UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: tomtom on February 21, 2016, 10:08:19 am
-
ITS A POLL... pretty self explanatory (those tapatalk users - you have to go to web view to vote)
Lets see how the UKB collective reflects the nation...
-
Undecided. I've yet to read through the potential pros/cons of Exit. This fad of adding the first 2 letters of one word to the second word to make a shorter 'thing' is moronic and reflects a void at the heart of public thought. Or Puthought.
-
I reckon in or out will make virtually no real difference to the average man on the street. It's looking like the arguments for leaving are mainly ideological thoughts of keeping johnny foreigner out and "taking back control", whatever that means.
-
I reckon in or out will make virtually no real difference to the average man on the street. It's looking like the arguments for leaving are mainly ideological thoughts of keeping johnny foreigner out and "taking back control", whatever that means.
I can't see it being met with equanimity, a Gallic/Germanic/Latin shrug and business as usual.
Anyone got friends/family currently residing in places where they would no longer have right of abode?
Fancy applying for a Visa to visit the Tarn?
I reckon the EU will be pissed, make us pay and remind us that we really ain't all that in the modern world.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You've spoilt it tomtom.
Would have been more interesting to have a vote based on what people would vote if they had to vote today and see if views had changed in 4 months.
-
We can still have another vote in a few months time... all is not lost...
Its an interesting one this... I wonder is there really an issue or is this just a reflection of a bored media and the Tory parties internal divisions? The Westminster wanking circle starting to eat itself at the same time?
Its also interesting as Tory people (who seem to be the largest body of the out voters/people) are traditionally people who are scared of things. They vote because they are worried about things like the red plague/terrorists/tax rises/Islam/foreigners/Ken Livingstone etc.. Scared of the unknown... needing reassurance. Yet, to vote out would be a much greater step into the unknown that voting in... there must be some heavily conflicted hide under the bed-ers out there uncomfortably rustling through the daily mail/express/telegraph....
-
Leaving aside the migrant issue (a freaky populist sideshow IMO) and looking longer term it seems to me that there are two key strands to address in making a decision and how much weight you put on either of them. Are we better off politically integrating with Europe and are we better off economically ?
Politically the fact that Cameron's extensive negotiations have lead to something closer to a mission statement than a set of fundamental reforms suggests to me that any meaningful leverage on EU policy is limited especially as we have stated we are not 100% committed and aren't part of the Euro (but still partially in hock in teh event of a meltdown). However, we are committed in the UK to legislation formed in Brussells. Is that a sacrifice worth making?
Economically there seems no doubt that there will be a short term dent in GDP and unknowable consequences and outcomes for all manner of businesses and trading situations to be sorted out. But in the round after short term pain I think the long term effect will be minimal.
So currently, on both counts, my gut tells me that in the long term we will better off as a more independent and responsive nation making our decisions.
-
Are your guts responding to a recent Eurosceptic gut microbe implant? (farmed from a huge vat of cloned Farage poo..)
;)
-
In. Or 6 months sitting in French goverment offices trying to get some piece of paper that noone understands, knows if exists or will actually want to see if I do get it (whatever it is).
-
From a scientist and academic point of view - I think we'd be bonkers to leave. We gain from both common EU funding and the total ease of collaboration that the EU brings. "Team" America in my field is incredibly myopic and inward looking. Team Europe is not - because its part of a genuine team... On a day to day basis I carry out research in collaboration with fellow EU scientists and whilst some of that would probably not stop (if we were to leave) - parts of it would certainly become more difficult.
Outside of work, in the tomtom bubble I can see no possible benefit from leaving the EU. None of the arguments for leaving have any resonance with me.
I fully expect Font graders to say in and V graders to say out ;)
-
I love the idea that we could be some little Swiss, with Bowlers, tea and custard creams, instead of Toblerone.
But there is a limit for the existence of such places and they are tolerated by the worlds powerhouses only as long as they provide the services those houses would rather not be seen to supply.
The UAE is very much in the thrall of the house of Saud and the other more senior descendants of the Prophet, who want a weekend off from all those rules.
Singers occupies a similar status, a little further East.
Monaco for the Euros (Lichtenstein and Andora for the less ostentatious money).
A few Caribbean islands let the Yanks chill on the whole tax malarkey.
Bermadu, those rocks in the channel, the island of tailless cats etc etc.
All around the mountainous piggy bank.
At the moment, we offer a gateway to Europe, a gap in the fence; neither all the way in, nor an outsider. We profit greatly from that.
Exit makes us a redundant, damp, island, with some quaint habits to titivate the tourists.
Of course, we can fall back on our vast natural resources...
Oh, hang on, maybe not.
Our strength must lie in our abundant colonies and loyal people's, upon whom the sun never sets?
Shit, we nearly lost our Northern partners a few months ago and they're in the same damn time zone (and might still).
Imagine little old England, an island of independence, sandwiched between a European Eire, Scotland and (why not?) Wales?
I am sure of the loyalty and continued support of those bastions of integrity, commonly referred to as "the Financial sector", who will of course remain headquartered in London (despite those pesky little annoyances that will arise out of our exit) and see no difficulties in the future of our biggest single "industry".
And I'm sure, the lack of collective bargaining power will not affect our dealings with the worlds minor players, like China, the US, India even.
After all, they do love us soooooo much for all that Civilisation we brought them.
The real question?
Small, wet, windy island; with nothing much to offer or major global economy (argumentative and petty, but powerful)?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm pretty sure a Scottish and Welsh referendum would follow with both countries becoming part of the EU. Border crossings on the M56... Madness.
I'm "in" for various reasons.
-
I reckon the EU will be pissed, make us pay and remind us that we really ain't all that in the modern world.
This ^^ Scotland certainly seems to be getting punished for even considering the option of leaving the UK - I think Europe may do the same to the UK.
-
Now Boris has decided to bat for the out team, if the outies win and Cameron resigns as a result we could end the year with Boris as PM in waiting and Trump as president elect :no: .
were doomed.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t29WsfzCfvs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now Boris has decided to bat for the out team, if the outies win and Cameron resigns as a result we could end the year with Boris as PM in waiting and Trump as president elect :no: .
were doomed.
on the bright side - this might be the right stimulus for restarting Spitting Image; although it might just look like another Muppets Movie
-
Boris
Trump
Erdogan
Putin
Lepen
What could possibly go wrong?
-
Will we be better off financially? I don't know. Maybe. If we are, will we see an improvement in the NHS or education? Will we have more money in our pockets at the end of the month? Will we fuck as like. Certainly not by any margin significant to be noticeable, unless perhaps we are already very rich.
Will we be better off legislatively? I don't think so (speaking from my perspective as somebody who works in environmental regulation in the water industry). Consider how our bathing waters and inland waterbodies have changed in the last twenty-something years. We now have a string of Blue Flag beaches up the Yorkshire coast (and elsewhere), and we have salmon in the Aire, the Don, and the Dearne (to name a few major urban rivers). As more and more fish passes are built, this will only improve further. A lot of this (not all by any means) has been done by the water industry and represents the result of millions and millions of pounds of investment in Yorkshire alone. As much as the industry has a positive environmental outlook, there is nothing that gets a cheque written quite like a legislative driver - be that the Water Framework Directive, Bathing Waters Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive etc etc etc.
Of course, the directives are not all perfect, and you could argue that we might have written pieces of legislation of our own. But would you really trust a government who "cut the green crap" to do this? Or would you expect them to back down after the Daily Mail presents the proposed changes as just another excuse to put the bills up? Perhaps a successive government would tear up the new bills as a political move when taking office (because obviously anything an outgoing government did was very very bad). EU legislation has the opportunity to make long term changes that may be unpopular at first, but deliver necessary and beneficial change in the long run, environmental or otherwise.
Whenever they bring this issue up on the news they present the counter argument - EU legislation outlaws the sale of vaccuum cleaners over 1600 Watts. Is that really the worst, most sovereignty-infringing, most liberty-depriving thing they can come up with?!
Will leaving see us better off culturally? Will it improve how we are seen in the eyes of our neighbours and the rest of the world? Absolutely not. For me this is the most compelling reason to stay in.
-
Will we be better off financially? I don't know. Maybe.
The UK has a very poor base of bilingually skilled workers, excepting community languages. That's why a lot of recruitment from global companies just bypasses the UK completely and they recruit from universities elsewhere. We are losing billions due to our abject language skills.
Now would the loss of current unfettered access to EU markets cause a further reduction in investment from global companies? Or will Boris ride to our economic rescue like St George?
The other point to make is that the obvious benefit commercially from being out is from being out of current EU protections of workers' rights. Companies may not make more, but CEOs and shareholders will from downgrading employee terms and conditions.
-
Will we be better off financially? I don't know. Maybe.
The UK has a very poor base of bilingually skilled workers, excepting community languages. That's why a lot of recruitment from global companies just bypasses the UK completely and they recruit from universities elsewhere. We are losing billions due to our abject language skills.
Now would the loss of current unfettered access to EU markets cause a further reduction in investment from global companies? Or will Boris ride to our economic rescue like St George?
The other point to make is that the obvious benefit commercially from being out is from being out of current EU protections of workers' rights. Companies may not make more, but CEOs and shareholders will from downgrading employee terms and conditions.
I don't disagree with any of that, however Farage and Co would have us believe that the country would be richer out of the union, citing expensive membership fees etc. My point was more, even if we did end up better off on net, I don't think those benefits would be translated to the majority.
-
:icon_beerchug:
-
UK out of EU, Scotland out of UK, in England a few landlords buy all the property and the rest of us live in gin lane/satanic mill/turnip-based bucolic misery/whatever.
Where's the fucking opposition?
-
will we have to go back to B grades if we leave?
if we stay in, can the Euros offer us a decent spread of overgraded 7Cs?
-
Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:
"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"
-
UK out of EU, Scotland out of UK, in England a few landlords buy all the property and the rest of us live in gin lane/satanic mill/turnip-based bucolic misery/whatever.
Where's the fucking opposition?
Any serious opposition to tory hegemony was crushed in 1984/5. One can only hope that they succeed in tearing themselves apart with the referendum, unfortunately they will probably tear Briton apart at the same time.
The end is nigh (again).
-
if we stay in, can the Euros offer us a decent spread of overgraded 7Cs?
Yorkshire will provide... :tease:
-
Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:
"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"
That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?
Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.
Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.
Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?
All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.
-
Anyone know which direction wisened scumbag Murdoch is going to instruct the masses to vote this time?
-
I listened to an interesting discussion on Radio 4 a month or so back - it was a Norwegian manufacturer of central heating boilers. This gist if it seemed to be that even though they are outside the EU, and most of their trade was domestic, they basically had to comply with the vast majority EU legislation anyway.
So the whole "cost savings by cutting red tape" seemed to be a bit of a non-argument.
