Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
You have fallen into the trap of ignoring an argued response and just resorting to a crude parody to represent your opposition.
Andrew's link had reasoning & references in support of the points he was making. Let's have your article with reasoned arguments that refute that position ..
|
The argued response is so straight forward and obvious that I wasn't explicit enough? Really?
Obviously, if you keep printing money to bail out your economy, you will devalue your currency and investors will regard your country as being at higher risk. For short periods to deal with emergencies ( such as the recent crash) it is acceptable, but Jeremy Corbyn's plans clearly envisage a long term use of that mechanism to fund his crippling spending splurge.
Other countries have tried that, and look what happened. I did draw attention to Zimbabwe earlier, which is one of the prime examples that most people will know about.
---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
But the DUP and the British public don't want it. Hard Brexit is dead Mick, even soft Brexit isn't guaranteed. Keep the faith Mick if it makes you happy 
|
Why do you say that? The main reasons people voted to leave were immigration, sovereignty and the ability to make our own laws. None of that is available with a 'soft' Brexit.
The two biggest parties following the election are the Conservatives and Labour. Both had manifestos committing to a reduction of immigration and an end to free movement. The EU has already said that we cannot avoid free movement if we wish to stay in the Common Market.
So where you get that idea from, that hard Brexit is dead, I really don't know.