Presvias wrote:More of Johnson's bizarre and hilarious speech about Prometheus and fennel...
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
Presvias wrote:More of Johnson's bizarre and hilarious speech about Prometheus and fennel...
Beren wrote:Help me see the point in the Prometheus thing, please. It's like his liver represents Brexit always stolen by an eagle (Germany-Merkel-EU?), however, Prometheus wasn't supposed to deliver a liver, was he? He was simply punished that way. :?:
Presvias wrote:A point that you eminently did not get: the Tories expressly wish to create a surplus; they said so. All they care about is money as everyone knows..
Presvias wrote:You're overthinking it mate.
Atlantis wrote:The UK debt/GDP ratio is around 87%. To get that down to more sustainable levels you need a surplus to pay some of the debt.
Moreover, during times of economic growth it's expedient to reduce debt because that gives you the necessary reserves for stimulating the economy when you go into an economic downturn. The next recession will always come. When you enter a recession with excessive debt, you are screwed.
The UK needs a constant inflow of investment to compensate for the double deficit (budget and trade). As the BoE chief said: "the UK lives by the kindness of strangers". If Corbyn were to increase debt, that would make debt repayment more expensive and/or drive investors away, which would tank the economy.
The financial markets are a limiting factor on national politics far more than the EU would ever be.
presents the results of a simulation conducted by students at ESCP Europe Business School. The aim was to uncover the amount of interlinked debt between Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Britain, France, and Germany; and then see what would happen if they attempted to cross cancel obligations.
The results were astounding:
The countries can reduce their total debt by 64% through cross cancellation of interlinked debt, taking total debt from 40.47% of GDP to 14.58%
• Six countries – Ireland, Italy, Spain, Britain, France and Germany – can write off more than 50% of their outstanding debt
• Three countries – Ireland, Italy, and Germany – can reduce their obligations such that they owe more than €1bn to only 2 other countries
• Ireland can reduce its debt from almost 130% of GDP to under 20% of GDP
France can virtually eliminate its debt – reducing it to just 0.06% of GDP
Atlantis wrote:The vote counts for nothing?
Good to see the antidemocratic hard-right outing itself. No more need for pretense. The next thing you lot will want is a military coup against parliament, ie. against the sovereign.
Traitors be hanged!
SolarCross wrote:The vote only counts if the voter has the right to vote on the subject. If Don Corleone and his chums vote to rob a bank that does not make it any less theft. A vote is not a magical get out of being a crook card. Sorry to disappoint you.
The land of the UK absolutely rightfully belongs to Her Maj. If the house of commons vacate her palace of Westminster and set themselves up as a rogue government in Corbyn's terrace house then fine they can do that but they would have no rightful authority over the land.
Boris Johnson’s Strategy of Assured Mutual Destruction: Crazy but not Irrational
In Game Theory, scholars grapple with a seminal constellation dubbed the „Chicken Game“: Two cars hurtle towards each other at maximum speed, on collision course. Whoever swerves is the “chicken”. If no one swerves, both lose their lives, the worst result. One possible solution is a credible threat or self-commitment: If one of the drivers noticeably throws the steering wheel out of the window, the other driver has no choice but to eschew the other car. This seemingly irrational behavior suddenly appears to be perfectly rational. In political economy this parable is often cited to explain an actor’s ostensible lunacy as rational in a setting of strategic interaction. Legend has it that Nikita Khrushchev purposefully brought a third shoe to the United Nations General Assembly Meeting in 1960, to “put his foot down”, as the idiom goes, on the console — and to nourish the myth of the hotheaded and wayward gambler (a legend that is as famous as incorrect by the way).
One of the frequent equivocal “courtesy” titles that has been awarded to Boris Johnson these days is that of a plunger or reckless gambler. Boris Johnson may be many things — his language coarse, his conduct ruthless — but if you analyze his behavior in the current Brexit affair from a decision theoretic angle there is a rational interpretation for his seemingly irrational approach. While the other EU Member States act through their governments and align their negotiation strategy secretly, Parliament has a say on the British side as it has to legally sanction the Brexit agreement. Government has to justify its negotiation tactics in plain sight in front of the world — and audibly to the other parties of the deal. None of the negotiation results is ultimately approved of, all draft laws fail flat. As if that were not enough, Parliament is also utterly and hopelessly at loggerheads, there are no majorities for any of the conceivable solutions, no faint accord on what an acceptable outcome of the Brexit negotiations with the EU could look like.