-
Anyone know which direction wisened scumbag Murdoch is going to instruct the masses to vote this time?
hmmm. He'll see which way the wind blows first as per Scotland ref: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jun/08/rupert-murdoch-launches-attack-on-eu-nonsense-in-the-mail-on-sunday
(btw a cross between gollum and a desiccated scrotum would be wizened, as opposed to wisened up. I'm really sorry. My pedantry's pretty much all that I have left.)
-
Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?
There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.
They'll no doubt 'work' but not sure that they're any 'better' (from the perspective of individual humans rather than corporations and share holders)...
Trans-Pacific Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership)
...and its Eastern couterpart...
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership)
-
Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:
"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"
That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?
Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.
Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.
Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?
All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.
Because they have functionally (though less binding in terms of National legislation?) equivalents.
Without googling the reach of each:
GCC
ASEAN
NAFTA
USAN
Etc etc.
The USA, is of course a "Union" of formerly independent states, who took the EU model to it's natural conclusion and China is (for want of a better word) an Empire of many countries and ethnicities bound into a single economic union.
The anomalies exist only to provide the services other states cannot for political/Religious/angry-mobs-burning-presidents-in-the-streets type reasons, provide.
We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Is the "Norway Model" the gold standard we should be aspiring to?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
-
Leaving the EU will make the UK more democratic, insists unelected life peer Lord Lawson of Blaby. (https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/701734838756368388)
-
I was thinking and possibly Andy Popp would be best placed to answer, isn't the whole concept of independent nations a little blip in the history of civilisation?
We pretty much went from tribal society to empires, that only grew bigger as communication improved and that independent nations only really emerge in the post colonial collapse and exist only till the rise of the next empire?
The independent countries of Europe only arose in the post Romano period, most were variously swallowed by Ottoman, French or Austro-Hungarian Empires etc etc and have only existed as they do today since 1918 ish.
England, Wales, Eire and Scotland must be amongst the Oldest nations in Europe and I know England has only been such for a little over a thousand years (with a whole Norman French occupation thrown in for a couple hundred years).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Not really my field but the modern sovereign nation state is generally regarded as emerging from the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 (actually a series of peace treaties). Basically, the treaty established the principle of national self-determination. Certainly, some modern nation states predate 1648 - often considerably - but it is also the case that a number of very important modern nation states are much more recent; both Germany and Italy are creations of the 1870s and the USA is less than 250 years old. Many others have changed "shape" radically over time or simply disappeared (I haven't read it but Norman Davies' book Europe's Vanished Kingdoms is meant to be excellent). Interestingly, on reflection, its is probably the case that there are currently no significant empires - I don't know when (if ever) it would have last been possible to say that. Perhaps the age of empire is over?
Whether the age of the nation will similarly end it is too early to say. But if history teaches us anything, it is that change is the only constant and that all things are transient.
-
England has only been such for a little over a thousand years (with a whole Norman French occupation thrown in for a couple hundred years).
or still going on if you check our betters' ancestry. Been a while since we've had a Cnut on the throne...
-
I think there are only two people on the thread so far who have said "Out" (assuming that Pete's view is out and he's not simply playing Devil's Advocate, not sure). I'd like to hear more from them.
Leaving aside the migrant issue (a freaky populist sideshow IMO) and looking longer term it seems to me that there are two key strands to address in making a decision and how much weight you put on either of them. Are we better off politically integrating with Europe and are we better off economically ?
Politically the fact that Cameron's extensive negotiations have lead to something closer to a mission statement than a set of fundamental reforms suggests to me that any meaningful leverage on EU policy is limited especially as we have stated we are not 100% committed and aren't part of the Euro (but still partially in hock in teh event of a meltdown). However, we are committed in the UK to legislation formed in Brussells. Is that a sacrifice worth making?
Economically there seems no doubt that there will be a short term dent in GDP and unknowable consequences and outcomes for all manner of businesses and trading situations to be sorted out. But in the round after short term pain I think the long term effect will be minimal.
So currently, on both counts, my gut tells me that in the long term we will better off as a more independent and responsive nation making our decisions.
I don't really follow this Shark. The first point suggests that accepting legislation from Brussells is a sacrifice, rather than an advantage as I see it - could you elaborate a bit on why you think this?
In the second point you talk about short term economic pain with minimal long term difference - can I ask why the conclusion is therefore to leave?
I understand that your gut feeling is "better off out" but I can't see from your post why you think this and I'd be really interested to hear you explain further.
Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:
"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"
That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?
Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.
Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.
Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?
All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.
Show us your hand, Pete. What do you think? The question you pose above is valid but my personal response to it would be "if it ain't broke (or very broke), don't fix it". Even if there are some bits of legislation that we don't like, is it worth abandoning the whole project when we arguably get a lot from it?
As far as I know, the Out campaign don't recognise at all the need to operate as part of a globalised world, they just want to go it alone.
-
Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:
"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"
That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?
Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.
Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.
Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?
All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.
The USA, is of course a "Union" of formerly independent states, who took the EU model to it's natural conclusion and China is (for want of a better word) an Empire of many countries and ethnicities bound into a single economic union.
The US, Canada, Australia and Russia are all federations.
-
We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.
Sorry, this simply isn't true. London is one of the longest-established financial centres in the world. And there is a reason it is so long-lived: it has for long been and remains dominant - New York is still its only real competitor.
-
We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.
Sorry, this simply isn't true. London is one of the longest-established financial centres in the world. And there is a reason it is so long-lived: it has for long been and remains dominant - New York is still its only real competitor.
Yes, all the nice legal stuff. Those Cuckoo clocks drown out a lot of screaming, for instance.
But, is tradition enough for it to continue?
I think the gateway to Europe has served us well into the 21st century, I think we would lose that. These institutions care only about the legislative environment they occupy, not the address.
Partially, we flourished in this sector by being stable in a shifting world; that in it's self would be negated by exit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Also without thinking much about it:
Canada. UN, WTO, WHO, NATO
US. UN, WTO, WHO, NATO
Norway UN, WTO, WHO, EEA, EFTA, Council of Europe, NATO
Switzerland UN, WTO, WHO, Council of Europe, EFTA
New Zealand UN, WTO, WHO
Australia UN, WTO, WHO
Turkey NATO, UN, WTO, WHO, Council of Europe
And with the UK as member and even founding member of number of these (-EFTA & + now defunct league of nations) the EU is hardly our first try at supranational rule making.
In fact the UK already "pools authority" of 4 nations, and has done for a few hundred years...
-
Is the "Norway Model" the gold standard we should be aspiring to?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
Which is remarkably like what we have at the moment, but with no hand in the decision making process or any form of Veto...
-
We also may never get a Grand Depart again if we come out.
-
My gut feeling, as a non-UK resident and South African / Irish citizen, is that this is isolationist shortsightedness and that the ramifications will be quite significant, both for the UK and Europe.
For some reason, and I'm not sure that I've properly interrogated why I think so, I consider the EU a real success, which I feel has aided the UK significantly - my views based in my UK experience of living there for a while, and having non-UK citizen friends happily living there as welcomed residents (welcomed for their skills, experience and education), so it feels poorly thought-out for the UK to look to destabilise this. Maybe I just dislike the Tories.
-
I can never get over the feeling that politicians encouraging the out option are just wanted to keep and extend their own power and importance.
-
I can never get over the feeling that politicians encouraging the out option are just wanted to keep and extend their own power and importance.
-
To me, the anti-EU feeling progresses from the kind of national identity propagated/created by the immortal Bard:
"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,-
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."
I think England/Britain's status (I am deliberately conflating in this context) as an island has profoundly affected our history and national consciousness. It's at least partially why we haven't suffered devastating wars on our own soil - unlike the rest of Europe. And in the face of an ever-complicating world, one simple reaction is to fall back on our (prosperous) history as an island people and think that we're better off as we have always been in the past, alone in the sea, on the edge of things.
I've just returned from a brief trip visiting the WW1 battlefields in France and Belgium. My feelings, perhaps somewhat influenced by that, are that we're all better off working towards bigger ideas than parochial concerns, bigger ideas than a nation. I distrust nationalism for its past outcomes, and I worry that the 'out' argument is tied up with nationalist ideologies.
I can't see that an economic/sovereignty argument has been clearly spelled out, and I think that sticking together for peace in Europe trumps those arguments anyway. The idea that there will be less bureaucracy if we're 'out' I don't find convincing. Negotiating 1001 new trade agreements strikes me as something that might eat up a lot of government manpower and money that might otherwise be allocated elsewhere.
Think I said something similar when Scotland said no to independence. I just see splintering apart as a retrograde step into a more divided world.
-
I can't see that an economic/sovereignty argument has been clearly spelled out, and I think that sticking together for peace in Europe trumps those arguments anyway. The idea that there will be less bureaucracy if we're 'out' I don't find convincing. Negotiating 1001 new trade agreements strikes me as something that might eat up a lot of government manpower and money that might otherwise be allocated elsewhere.
The sovereignity and beauracracy arguments are something I'm very distrustful of anyway. They always seem to be championed by the wealthy and those unscrupulous persons who would rather not have to deal with the expensive and bothersome business of ensuring that employees are paid a fair wage and are sent home from work uninjured, breathing relatively clean air etc.
-
Note: I am an in-sie..
This governement has drastically reduced the size and role of the state - and IIRC its a fundamental underpinning of libertarian righter wing politics - smaller state to allow business, people, markets etc.. regulate themselves (leading to some big winners and losers). So the whole concept of the EU is pretty against much of this. Maybe its the wrong form of words, but the EU is fundamentally socialist - it aims to give to poorer countries by taking from the richer. Therefore, its against many to the rights fundamental principles (I would suggest).
Fuck knows what a gun toting tea party member would think of the concept!
-
Anyway... here is some SCIENCE ;)
http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/
-
Fuck knows what a gun toting tea party member would think of the concept!
Are you suggesting that this is not a description of an ardent UKIPer?
Albeit one toting a Fowling piece...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160223/37093433d69849fc5d2aca3115e8bbee.jpg)
Nige and his BFF's
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Is the one in the middle Paul McCartney?
-
Is the one in the middle Paul McCartney?
Yep.
He's singing "Blackbird" and Nige is aiming at Heather...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
[quote author = Will Hunt]I think there are only two people on the thread so far who have said "Out" (assuming that Pete's view is out and he's not simply playing Devil's Advocate, not sure). I'd like to hear more from them.[/quote]
So far my thoughts about EU exit are ambivalent.
Wanting to better understand both sides doesn't make you 'out' (or tory).
-
Fear not. I would never accuse anybody of being a Tory in polite conversation.
-
Fear not. I would never accuse anybody of being a Tory in polite conversation.
I'm not sure this is valid.
Half (=some) of the Tory's want in, half (= some) want out. Labour went through the same thing in the seventies. I don't think there's a correlation between left wing = in, and right wing = out.
The Czech republic is watching with interest. They have a socialist government. The dutch too want their own referendum now - and they have a conservative/liberal government.
