immigrants is seen as outweighing the financial cost they impose through greater pressure on local infrastructure and public services.

Other research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests immigrants boost our national productivity by filling gaps in the labour market that would otherwise not be filled, which ultimately means faster GDP growth and higher incomes per head for us all."

Stockolio said:
What I am saying, even for the wrong reasons, Democracy shouldn't get back doored just cause.
More...
So once a referendum is finished that subject would be banned forever from any referendum in futur? That's against democracy. New referendums should always be possible, especially when it becomes clear that the real situation is completely different from what was told at the previous referendum. People have the right to change their opinion. And circumstances change continuously.
 
Sig said:
So you believe that once people have voted on a subject, any subject, it can never be revoted on again, ever? Obviously that's absurd, under that logic everyone would be elected for life or until they quit and every referendum would be forever and unchangeable even if the majority no longer supported it! How is that democratic again? Holding a vote a month after the first when nothing has changed could plausibly be considered a "heads I win, tails we vote again" scenario. Trying to claim that there isn't significant new information on Brexit now that would influence what voters would want, now, is asinine. And once you accept that fact, then denying a vote now, based on what is known now is pretty damn undemocratic no matter how hard one tries to spin it.

Not to mention grossly hypocritical given the fact that the 2016 Brexit vote was, according to your logic, an undemocratic overthrow of the 1975 European Communities membership referendum. Since, according to your logic, any revote is anti-democratic, "heads I win, tails you lose", then why was holding a vote to nullify the 1975 European Communities membership referendum just fine, but a vote to nullify the Brexit referendum (which nullified the 1975 European Communities membership referendum) anti-democratic?
More...

Lol, you need help Sigggy sig
 
Your fucked... I see you almost daily arguing on the forum about nothing, and you barely make sense half the times. Not gonna bother with you, your logic is zapped... Your not here to debate, you are here just to argue
 
Stockolio said:
Your fucked... I see you almost daily arguing on the forum about nothing, and you barely make sense half the times. Not gonna bother with you, your logic is zapped... Your not here to debate, you are here just to argue
More...
If there's something I said that "barely made sense" I'm happy to carefully and slowly explain it to you, would you be able to do that for the post in question? Keep in mind that "I don't agree with you but can't articulate why" is very different from "you barely make sense", you seem to be confusing the two.

This whole "I can't defend my point so I'm going to take my ball and go home....and, and, you're a loser!" attitude is incredibly juvenile; seriously how old are you?
 
Stockolio said:
Schweiz didn't agree with me, he made sense and debated... You are just gone, mental or personality issues
More...
Still waiting for the exact thing or things I said that "Didn't make sense" or indicates a "mental or personality issue", in what was actually a rather technical description of if voter's preferences can change. Feel free to provide direct quotes from that post, that's usually how adults makes these types of points in grown up discussions. Absent that, you're just involved in a bizarre rant with a fair amount of projection involved.

As the old lawyer saying goes, “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.” You're doing a whole lot of table pounding!
 
Last edited:
Stockolio said:
WHOA!!!!! 312-308 ?
More...
It was expected that there would be no hard brexit. But I expected more smart people then 312.

I propose that all these politicians would be brought together to pass a test: make a list of all the pros and contras of a brexit and give a detailed explanation why for each item.
I am sure that over 90% would have no clue what to say.
And these people had to vote and decide over the futur of the UK???? Frightening.
Not that the public would be smarter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top