For the negotiators on the EU side, this initially makes for a comfortable situation. They can dictate the conditions and retire from the negotiation table pointing to the fact that the UK is not capable to organize majorities and voice a clear position. And because ultimately any deal is better than no deal, they can demand: It’s Hobson’s choice — sink or swim!
Now, which options does Boris Johnson have facing this situation, how can he avoid being a chicken? He has to express a credible threat. That is not an easy task, because it is true: The EU position — including the “backstop”, which is the major if not only point of discussion — is better than a hard Brexit.
If Johnson wants to maintain any prospect to a success in his negotiations with the EU (say: the withdrawal of the backstop) and to become a national hero, he will have to appear to the world as a reckless gambler, a plunger; as one whose political narcissism is so pronounced that he is unhesitatingly willing to engulf British parliamentarism in the abyss, to endure martyrdom by taking any punishment for not requesting a further extension of the Brexit deadline without rational motives, although Parliament has committed him to do so. This is his only resort to turn the tables and to signify to the EU: for you, too, any deal is better than no deal. Or more specifically: an orderly Brexit without a backstop is better than a no-deal Brexit without a backstop. If the EU negotiators act rationally in this situation, then they will rather pass on the backstop then on a deal altogether.
Part of this strategy was Johnson’s attempt to avoid that Parliament butts in from the backseat. From his strategic perspective, Parliament had ample opportunity to controvert Brexit, to bat the backstop around, to act out the “Order!” drama, it is obviously inapt to contribute to a constructive solution or even a rotten compromise — and it has also effectively undermined any sensible diplomacy of the British negotiators. Consequently, he arranged for a prorogation of Parliament. This act that has now been undone by the Supreme Court, and the ruling will drastically complicate Johnson’s endeavor to pose a credible threat.
And yet: as the Supreme Court has not seen through such possible ruse (after all, Johnson himself cannot express his motives if he wants to maintain his strategy, and nobody in the know can speak to the true colors of the Emperor’s clothes) and thus exhorted Boris Johnson today, the ruling may in fact accentuate his perception of an unpredictable and lunatic gambler.
If Johnson’s strategy works out and the EU renounces the backstop, then the British public will praise him as a savvy rascal with a preeminent negotiation talent, and his narcissism will be forgotten; history is always written by the winners. At any rate, Johnson can only credibly voice his threat to lead the UK out of the EU without a deal if necessary, and ultimately succeed with his strategy, if the world sees in him — as the Supreme Court did today — a hotheaded and wayward gambler. His odds are favorable.
Potemkin wrote:@Atlantis: SolarCross is, of course, absolutely correct about this. The British political constitution is still, in its essence, aristocratic and feudal rather than bourgeois and democratic. This is why nothing less than a revolution will do. This system cannot simply be tweaked or reformed. To make the people sovereign, nothing less than a revolution will do.
Tainari88 wrote:I don't believe in Her Highness and Her Royal whatever and her Majesty Potemkin. That shit should have been dumped a very very long time ago.
That old aristocratic rigid class system is awful and outdated. It is impeding progress. It should be put up in a museum and taken out of politics.
That it continues in the UK? Makes the UK an obsolete old ex Empire flailing at the tides of history.
Someone should take the Queen's land and put her on a pension that what a middle class pendeja gets and get it over with.
I think class systems will never function over many thousands of years. Cooperative units and mutually beneficial working class people as the majority making decisions over many international borders is the only rational solution to all that rigid class conscious stupidity in my opinion.
SolarCross wrote:The land of the UK absolutely rightfully belongs to Her Maj.
Rugoz wrote:Disagree with the odds but still a nice article:
https://verfassungsblog.de/boris-johnso ... irrational
B0ycey wrote:Mock Swinson if you like, but at least your country isn't going bust with her in charge.
Presvias wrote:That's different to a 'revolution' though...he proposes, presumably, a marxist-leninist revolution.
Capitalism is forced on everyone whether they like it or not, and similarly, a revolution of that one ideology forces that system on everyone else instead.
What if people want to live under a different system?
You seemed to have little objection to that when […]
Here it is: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/kama[…]