So I think there is little to suggest a strong correlation between being pro-europe and being right wing. I personally think that to split down party lines on this issue is fucking idiotic. Anyone who votes one way or another based on being labour or tory... jesus christ people.
On another topic...
The whole economics thing surprises me. I think it's a fact that we get less direct from the EU than we put in, even with the rebate. I also think it's inarguable that we have a strong economy DESPITE the EU, and DESPITE the US: even though our banking sector was exposed by subprime disaster as well as catching the edge off the euro farce. As a result, I think there is significant merit in the argument that outside of the EU, we would be fine. I don't say better off - but rather that the reasons our economy is strong is because of it's own uncorrelated-with-the-EU characteristics, so it would be basically the same.
For example, we may trade less easily with the EU - but more easily with India and China as a result of being able to negotiate competitive agreements vs. the main EU trading block.
So really, the question comes down to other factors.
Do you trust a government based in Westminister, combined with devolved and local government, to do a fairer, better job than people in Brussels? (I would suggest that swearing about the Tories here is again foolish as it's simplistic - you can change the Tories, you can change the welsh government, but you can't change the French.)
Do you feel a kinship with europe? Do you value the ability to work abroad, for your children to work and live abroad? Do you value the contribution of people from europe who do the same? Or would you sacrifice the ability of your kids to live in France to stop Romanians taking their jobs here and forcing your kids to move to France in the first place?
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Do you value voting no highly enough to disregard any risks because it gets rid of Farage's reason for being and he will finally fuck off and drown himself in cheap lager?
-
Lund is right about there being a proportion of the left who are anti EU. Witness the recent events in Greece.
All of the economic arguments I've heard are really a fig leaf for the other considerations and pro/con prejudices.
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
-
Fear not. I would never accuse anybody of being a Tory in polite conversation.
I personally think that to split down party lines on this issue is fucking idiotic. Anyone who votes/thinks one way or another based on being labour or tory... jesus christ people.
This line should be posted in big bold letters on every thread on here which remotely involves political discussion. The NHS one would be a good place.
-
Fear not. I would never accuse anybody of being a Tory in polite conversation.
I personally think that to split down party lines on this issue is fucking idiotic. Anyone who votes/thinks one way or another based on being labour or tory... jesus christ people.
This line should be posted in big bold letters on every thread on here which remotely involves political discussion. The NHS one would be a good place.
Just for the record, I never said that I thought Pete was a Tory. The only assumption I'd made was that he was in favour of an Out vote, judging by his posts on this thread. I also said that I appreciated his line of questions could just be playing devil's advocate/exploring both sides of the argument which is a great thing to do.
The first mention of an Out vote being aligned to the Conservatives came from Pete himself.
Wanting to better understand both sides doesn't make you 'out' (or tory).
Anybody with half an ear can see the issue splits both the major parties.
-
I also think it's inarguable that we have a strong economy DESPITE the EU, and DESPITE the US
I have no idea what this claim means?
-
Just to preempt Chris, I have no idea why someone with half an ear would have trouble seeing anything. Carry on :)
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
Was this during the '98 World Cup?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
That was before the united nations, before mutually assured destruction, in a very geopolitically different situation. To equate leaving the European Union as risking another second world war involving fighting the Germans is facile in the extreme. Are you Jeremy (Corbyn, or Hunt, take your pick) in disguise? It's this kind of comment that makes sensible discussion impossible.
-
I also think it's inarguable that we have a strong economy DESPITE the EU, and DESPITE the US
I have no idea what this claim means?
Our economy has taken a battering in the last twenty years, if not longer, with many of the recessions we have experienced being as a result of problems in the wider world economy. From the great depression to the great recession!
The subprime banking crisis has its origins in the US. The eurozone limps from disaster to disaster, mostly involving Greece. Both of these have had an impact - yet whilst we might be miles from the swing of Brown's bustless boom and the threat of another recession is far from over, things are better than they were. Hence, our economy is, relatively speaking, strong, although not without it's problems.
-
For the record, I'm mostly undecided. I'd like a smaller, more efficient government - and the EU goes against that. I resent subsidising France. But equally... I want to be part of a larger, European family, and I can take the fact that some of the cousins have bad habits and can't be fucked to get a proper job.
-
Depending what you read there seems to be an economic contribution of £8.3bn to £6.7bn, but that doesn't include some things like research etc and comes out around 0.5% GDP (2013 figures). We put contribute less per capita than Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Belgium (so obviously more than France.) The Confederation of British Industry suggests the direct net economic benefits of membership to the UK are between £62bn and £78bn, however who knows where it gets that from - the problem is would this drop off considerably if we exited.
On migration and controlling our own borders there are 2.2 million Brits living elsewhere in Europe and 2.4 million Europeans living in Britain so fairly even.
European laws don't seem to have been detrimental to the UK in my experience, but haven't exactly enhanced life massively.
For me personally I think the biggest benefit is in being European, being able to travel freely across and around Europe which may not be worth 6bn per year.
I don't think that the European security issue can be discounted - yes it's a very different world to when the 1st and 2nd world wars happened, but surely European Union has helped create that different world. In my lifetime there has been the collapse of communism and Eastern Europe, and massive change in the gulf states - whereas Western Europe for the first time has been at peace internally. That's got to be a good thing and probably worth the cash.
At the moment I'm in, although wading through the jingoistic, sovereignty, border control propaganda makes it hard to know which side is correct.
(http://s13.postimg.org/cuq452g5v/10340170_10154472672147662_154063773524151654_n.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/cuq452g5v/)
-
To re-iterate one of my earlier posts - I think the concept of the EU (as it stands with the present treaty(s)) is fundamentally socialist. More money is taken from the richer countries - and used in the poorer countries.
Therefore, in a very simplistic way (and simplistic is used very deliberately) it is more likely that there will be greater support from the Labour party than Conservative.
Furthermore, put very simply - generally politicians to the right (in Europe and USA, and Australia) favour a smaller state (possibly with less rules and regulations for business etc..) and those to the left favour a larger state and more government involvement/intervention. The EU (it seems to me) seems to err towards the latter...
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
That was before the united nations, before mutually assured destruction, in a very geopolitically different situation. To equate leaving the European Union as risking another second world war involving fighting the Germans is facile in the extreme. Are you Jeremy (Corbyn, or Hunt, take your pick) in disguise? It's this kind of comment that makes sensible discussion impossible.
This is not the case.
Conflict is not beyond all likelihood, it is barely beyond idle contemplation.
I think JB's Grandpa had good expectation of "peace in (his) time", given the fresh memories of fields of death.
If you missed how close conflict has come in Europe (Balkans) recently and the likelihood of it spreading; then please review.
An the idea that Russia poses no threat?
Nice idea, but I prefer the "Little Mermaid" as a story line; it's more realistic.
Spoke to some Finnish friends yesterday, they're talking about finding Russian patrols deep in their territory and seem to think the new "Cold"war is quite hot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That sounded angrier than intended. Sorry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For the record, I'm mostly undecided. I'd like a smaller, more efficient government - and the EU goes against that. I resent subsidising France. But equally... I want to be part of a larger, European family, and I can take the fact that some of the cousins have bad habits and can't be fucked to get a proper job.
Is France no longer a net contributor?
Numbers are little old, but have a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm
Also you'll find under this link that France stumps up a fair old chunk of the UK rebate...
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
That was before the united nations, before mutually assured destruction, in a very geopolitically different situation. To equate leaving the European Union as risking another second world war involving fighting the Germans is facile in the extreme. Are you Jeremy (Corbyn, or Hunt, take your pick) in disguise? It's this kind of comment that makes sensible discussion impossible.
No, it's that kind of condescending twattishness that makes sensible discussion impossible. Are you Sloper in disguise?
Surely you are aware that the political roots of the EU lie in avoiding repeating the horrors of the two world wars? No, I don't think leaving would risk another war with Germany (nor did I imply that). But I fail to see how it would be a positive step in our neighbours eyes.
-
Just a quick comment from me. It's by no means the most important factor in the scheme of things, my (ongoing ERASMUS year Spain wouldn't be possible without the mobility that comes from being in the EU. I'm having probably the best year of my life, and I hope the UK stays in so I can move back in the long term.
Also, I've noticed that a lot of the "ballers" in my (physics) department usually publish joint papers with other EU universities. An open platform for academic collaboration must be a good thing.
-
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fimg%2Fpe%2Fst%2Ftherealdangerofbrexit
-
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fimg%2Fpe%2Fst%2Ftherealdangerofbrexit
So...
The Rothschilds are pro-Europe. Not surprising, conspiracy mumbo-jumbo aside; the potential waves of instability through the Western Hemisphere of Grexit was greatly feared.
I think many of our secret "SPECTRE" overlords (read uber-rich without Kardashian levels of insecurity) fear Tsunamis from UK departure and I think they have good cause.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
An open platform for academic collaboration must be a good thing.
Harmonising the framework for clinical trials across Europe has a significant impact on the development of drugs and treatments and their approval throughout the countries involved....
Brexit: a confused concept that threatens public health (https://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/3.full) writes Martin McKee and Michael J. Galsworthy in the Journal of Public Health
More overview (citing McKee) in UK exit from EU would be serious threat to science and healthcare, experts warn (http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i1117?etoc=) by Adrian O’Dowd in the British Medical Journal.
-
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fimg%2Fpe%2Fst%2Ftherealdangerofbrexit
Well that was pretty unequivocal for the Economist :-\
-
Do you think that our national security is enhanced by being in Europe? Would Putin be more or less likely to nuke us if we are in a trading block with France, German, Greece, etc.?
Given that my Grandad was fighting the Germans in France and Italy not that long ago, I don't need to look as far as Russia to see if being in Europe has enhanced our national security.
That was before the united nations, before mutually assured destruction, in a very geopolitically different situation. To equate leaving the European Union as risking another second world war involving fighting the Germans is facile in the extreme. Are you Jeremy (Corbyn, or Hunt, take your pick) in disguise? It's this kind of comment that makes sensible discussion impossible.
This is not the case.
Conflict is not beyond all likelihood, it is barely beyond idle contemplation.
I think JB's Grandpa had good expectation of "peace in (his) time", given the fresh memories of fields of death.
If you missed how close conflict has come in Europe (Balkans) recently and the likelihood of it spreading; then please review.
An the idea that Russia poses no threat?
Nice idea, but I prefer the "Little Mermaid" as a story line; it's more realistic.
Spoke to some Finnish friends yesterday, they're talking about finding Russian patrols deep in their territory and seem to think the new "Cold"war is quite hot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The idea that the European Union today is the reason why we are not at war with western europe is fucking bonkers. 60 years ago, yes. Today, no. That was my point, quite clearly. Just as clearly as JB said he didn't need to look as far as Russia. Implying a link between leaving the EU and fighting someone closer than russia, e.g. Germany. If you think leaving the EU means we're going to have another war with Germany, then you are on fucking crack.
In terms of Eastern Europe, the EU is as much the cause of conflict as it is the preventer. Why the fuck did Russia invade Ukraine? Because they see the EU's expansionist agenda as a threat! Russia is a great threat. THAT WAS MY FUCKING POINT YOU FUCKING IMBECILES.
Maybe if I put it in capital letters.
Original comment:
DO YOU THINK THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS ENHANCED BY BEING IN EUROPE? WOULD PUTIN BE MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO NUKE US?
-
so you're saying that by leaving the EU our basic reading skills will improve?
-
so you're saying that by leaving the EU our basic reading skills will improve?
Soz. I edited it to dial it down a bit and obviated your comment. But to make up for it how about I draw a link between being in the EU and lack of standards in society today, lack of foreign languages an GCSE, "dumbing down" (oh, great phrase, I am doing well) of A-levels, etc.?
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d1b3-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz41YY7QBFR
Article with (what it says are) the three economic outcomes from brexit explored. Perhaps the economic argument isn't 6 and half a dozen after all?
-
Just as clearly as JB said he didn't need to look as far as Russia. Implying a link between leaving the EU and fighting someone closer than russia, e.g. Germany.
No. Implying a continuing process of improved relations and stability in Europe over the last seventy years, from the end of the war through the Berlin wall coming down and the war in the Balkans. Implying withdrawing from Europe would not be a step forward along this path. We were not 'fighting someone closer', but we had troops dying in the Balkans as recently as 2010.
Putin being twitchy is a product of Europe's success, yes. Does it negate or detract from it? Not for me.
Would we be safer from Putin out of Europe? You could argue it both ways. In, we are part of a bigger much target. Out, we will align ourselves more with the old enemy the US.
-
One thing that has been bothering me recently is, are the vast majority of brexit supporters actually regularly affected by the purported issues, or are they just influenced by media?
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
I don't wish to be in the EU, i never have. Nothing in the media or on here has influenced me in the slightest either way. I hope this helps
-
Just as clearly as JB said he didn't need to look as far as Russia. Implying a link between leaving the EU and fighting someone closer than russia, e.g. Germany.
No. Implying a continuing process of improved relations and stability in Europe over the last seventy years, from the end of the war through the Berlin wall coming down and the war in the Balkans. Implying withdrawing from Europe would not be a step forward along this path. We were not 'fighting someone closer', but we had troops dying in the Balkans as recently as 2010.
Putin being twitchy is a product of Europe's success, yes. Does it negate or detract from it? Not for me.
Would we be safer from Putin out of Europe? You could argue it both ways. In, we are part of a bigger much target. Out, we will align ourselves more with the old enemy the US.
^^^^
Ta JB.
I spent ages typing that out, only to get called away before finishing. Thanks for doing it for me.
Incidentally getting dragged into a war due to the actions of others on the very same borders that today bound theEU, is a bit of a habit of ours.
I think the difference today might be the very significant fact that all the Western European nations are now in the same alliance and unlikely to align with the "other side".
I think the EU really grew out of that Soviet threat. I think it would have crumbled without and without it I think the prospect of war in Western Europe would be very real today (anyone want to claim Alsace? Bet some Germans would).
I think Putin is doing a Stirling job of replacing the Soviet threat. I think, without the EU and NATO he might have already made a grab for the former Eastern Bloc countries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't wish to be in the EU, i never have. Nothing in the media or on here has influenced me in the slightest either way. I hope this helps
Can you articulate why? Do you wish to be in the United Kingdom or would you rather it was just England?
-
I don't wish to be in the EU, i never have. Nothing in the media or on here has influenced me in the slightest either way. I hope this helps
What are your reasons then? Genuinely interested. Was speaking to friends of my parents last night who live on Northumberland. They seemed to be voting to leave, was quite surprised. Mainly fear of other people making their decisions for them.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
I too don't quite get why people want to leave. I'm not sure I'm really any more disconnected from Brussels than I am from Westminster and I quite like things like employment rights...
-
Mainly fear of other people making their decisions for them.
Yes and our current government is great at deciding what is right for us
-
Exactly...
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
I'm ignorant of the finer details of this so perhaps someone can enlighten me, but we do elect our MEPs and they go and develop and vote on legislation that will affect us. The way some people talk about Europe its like we don't get any influence on these dreaded "red tape" laws.
As an aside, I can't fucking stand it when the media refers to sensible regulation as "red tape" - as if any sort of regulation is bad news. What about having to take a driving test before jumping on the motorway? Is that "red tape"?
-
I'm ignorant of the finer details of this so perhaps someone can enlighten me, but we do elect our MEPs and they go and develop and vote on legislation that will affect us. The way some people talk about Europe its like we don't get any influence on these dreaded "red tape" laws.
As an aside, I can't fucking stand it when the media refers to sensible regulation as "red tape" - as if any sort of regulation is bad news. What about having to take a driving test before jumping on the motorway? Is that "red tape"?
These "red tape" statements always remind me of the Southern Red Neck "Gov'munt cummin ta take ma Guns" ...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fear.
-
Mainly fear of other people making their decisions for them.
Yes and our current government is great at deciding what is right for us
But you shouldn't be deciding on "current government" but future governments. Certainly the UK Parliament is closer to the electorate than the EU Parliament but you're still pretty divorced from the decision making process. I guess the issue is whether you are happy to give up the benefits of being in the EU to be one voice in 60 million as against one voice in 250 million (on the issues the EU parliament currently governs all other concerns being equal).
-
Soz. I edited it to dial it down a bit and obviated your comment. But to make up for it how about I hdraw a link between being in the EU and lack of standards in society today, lack of foreign languages an GCSE, "dumbing down" (oh, great phrase, I am doing well) of A-levels, etc.?
I'd have another go at English first, if I were you.
-
The way some people talk about Europe its like we don't get any influence on these dreaded "red tape" laws.
As an aside, I can't fucking stand it when the media refers to sensible regulation as "red tape" - as if any sort of regulation is bad news. What about having to take a driving test before jumping on the motorway? Is that "red tape"?
'Red Tape' = unnecessary, vexatious legislation which hinders business. Or 'workers' rights' , to give it its usual title.
-
No i don't care to elaborate which is why i haven't said anything earlier. I don't really post on the politics and religion threads, it was a reply to the question how do the people that leave feel they are affected by the media and or purported issues.
Are you 12 Johnny? I don't want it to be an England, just the north, no just sheffield, no no just sheffield south, no just my street, nah surely just my house number? A force of one, chuck norris
-
Oh and for want of another reason look at the shit Lund is getting for daring to upset the learned majority by asking questions against the grain of what people on here think other people should be doing.
-
Oh and for want of another reason look at the shit Lund is getting for daring to upset the learned majority by asking questions against the grain of what people on here think other people should be doing.
He's giving more than he's receiving. Full caps lock 'n all!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No he's not
-
I think Lund is making some good points, but SHOUTING, insisting on a facile interpretation of what someone wrote whilst insulting them is not endearing him to me to be honest.
Shame you aren't interested in sharing your thoughts Lee. Re England, no I'm not 12. We've gone from being little fighting kingdoms like Mercia, to England, then the Uk, now Europe. I think leaving Europe will precipitate the break up of the UK.
-
Shame you aren't interested in sharing your thoughts Lee.
Me too. I've heard the main arguments but you clearly have different reasons, but I understand if you're not fussed about sharing them.
I think leaving Europe will precipitate the break up of the UK.
And the rest of Europe? Seems like some far right Danes are waiting with bated breath.
-
I think leaving Europe will precipitate the break up of the UK.
If I were a Scot who'd voted to stay in the UK, and English voters then took me out of the EU, I'd
1. be fuming
2. be demanding another referendum
...so on the whole I share your suspicions
-
Oh and for want of another reason look at the shit Lund is getting for daring to upset the learned majority by asking questions against the grain of what people on here think other people should be doing.
In case you had my post in mind I'll make it explicit: the EU is a positive force in language learning at all levels, allowing for free movement and close links both at commercial and academic levels. Want to do an exchange in Maastricht, engineering in Hamburg? - apply to Erasmus+ , or just go and pay their fees rather than ours.
The reason language learning is so screwed up at GCSE has everything to do with cultural factors (complicated) and political ones (simple) ie the Labour administration's idiotic decision to make them optional at GCSE. Languages are -statistically- a harder qualification to get. No wonder kids have voted with their feet. (The others are Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry).
As I understand it, the motivation was to improve attendance in rather disaffected kids. There has always been a mechanism for disapplying weaker candidates, it should have been used more freely instead. This policy is a disaster which will cost the country £billions in missed trade because our employees don't have the necessary language skills to compete in a global market. Jobs and investement already go elsewhere. That can only get worse.
As for Lund not spouting the party line, that's a good thing, it's essential to have a range of views. But that the EU somewhow undermines the very thing it champions and facilitates is clearly fantasy.
Edit
A point that might not be obvious, as obviously weaker linguists aren't the ones most likely to miss out plum jobs liaising with other countries.....it's what this does to the structure of language learning across the country as a whole. Over 50% of uni language schools have closed since 2004. That should be a major concern. We need the world- it does not need us.
-
I think leaving Europe will precipitate the break up of the UK.
If I were a Scot who'd voted to stay in the UK, and English voters then took me out of the EU, I'd
1. be fuming
2. be demanding another referendum
...so on the whole I share your suspicions
And if you were a Scot who'd voted to leave the UK you'd potentially be voting to leave the EU, in order to trigger a second referendum. (I think this could backfire, so I wouldn't consider that option.
-
This is how I see it entirely from the outside:
Apart from a possible second Scotland independence referendum, which seems very important, but on which I can pass no judgement, I don't see how it is particularly important if UK is in EU or not. It is not likely that UK exiting EU is going to change any of the four freedoms (in any direction) and it is not likely it's going to change common regulations or the budget much either. In theory UK would have a smaller say on common interests being formally outside of EU, but in practice, since UK hardly send any bureaucrats to Brussel, UK's ruling party sits down with the crazy people in the European parliament, none of their political parties seem to have any political vision for EU (apart from the expansion - but that was ages ago), export less than it imports, etc. I cannot see how UK's influence could possibly be smaller.
-
i will not vote as i'm an italian living in france, of middle-middle class, with leftist views concerning hard matters (economics, welfare, labour legislation) and slightly more traditionalist views concernig soft matters (education, social institutions)
however i'd like to see what happens if UK leaves EU as it may lead to an EU collapse.
main reasoning (i'll keep it succint)
part 1)
-EU is not a democracy but rather a "technocracy".
-a true democratic reform of EU institutions is politically unfeasible - it implies at least a sort of federal budget and a central bank under political control (not "independent" as is the case for the BCE)
-even if it was technically reformed in a true democratic sense, its institutions will not function properly until the day when all EU citizens speak the same language and feel some sort of common identity. I mean all, and especially those having the least favourable socioeconomic status.
part 2)
-despite its post-democratic nature, EU does have very effective direct and indirect means of influence on memeber states' legislation and budget.
-if we consider "latin" countries (plus france) that are characterized by a fairly unflexible and protective labour legislation and welfare, the EU system is enforcing "structural reforms" that go in the sense of a much more flexible and insecure framework.
part 3)
-in the same countries, leftist parties are forced into two subcategories:
a)government left (Renzi, Hollande, etc). Not much left of leftist politics, apart from touches of intellectual post-68 folklore
b) "radical" left. It asks for a reform of EU agenda and institutions but lacks revolutionary balls (=reform or out!) because of its "internationalist" idelogy (thinking that "out" is a nationalistic option, therefore fascist).
-the only parties who can have a coherent position are right wing: moderate/government for elites & upper middle classes, extreme/dangerously close to fascist (Front National etc) for the rest of the population.
-
of course many British people feel that they get a poor deal out of the freedom of labor movement within the EU - they severely limit their own opportunities to work in other EU countries because of their reluctance to learn other languages
I suggest an EU wide form of National Service where every young person spends a few years in other parts of the EU doing useful stuff
the EUth brigade (no connection with Dignitas)
-
To be fair I'd say that lots of UK migrants to France & Spain seem to do fine without too much knowledge of local languages.
-
They do, but I suspect there would be more if there wasn't the barrier, either perceived or real.
I think everyone should be forced to learn Esperanto.
-
To be fair I'd say that lots of UK migrants to France & Spain seem to do fine without too much knowledge of local languages.
Are we talking about ones who work, or ones who go over to retire and spend all their time in english pubs, reading the Mail and drinking Carling? I suspect UK expats who go to europe to work with nonexistent foreign language skills are very much in the minority.
-
Plenty of them in chamonix! There are about 1000 British expats there and I'd guess more than half don't have enough French language to do a French job. (still, that's only 500 out of 2M.)
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
Work's changing too. I imagine there's a fair number of Brits who live in other countries and work remotely doing data/IT/finance trades that require no foreign language skills. Easy enough to do data-entry work and spend your life in whichever country you want.
-
Plenty of them in chamonix! There are about 1000 British expats there and I'd guess more than half don't have enough French language to do a French job. (still, that's only 500 out of 2M.)
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
All those British Guides will be back to working in Scotland ;)
-
They can't understand the language up here either.
-
of course many British people feel that they get a poor deal out of the freedom of labor movement within the EU - they severely limit their own opportunities to work in other EU countries because of their reluctance to learn other languages
I suggest an EU wide form of National Service where every young person spends a few years in other parts of the EU doing useful stuff
the EUth brigade (no connection with Dignitas)
Is this a manifesto pledge of the Pain au Raisin party? I'm in.
-
To be fair I'd say that lots of UK migrants to France & Spain seem to do fine without too much knowledge of local languages.
Are we talking about ones who work, or ones who go over to retire
Both.
-
Work's changing too. I imagine there's a fair number of Brits who live in other countries and work remotely doing data/IT/finance trades that require no foreign language skills. Easy enough to do data-entry work and spend your life in whichever country you want.
This does happen quite a lot. People who work:
1. Offshore
2. Web/Graphic Design
3. Freelance IT
Can get by in some places with minimal knowledge of local language, customs, food, culture.... I remember speaking to one meat-head arsehole who worked in Azerbaijan and lived in Malta. He was the archetypal shaved head, overweight, mail reading, carling swilling obnoxious twat who hated everything about Malta except the low tax and sun. :wank:
-
To be fair I'd say that lots of UK migrants to France & Spain seem to do fine without too much knowledge of local languages.
Are we talking about ones who work, or ones who go over to retire and spend all their time in english pubs, reading the Mail and drinking Carling? I suspect UK expats who go to europe to work with nonexistent foreign language skills are very much in the minority.
Absolutely agree that a lot of expats are insular and interact little bar complain about the host nation in Andalucía.
Do not agree with the implication that you don't need more than English to thrive in the global economy.
Would be interested to see some data on that.
-
My employer, a FTSE 100 company, just issued this internal communications (edited by me to remove its ID). I thought it was fairly balanced and highlights some of the areas that give me concern (with my emphasis):
Following the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s negotiations and the setting of a Referendum date, the Group Board has considered the impact of the EU Referendum on the company, its business, customers and employees. Our company has no vote in the forthcoming Referendum – the decision will be taken by the UK electorate and we do not seek to influence the outcome.
We consider that a vote to leave would have little direct impact on trading for our company: our customer base is located very largely in the UK, the US and Asia.
It is however probable that a vote to exit, with a potentially lengthy period of negotiation and an uncertain outcome, would create uncertainty for markets and the broader UK economy in which we operate. Given the lack of clarity about potential alternative trading relationships between the UK and other jurisdictions, and the market and economic uncertainty, the economic case for leaving is unproven; we will continue to keep the situation under review as more and better data and analysis emerges. As one of the largest investors in the UK, we will be actively listening to companies we invest in, who will be assessing the potential impact for themselves.
If we vote to leave I can imagine years and years of full employment for Brit civil servants/diplomats negotiating bilateral trade agreements to replace what we lose by leaving the EU. With lots of legal fees. I'd be dubious of the efficiency of this versus what we have now, and the relative cost to the taxpayer.
-
. Our company has no vote in the forthcoming Referendum – the decision will be taken by the UK electorate and we do not seek to influence the outcome.
...but bloody well vote to stay in the EU!!!! ;)
-
Work's changing too. I imagine there's a fair number of Brits who live in other countries and work remotely doing data/IT/finance trades that require no foreign language skills. Easy enough to do data-entry work and spend your life in whichever country you want.
This does happen quite a lot. People who work:
1. Offshore
2. Web/Graphic Design
3. Freelance IT
Can get by in some places with minimal knowledge of local language, customs, food, culture.... I remember speaking to one meat-head arsehole who worked in Azerbaijan and lived in Malta. He was the archetypal shaved head, overweight, mail reading, carling swilling obnoxious twat who hated everything about Malta except the low tax and sun. :wank:
Also data analysis, data entry. I met a girl from the states who was spending a year travelling/climbing around Europe while continuing her full-time job of data entry/data analysis for a medical insurance company. She had to log on 4 evenings per week and work a shift but it didn't matter where in the world she logged-on from - in this case a campsite in Turkey.
To be fair I'd say that lots of UK migrants to France & Spain seem to do fine without too much knowledge of local languages.
Are we talking about ones who work, or ones who go over to retire and spend all their time in english pubs, reading the Mail and drinking Carling? I suspect UK expats who go to europe to work with nonexistent foreign language skills are very much in the minority.
Absolutely agree that a lot of expats are insular and interact little bar complain about the host nation in Andalucía.
Do not agree with the implication that you don't need more than English to thrive in the global economy.
Would be interested to see some data on that.
Agree it'd be interesting to see some data on working patterns.
It certainly wouldn't be my aspiration to live abroad without learning the language and integrating into the society of wherever I lived.
But I do think it's quite possible nowadays to do so in a way it wasn't 10-15 years ago, thanks to technology increasing the ease of working remotely. And so I suppose that counts as 'thriving in the global economy' in some people's eyes. Obviously not in the eyes of many on here.
-
It's a subsection of the global workforce definitely. My cousin consults as business analyst, based in Fan Francisco. Every time I'm in Cambridge he seems to be at his folks in civvies, with laptop. He just has to get up at for conference calls at Pacific Ocean Time.
Another way of putting it is that for work based on communication and analysis in anglophone companies where you live is increasingly irrelevant. However in the context of the overall global economy and job opportunities I believe that a lack of bilingualism is a serious disadvantage.
-
It's a subsection of the global workforce definitely. My cousin consults as business analyst, based in Fan Francisco. Every time I'm in Cambridge he seems to be at his folks in civvies, with laptop. He just has to get up at for conference calls at Pacific Ocean Time.
Another way of putting it is that for work based on communication and analysis in anglophone companies where you live is increasingly irrelevant. However in the context of the overall global economy and job opportunities I believe that a lack of bilingualism is a serious disadvantage.
For sure. Especially for the large majority of jobs that are in service, education, etc.
-
Oh and for want of another reason look at the shit Lund is getting for daring to upset the learned majority by asking questions against the grain of what people on here think other people should be doing.
In case you had my post in mind I'll make it explicit: the EU is a positive force in language learning at all levels, allowing for free movement and close links both at commercial and academic levels. Want to do an exchange in Maastricht, engineering in Hamburg? - apply to Erasmus+ , or just go and pay their fees rather than ours.
The reason language learning is so screwed up at GCSE has everything to do with cultural factors (complicated) and political ones (simple) ie the Labour administration's idiotic decision to make them optional at GCSE. Languages are -statistically- a harder qualification to get. No wonder kids have voted with their feet. (The others are Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry).
Just for the record, it's my typing and my attitude to writing on a forum that is weak, not my English. I can speak French a bit, but I didn't really like it and was forced to do it at GCSE. I did get an A. But then again I got an A in everything, except the things I did better in. Also, since you mention it, I have A levels in Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Theology and Electronics. I only got a B in Theology, but I entirely blame this on it being assessed through essays: perhaps my English isn't so good after all - or perhaps it is my ability to form and elucidate a coherent argument?
I am getting some shit. But only really from Johnny because he doesn't like the implication I inferred from his argument linking his grandfathers wartime service fighting Germany with the argument to stay in the EU today.
However in the context of the overall global economy and job opportunities I believe that a lack of bilingualism is a serious disadvantage.
I'm not sure about this. I think for most multi-national companies, the core language is English. However, there are local functions - support, sales, etc. - that still (for obvious reasons) require local languages. Much of APAC (which require local partners for many reasons), latin america. EMEA is very English speaking in my experience.
-
Don't be so sensitive Lund. I am glad you got lots of GCSEs, including French.
But that monolingualism isn't a disadvantage not an individual but country-wide basis? Way out.
-
Postscript - just wanted to add this:
Pointing out that you are wrong about the role of the EU in language learning isn't giving you shit, it's responding to an inaccurate comment. Nor is a little jibe about your typos, it's pretty gentle stuff really.
The problem is that from the perspective of an English speaker there is an enormous advantage and wealth of opportunity. But it's not the whole story. Don't confuse individual opportunity with global trends. There is an increasingly competitive global job market and monolingualism represents a disadvantage to us as a nation. The UK is being increasingly bypassed in recruitment.
-
Bullshit
-
How illuminating.
-
There is an increasingly competitive global job market and monolingualism represents a disadvantage to us as a nation. The UK is being increasingly bypassed in recruitment.
Any links to data to support this?
-
Work for a multinational (with a French head office) Everything we do across the different divisions is in English, obviously locally the local languages are used but as soon as it comes to anything across national borders English is the language of choice. The limit on group and international roles is not being bilingual but on not speaking English.
-
Forgive me for being paranoid but if we leave the EU. Does no one else se the possibility that we will have either Boris or Farage as PM and are main trading partner being headed up by Trump.
That's a world I can't wait to live in.
-
Pointing out that you are wrong about the role of the EU in language learning isn't giving you shit, it's responding to an inaccurate comment. Nor is a little jibe about your typos, it's pretty gentle stuff really.
Where did I say that saying that amounted to giving me shit?
The role of the EU in language learning was a sarcastic comment. I expected clever and knowledgeable people to pick up on it. :shrug:
The problem is that from the perspective of an English speaker there is an enormous advantage and wealth of opportunity. But it's not the whole story. Don't confuse individual opportunity with global trends. There is an increasingly competitive global job market and monolingualism represents a disadvantage to us as a nation. The UK is being increasingly bypassed in recruitment.
Not in my experience. Source/data? Without that, Dense's response is right - and more illuminating than your asserted opinion.
-
Forgive me for being paranoid but if we leave the EU. Does no one else se the possibility that we will have either Boris or Farage as PM and are main trading partner being headed up by Trump.
That's a world I can't wait to live in.
Farage won't happen. He's not even an MP. Trump - don't worry about him. Even if he gets elected, he can't do much - apart from drop bombs and shit, the executive in the US can be very effectively crippled by the senate/congress.
-
There are lots of jobs in France where you get by in English. I have one (where ability to fake any prestige accent of english is a competitive advantage [I'm working on adding mid-atlantic atm]). Or, eh, barely half of one job, but whatever.
There are way more jobs in France where you get nowhere without English. Bicycle repair man, store attendant, car mechanic, hair dresser, plumber, fireman, fashion designer, newspaper editor, secretary, bank clerk, receptionist, telephone operator, supermarket checkout desk, and a few hundred other occupations are all closed to anyone who doesn't speak French between ok via fluent and to the near native level required for most jobs.
-
I have spent most of my adult life as an Expat. I moved around far too much to ever pick up more than a smattering of the local lingo, enough to be polite and sometimes enough for basic convo. This has always served me well. However I was, during my last year in Dubai (07-08) conscious that the steady rise of the East was changing the dynamic. More of my compatriots were needing Eastern (read Mandarin) language abilities and that the Eastern labour force wasgrowing.
Also, I felt like the US influence was waining in the Mid East in favour of the Eastern nations. Perhaps the current hiatus in the Chinese march means we don't feel it yet, this far West; but I would guess that English as the international language of business might be a fading idea.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There are way more jobs in France where you get nowhere without French English.
sorry.
-
This a good article looking at the historical precedent of negotiating trade deals outside the EU (and it's a little bit funny).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12182032/A-British-free-trade-deal-outside-the-EU-History-shows-thats-easier-said-than-done.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12182032/A-British-free-trade-deal-outside-the-EU-History-shows-thats-easier-said-than-done.html)
-
Article on the Radio this morning about our looming energy crisis (on account of closing power stations down and not opening enough new ones) and one of the main ideas is more interconnectors with Europe. We import quite a lot of energy (~10 GWh per day) from France and the Netherlands currently so I wonder how that would all play out should we exit.
Caveat - some of the new interconnectors would be to Norway (for excess hydro) and Iceland (geothermal) which are not currently part of the EU.
-
if we exit, we won't be bound by all the crazy European health and safety rules, so will be able to buy in cheap chinese nuclear power plants - maybe something really cheap like a used nuke plant from North Korea to get things going?
-
I haven't been following this and I don't really know what point is being made regards second languages. But I do think the old trope (and this is an idle observation rather than a suggestion that anyone here holds this simplistic view) that Brits don't speak a second language out of some sort of arrogance and laziness is self flagellatory nonesense.
There is a massive asymmetry between english as a second language for a european and a european language as a second language for a Brit. For good or ill english is the default language between europeans of differing primary language. English as a second language unlocks the ability to communicate with virtually all other europeans with a second language, plus primary english speakers. For a primary english speaker the utility of a second language is hugely reduced (as a large proportion of the people you wish to communicate with already speak english) and dispersed (learning a second language will only unlock communication with a subset of a subset e.g. a french speaker who does not speak english).
On top of that english is fairly pervasive within popular media in many european countries, in a way that no other language is in the UK.
-
english is fairly pervasive within popular media in many european countries, in a way that no other language is in the UK.
apart from txtspk
-
I was surprised how important and useful my very rusty school-german was when I spent a few months in a german research institute. Despite 20-30% of the staff being from abroad.
-
if we exit, we won't be bound by all the crazy European health and safety rules, so will be able to buy in cheap chinese nuclear power plants - maybe something really cheap like a used nuke plant from North Korea to get things going?
This is the first thing I have read on this thread being avoiding it but its friday afternoon and I am clock watching.
It is worth noting that china are the world leaders at building modern up to code nuclear power stations closely followed by the (south) koreans. Their technology and safety standards are well ahead of the french, americans and russians.
-
We won't buy Chinese due to security considerations. You're not even allowed Chinese technology in the core of your phone network. (This is official in the US, about to be in Oz, and is unofficially true here.)
-
The Japanese have got some nuclear stuff that they don't want - we could buy that
-
-EU is not a democracy but rather a "technocracy".
-a true democratic reform of EU institutions is politically unfeasible - it implies at least a sort of federal budget and a central bank under political control (not "independent" as is the case for the BCE)
-even if it was technically reformed in a true democratic sense, its institutions will not function properly until the day when all EU citizens speak the same language and feel some sort of common identity. I mean all, and especially those having the least favourable socioeconomic status.
To argue that the leadership of the EU is distant from the electorate is entirely fair, but to argue that it is undemocratic isn't. If you will:
1) The European Parliament is an elected body - low turnout doesn't make it otherwise
2) The European Council is made up of the elected leaders of the member states - whatever your feeling on the respective electoral systems they are still elected
3) The Council of the European Union is a little funny but we are essentially talking the relevant government ministers from the member states - again democratic
4) The Commission is the only really tricky one - its members are selected by the European Council, and are more distant from a clear and distinct election. However, they don't just appear, and rather are proposed by the elected leadership of the member states, before confirmation by the European Parliament
5) There already exists an EU budget, simple fact. Central banks are not under "direct political control" because our political leaders have decided that they should not be (we can discuss the merits of this but again the current status has nothing to do with democracy or otherwise)
All of this makes the governance of the EU quite far from the electorate, but it is hardly the case that they are undemocratic overlords.
That said I can see your common identity point, and the common language may be a part of that. However, I'd like to hear more of an argument on the identity component of your post? Why does the language give the identity? Is the identity mutually exclusive?
-
I was surprised how important and useful my very rusty school-german was when I spent a few months in a german research institute.
Err...
-
my impression is that nobody seems to have much idea about what might happen to the economy if we leave - which is fair enough, given that we have this stupid "democracy" thing in place that means we don't know what the rules will be from one decade to the next
what are the thoughts of UKB on what might happen?
jobs, house prices, mortgage rates, inflation, growth etc.
-
I think all the economists predict some sort of downturn in growth/recession due to the uncertainty immediately after a potential brexit... Whether this is a blip or a doom spiral depends on who/what you believe/read.
That said I've not seen any sort of assessment or prediction of the good that might happen from the brexit crew - apart from Boris or Lamont or Lawson waving their arms about and saying it'll be fine...
I suspect we've had a weaker growth/recovery in the last year because of brexit uncertainty.
-
-EU is not a democracy but rather a "technocracy".
-a true democratic reform of EU institutions is politically unfeasible - it implies at least a sort of federal budget and a central bank under political control (not "independent" as is the case for the BCE)
-even if it was technically reformed in a true democratic sense, its institutions will not function properly until the day when all EU citizens speak the same language and feel some sort of common identity. I mean all, and especially those having the least favourable socioeconomic status.
That said I can see your common identity point, and the common language may be a part of that. However, I'd like to hear more of an argument on the identity component of your post? Why does the language give the identity? Is the identity mutually exclusive?
Common language accelerates common identity as we can then access the same media and literature, for instance. It doesn't make it automatic, just easier.
As an example, Dante and Manzoni are a huge chunk of Italian cultural identity, they are compulsory reads across all kinds of secondary education, one father of written florentine and the other of written Italian with florentine influence, they share in many ways a similar view of good and evil etc...
They would play a much smaller role if Italians still spoke their regional dialects as first language and Italian as a distant second, as was the case less than 100 yeas ago (while all Latin based, they could be as far from each other as French and Spanish...).
For instance, Latin and Greek authors are a part of Italian's elite identity, but are not as widespread as Dante and Manzoni.
The French have different "compulsory literature" with a more libertarian view of good and evil-and you can see that influence in common men and women. It is a part of what makes French and Italians different!
Politically speaking then, there are two distinct functions of identity and language. If you want a working class to act as a single political subject, you need:
1) that they loosely share a common view of good and evil (identity)
2) similar reflexes in regard to individual vs group and individual vs authority (identity)
3) the ability to interact smoothly so that the mechanisms of political compromise and representation work properly. They will not if something can get lost/purposely hidden in translation...
I think that is the big fallacy of the leftist internationalist ideal: proletarian unity is not an easy thing to achieve and demolishing national borders makes it harder, instead of easier!
Oh, I would like your comment on what happened in France in 2005. Euro treaty "a" is rejected in a referendum, and a few months later treaty "a.1", a slightly modified version, gets approved - this time with no referendum, how weird...
Concerning national banks, I don't know about other countries but in Italy its independence was technically unilateral... The bank's governor sent a letter to the ministry of economy saying "we're independent, starting from today!" (in more technical terms) and that was it. No parliament discussion. Truly democratic...
-
I think all the economists predict some sort of downturn in growth/recession due to the uncertainty immediately after a potential brexit... Whether this is a blip or a doom spiral depends on who/what you believe/read.
That said I've not seen any sort of assessment or prediction of the good that might happen from the brexit crew - apart from Boris or Lamont or Lawson waving their arms about and saying it'll be fine...
I suspect we've had a weaker growth/recovery in the last year because of brexit uncertainty.
Yeah and I've seen it first hand. Some of our clients who do a lot of trade abroad have seen a massive downturn as companies are putting off making any big orders until after the vote. This is because they are worried about the shitstorm that may occur if we vote out and are holding off in the hope that we vote in and everything stays the same.
Really annoys me when Boris and Nigel go on about it all being scaremongering from the in side. Of course there's a certain amount of that (and there needs to be to get through to some people) but there's a reality to it as well. Sick of them saying "well they would say that" when every single organisation who has offered an opinion on the economic effects of leaving has said the same thing. They have no argument other than "everyone else is wrong".
It reminds me very much of the Scottish referendum.
Oh and re the language thing, my son did his second Chinese exam on Tuesday.
-
It reminds me very much of the Scottish referendum.
Was about to say exactly the same thing.
-
Saw a British woman on the news this morning who lives in Spain for part of the year in her second home and wants to vote out because she's worried about immigrants. Fucking idiot!
-
Saw a British woman on the news this morning who lives in Spain for part of the year in her second home and wants to vote out because she's worried about immigrants. Fucking idiot!
There was some bellend on the news last night who lives in a "quintessentially English" village and who was undecided. He thought it was probably better to be in for all the sensible reasons about the economy etc but was considering voting out because his local supermarket had an aisle full of Polish food. I nearly chucked something at the tv and Mrs S said "did he really just say that?". This level of fuckwittery displayed by otherwise intelligent people is really quite scary, and common.
-
what we need to do is spread a rumour about how staying in the EU is the UK's best strategy for avoising transformation into an Islamic state when fat useless white Brits become the minority
then almost no-one will vote Leave
-
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-who-has-never-left-huddersfield-thinks-britain-should-leave-the-eu-20160524109070
-
On a related note, does anyone actually believe that Boris is in favour of leaving for any reason other than that it would further his political career? What a prick.
The bellend in the news I mentioned (and his wife) were also bemoaning the fact that they're undecided because they respect the views of people campaigning on both sides.
I feel the total opposite although CMD and Gideon are actually (amazingly) less odious than Boris, Gove, Farage, IDS and Galloway (what a dream team of total cunts that is).
-
Yeah other than Boris' two set-in-stone principles of A look after number one, and B fuck the poor they deserve it (i.e. classic Tory) I don't think he actually has any ideology and couldn't give a toss either way on the European issue. He's just jockeying for career position as future party leader if his old Bullingdon chum Cameroid loses (see point A above).
-
One of my colleagues gave a 'pint of science' talk on flooding last night in a local boozer...
His first question from the audience was whether we should stay in the EU. Face. Palm.
-
I know, why would we possibly want to stay in?
-
I know, why would we possibly want to stay in?
I'm surprised they want us.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If they don't want us then I'm definitely voting to stay in.
-
One of my colleagues gave a 'pint of science' talk on flooding last night in a local boozer...
His first question from the audience was whether we should stay in the EU. Face. Palm.
depends on whether you want to drown in a flood of low cost, quality French wine
-
If they don't want us then I'm definitely voting to stay in.
Thats the spirit!
-
One of my colleagues gave a 'pint of science' talk on flooding last night in a local boozer...
His first question from the audience was whether we should stay in the EU. Face. Palm.
depends on whether you want to drown in a flood of low cost, quality French wine
Where do I sign?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Concerning national banks, I don't know about other countries but in Italy its independence was technically unilateral... The bank's governor sent a letter to the ministry of economy saying "we're independent, starting from today!" (in more technical terms) and that was it. No parliament discussion. Truly democratic...
I fully admit to being unfamiliar with the process by which various central banks have become independent rate setters. Although the argument for it has always been pretty straightforward: politicians made changes to rates just before elections in order to make winning easier, and naturally caused "issues" in the economy as a byproduct. The reduction in this sort of volatility is broadly considered a good thing, on both the left and the right.
I think that is the big fallacy of the leftist internationalist ideal: proletarian unity is not an easy thing to achieve and demolishing national borders makes it harder, instead of easier!
Why do we want proletarian unity? I find the idea of the proletariat rather distasteful in general, it is another dividing line that people draw. If we are talking about tax and so forth I would not complain about different "classes", but rather take issue with the fact that some people (read: the very wealthy) avoid paying the contribution to society which is commensurate with the contribution that society makes to them (good roads, health work force, functioning property rights, etc). While this, in essence, may sound rather market driven as an argument, I find it very persuasive.
single political subject
I'm sorry, but again, why would we want this?
I would like your comment on what happened in France in 2005. Euro treaty "a" is rejected in a referendum, and a few months later treaty "a.1", a slightly modified version, gets approved - this time with no referendum, how weird...
Referendums are a bad idea, we as an electorate are not well enough informed to make good decisions. This is not a product of a lack of information or general lack of intellect, but rather time. After all it is not our job to be informed on all of these issues, yes as responsible citizens we should take an interest but to be informed at the level to make such huge decisions - no. It is the job of our politicians to be well enough informed to make these sorts of decisions (whether are or not is another matter).
The product of this is that the outcomes of any given referendum is very uncertain and the populace can make deeply contradictory decisions. California, being the nirvana of direct democracy, is a mess. Voters have pushed legislation which make tax increases near impossible while simultaneously forcing spending increases (along with all the idiotic penal legislation).
For me, the value that is placed on the public opinion at any given moment is not very useful, and this is what a referendum is based on. Equally we as an electorate are far to disengaged and we are lead by individuals of little moral character because we choose to make so. It is this failing that we must tackle, not through a lurch toward direct democracy but through whole societies taking responsibility for themselves and engaging in the political process ,from start to finish, much much more actively.
-
Excellent post
-
If you believe UK immigration to be a problem (I don't - I think its an asset) then the only way to really bring the numbers down is to either enter a recession or leave the EU - that would give us the powers to stop immigration entirely. If you feel strongly enough about this then there is no alternative than leave.
However, if we were to desire a trade deal with the EU (would seem to be top priority if we were to brexit) then given all other european nations with a deal with the EU also have to accept EU freedom of movement things (e.g. Norway, Swiss) immigration would effectively be back to how it was pre brexit. We can't have our cake and eat it unfortunately....
This whole Brexit mess stems from:
1. Cameron and the Tories foolishly giving a target of reducing immigration to sub 100k - how foolish that was then - and largely done to appease the Tory right/Little Britain folk?
2. Because of mostly the above, this foolish promise to have a referendum to keep his own position intact and keep the Tories together for the general election.
Sorry to get political, but its roots are purely political... IMHO etc...
-
They absolutely are. Cameron gave a very disingenuous speech that was jeered in the commons (although what isn't these days?) when he claimed he cared passionately about Britain staying in the EU and that this wasn't about his personal ambition, because he isn't planning on a third term. Maybe not, but he used it to keep support when he wanted a second term. If he cares that much he should never have promised a referendum. Such a appalling waste of time and money.
-
This whole Brexit mess stems from:
1. Cameron and the Tories foolishly giving a target of reducing immigration to sub 100k - how foolish that was then - and largely done to appease the Tory right/Little Britain folk?
I agree Tom Tom, wasn't it also because Nigel Farage's plastic BMP was on the rise and the conservatives were worried about losing votes to them.
-
Referendums are a bad idea, we as an electorate are not well enough informed to make good decisions. This is not a product of a lack of information or general lack of intellect, but rather time. After all it is not our job to be informed on all of these issues, yes as responsible citizens we should take an interest but to be informed at the level to make such huge decisions - no. It is the job of our politicians to be well enough informed to make these sorts of decisions (whether are or not is another matter).
This is exactly what has me very worried about the results of this referendum. Anyone who watched the BBC EU debate should be able to see, the British public (me included) don't know enough about this. Someone voting leave "because immigrants are getting bumped up the list in front of my mum for a council house" and another who said "to me the EU and Europe are interchangeable" show the levels of misunderstanding. The 'facts' being bandied around by both sides of the debate don't help, but ultimately like you've said, it shouldn't be left to a misinformed public to decide this!
-
Part of the problem is that no body, group or organisation is seen as being independent enough to deliver 'Facts'.
Personally, I'd say the Bank of England, IMF, WTO etc.. are probably such placed, but the Brexiteers put them in the remain camp...
Or, look at how the Brexit campaign use the 'fact' that the EU costs £350m a week - which is what we may pay (in fact its actually less), but does not include what we get back...
So sadly there are no facts - just opinions.
-
I haven't seen a single argument from ProBrexit acquaintances, that isn't thinly veiled racism.
I don't mean the Leave campaign proper, I mean the few individuals I know who are ProBrexit and bother expressing their opinion to me directly or on Farcebuck.
I'm not convinced that I've heard any "official" arguments for leaving, that stack up to much more than that though...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Part of the problem is that no body, group or organisation is seen as being independent enough to deliver 'Facts'.
Yes, that's what i was getting at. It's far too easy to be a misinformed member of the public, since any attempt at giving statistics has an opposing version from the other side. Often, like in the case of the Brexit £350 million, its just deliberately quoting part of the information, but ignoring the rest of its context (value we get back, rebate etc).
-
single political subject
I'm sorry, but again, why would we want this?
I would like your comment on what happened in France in 2005. Euro treaty "a" is rejected in a referendum, and a few months later treaty "a.1", a slightly modified version, gets approved - this time with no referendum, how weird...
Referendums are a bad idea,
Could be, but if they are held, going against their result Just a few months later is more is a joke. As if a country elected a "wrong" government and as a result the election was considered invalid by some kind of agency.
It is ok to go back on previous decisions, but that fast?
Concerning the rest: the vocabulary I employ is purposely provocative.
To me the most important issue is not that of taxes and services, but of power. In our daily lives we all experience some power asymmetry in business relations (small vs big, boss vs employee, etc).
I believe it is in the general interest that these asymmetries are mitigated and the only way I see is some unity of the small subjects (employees, small businesses, freelance's, etc).
It is in the general interest, because it promotes the existence of a middle class.
As for central banks: does bad use of a power justify putting it into unelected, unaccountable hands? If answered yes, then we may as well say that an enlightened dictatorship is the best possible form of government, don't we?
-
Hasn't the EU done a metric (not imperial) fuck ton for workers rights/employment law/ minimum wages in the UK and across Europe?
I know you're being provocative, but the real dangers in terms of organisations imho is from big oil/pharma/etc.. Companies with massive vested interests than the ECB.
the EU is fundamentally socialist (takes from the richer states to give to the poor - tries to enable a level playing field across all countries and markets) - and the those that don't like socialism don't like the EU (very generally speaking) and I can see why not (not my own view). It's a classic case of big state vs small state and larger private sector. Tbh, given the metric fuck gigaton of neoliberalisation that's been going on in European countries over the last 15 years I'm amazed at times the EU still exists!
Mas Vino por favor ;)
Pardone autocorrect bastardos!
-
Socialist EU???
How can it be anything close to that when it imposes close-to-zero inflation and strict state budget? And when the single currency (which UK doesn't have) leaves salary moderation has the only competitiveness adjustment between member states?
EU has made a historically important recipe of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" impossible.
(some inflation coupled with a generous state, competitiveness adjustments made mainly by currency exchange rate)
How can it be socialist when it imposes "structural reforms" (=dismantling job legislation and post ww2 constitutions) in exchange for anything it gives?
I appreciate it may look socialist when you look at it from your side of the channel, but compared to what Italy and France were some 20 years ago, it is as socialist as Milton Friedman
-
True. My point doesn't fit a Marxist definition of socialism....
However I'd say that several fundamental Eu policies do take from the rich and give to the poor. At its base the member contributions - CAP (the eventual result may well be not to help - I think it's a terrible policy as it is) at its intended function. Common monetary policy (in eurozone) meant that poorer countries benifitted from cheaper lending than before (at the detriment to the richer countries standing) - though of course this ultimately led to Greece economic problems etc...
-
:D
http://youtu.be/41_5fyqNbE8
-
Common monetary policy (in eurozone) meant that poorer countries benifitted from cheaper lending than before (at the detriment to the richer countries standing) - though of course this ultimately led to Greece economic problems etc...
Not so sure that it was 100% detrimental to the rich countries, at least if you look at private credit.
No exchange rate uncertainty means that a German bank, for instance, is more willing to lend to an Italian guy the money he needs to buy a German product.
There is an easy and direct example of this in the car industry, were most brands have their own credit institution ( volkswagen bank,etc)
In the early 2000's, while still living in Italy, I suddenly saw many more nice German cars around than before. This was due to a new phenomenon: people getting their car with a leasing formula or a relatively long term, low interest rate credit...
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160530/7eeb3782e8a5f5605e01cce0565a34ee.jpg)
-
Some commentary from Frakie Boyle about the politicians (and debate) for and against...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/brexit-referendum-campaigns-politicians
-
Sorry - this long and I ramble.
As for central banks: does bad use of a power justify putting it into unelected, unaccountable hands? If answered yes, then we may as well say that an enlightened dictatorship is the best possible form of government, don't we?
Typically the government sets the targets for the central bank and then leaves them to it. I would argue that this is similar to how hospitals, the courts, air traffic control, etc do their jobs. Sure there are issues with how well each of these works but they are all in "unelected" hands and I prefer it that way because I think it works better than having it in directly political hands. My example here would be elected judges in the US and their impact on justice (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges). And I think it is difficult to brand this position as one in favour of dictatorship or, indeed, as politically right-wing.
Could be, but if they are held, going against their result Just a few months later is more is a joke. As if a country elected a "wrong" government and as a result the election was considered invalid by some kind of agency.
It is ok to go back on previous decisions, but that fast?
I would simple say that the referendum was a bad idea in the first place and it would have been better not to have it. The problem which it, and the new rules which say future treaty changes will require referendums, introduces is that we need to be able to make treaty change to keep up with the world we live in. It makes this dependent on the internal politics of a member state. Referendums have been used as protest votes or co-opted for other purposes. For example the question asked in the UK at the moment is do we want to member of the EU and if you listen to the leave campaign now, all you hear is "do you want to stop foreigners coming in". That is a small part of a bigger, harder, question, and it shouldn't be allowed to swing the vote.
On the subject of the "wrong government" it is a good point. Of course governments are normally bound by base law which limit what they can do and is often enforced by an unelected group (European Court of Human Rights anyone). This has an impact on how easily a government can be bad.
However, if I step back from the real world:
I would want to see all citizens making the choice to vote and ensuring that they were well informed before they did so. A basic knowledge in how the state functions, economics, current spend profile and actual outcomes (falling teen pregnancy, falling violent crime, climate change is real, etc). In this world people would pick "good governments", or rather it would be harder to deceive them into picking bad ones. This isn't the world we live, clearly, but that doesn't mean that I want to have more ways of screwing it up introduced.
(As an aside on the above paragraph - anyone notice that the 16/17 year olds which are allowed to vote on some questions seem to make better informed decisions than the population as a whole. Might have something to do with those school classes where they talk facts first and politics second. Just a though.)
Some commentary from Frakie Boyle about the politicians (and debate) for and against...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/brexit-referendum-campaigns-politicians
Saw it earlier and hated it. As with his other pieces on Scottish independence it just comes across, to me, as labeling the whole political system/all politicians as rotten, without ever feeling that an alternative has to be suggested. This seems to justify disengagement - which isn't going to make things improve. Better to light a candle...
-
If only people had taken my Luton plan seriously ten years ago then we might have a more enlightened electorate. Unfortunately only lagers saw the genius of it and everyone else thought I was joking.
Not so funny now Farage has influenced British politics to the point where we're now voting on his policy despite him having no democratic mandate.
-
glc
http://youtu.be/t9_EhmfxHys
-
saw this on fb and thought it was very good
https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/6172/
-
Although i am british, i found éléments of resonance in this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-the-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/
-
Although i am british, i found éléments of resonance in this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-the-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/
Immigration and the economy are dominating the news but this is the issue I see as most critical ie is voting for long term political and economic self-determination a price worth paying for the short/medium term trauma that withdrawing will cause at a time when economic recovery is fragile.
Quite clear that for the EU that further political and economic integration is viewed as progress however out of kilter the member states are economically. This for example benefits Germany economically (low Euro) and at the other end of the spectrum Greece and its financial irresponsibility. We are also losing control over our legislative powers. Overall I would prefer maintaining a certain distance from the EU which I can see becoming increasingly sclerotic politically and economically. I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
:devangel:
-
.... this is the issue I see as most critical ie is voting for long term political and economic self-determination a price worth paying for the short/medium term trauma that withdrawing will cause at a time when economic recovery is fragile.
This.
I'm undecided but wavering toward brexit despite finding most of the leave camps' rhetoric appalling...
..while hoping leaving won't fuck too much with my euro sport trips. :devangel:
-
So as a small business owner, hamstrung by excessive European legislation and oppressive workers rights; I should be agreeing with you?
I don't and I worked in Greece and with Greek companies upto 2012, still chat with former colleagues there (they don't recognise our media image of their plight, that's not to say they aren't in difficulty).
That short term bump you mentioned? Are you sure of it's brevity? Will it not not disproportionately affect the working class?
And, more importantly, surely that much vaunted independence is a mere mirage, that will evaporate under the glaring sun of trade negotiations?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
By having to give employees annual leave, shit like that?
-
Seeing the 'polls' going in favour of Brexit is fucking depressing, honestly. If we leave there is nobody to protect us from the Tories and the New Labour types who want to privatise everything (look at how much success they are having already) and have a bonfire with our rights. I'm hoping that some of it is bravado from people who will see reason when they are looking at their scrap of paper, and we will vote to stay in by a knife-edge. It's like political russian roulette :wall:
-
So as a small business owner, hamstrung by excessive European legislation and oppressive workers rights; I should be agreeing with you?
I don't and I worked in Greece and with Greek companies upto 2012, still chat with former colleagues there (they don't recognise our media image of their plight, that's not to say they aren't in difficulty).
You don't really say why you don't agree with Shark though.. other than some Greeks you know seem to be doing OK despite their difficulties.
That short term bump you mentioned? Are you sure of it's brevity? Will it not not disproportionately affect the working class?
Poor working class populations are disproportionately affected by any bumps in life. 'Don't be poor and working class* if it's possible not to be' is the only rational take-away that I can make out from human history; whichever political system's running the show. You can argue about fairness and welfare and I won't disagree.
*definitions of working class (and poor) may vary
And, more importantly, surely that much vaunted independence is a mere mirage, that will evaporate under the glaring sun of trade negotiations?
Are you sure, why? Are the potential long-term benefits of leaving the EU worth the potential costs? Wish I knew but the debate is so murky.
-
Seeing the 'polls' going in favour of Brexit is fucking depressing,
Especially as the genesis of this whole farce was Tory infighting and Hameron's desire to bribe Tory voters not to defect to UKIP, and now the rest of us are dragged into this as collateral damage. The fucking cunt.
-
Seeing the 'polls' going in favour of Brexit is fucking depressing, honestly. If we leave there is nobody to protect us from the Tories and the New Labour types who want to privatise everything (look at how much success they are having already) and have a bonfire with our rights. I'm hoping that some of it is bravado from people who will see reason when they are looking at their scrap of paper, and we will vote to stay in by a knife-edge. It's like political russian roulette :wall:
To begin with I reasoned that the Scots didn't vote for independence so there will be no way we'll vote to leave the EU because I perceived there to be much more scottish independance psyche than anti-Eu psyche. However, I'm starting to get a bad feeling about all this.
Fingers crossed the polls have ended up not being an accurate representation of how everyone will vote... :please:
-
The polls got very close just before the Scottish referendum too - it's just the media feeding frenzy. Ladbrokes still have it at 62% Remain.
In the last two referendums we have voted for the status quo. I don't see any clearer case for change this time so I'm pretty sure it'll be the same again.
-
Judging from the conversation in my local pub last night, it would seem that we'll be leaving.
-
Each to their own political opinions and that, but I've been shocked by lots of people who I thought were intelligent telling me they'll be voting out, and they all want to because of immigration.
-
I have just been speaking to a colleague who is extremely active campaigner for Remain in Chester (viewed as a critical bellwether constituency and with a wide mix of social classes etc.). He is out canvassing every evening and will be out next Thursday getting the vote out. He thinks it will be leave, he meets a majority of out voters in every ward he visits. Obviously this far from definitive but it was interesting to get this viewpoint from someone campaigning at the grassroots.
-
Judging from the conversation in my local pub last night, it would seem that we'll be leaving.
In the spirit of 'good day to bury bad news', the establishment could collude to ensure they prevent a brexit vote by designating the 23rd a new national holiday: 'No White Vans Whatsoever or Cars Older than 5 Years Allowed on Road Day'.
All pubs outside of London, Manchester and Edinburgh given subsidies to offer free lager for all; and the Beeb/ITV show 24hr continuous footage of re-runs of the Euro '96 footy, Only Fools & Horses, and X-Factor.
Not that I'm stereotyping..
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
By having to give employees annual leave, shit like that?
Its a conundrum I know and there is a balance to be struck but added employment legislation and protection are disincentives to employers to recruit in the first place particularly international companies weighing up the advantages of varied countries to set up offices and factories. Flexible working conditions tends to lead to fuller employment. The more job openings there are, the more opportunity there is to move to a better employer or better paid job. We are competing internationally so its not an even playing field in the competition to sell goods and services around the World and I would prefer that we made our own decisions on employment legislation rather than have them decided for us.
-
I have just been speaking to a colleague who is extremely active campaigner for Remain in Chester (viewed as a critical bellwether constituency and with a wide mix of social classes etc.). He is out canvassing every evening and will be out next Thursday getting the vote out. He thinks it will be leave, he meets a majority of out voters in every ward he visits. Obviously this far from definitive but it was interesting to get this viewpoint from someone campaigning at the grassroots.
They still close the city gates in Chester at night to keep the Welsh out
-
Stupid English cunts, there's a river running right through it.
-
So the logic is the shitter employers can get away with treating staff, the more likely staff are to leave, hence more "opportunity" there is for folk to move on, and that's a good thing? And this is beneficial for us right? Amazing.
Based on that logic next time you go to Malham I'll tag along and deprive you of food and drink, smearing shit on your shoes and on redpoint attempts I'll keep tugging down on the rope. This will give you more opportunity to either train harder or move on to a better route.
-
I’ve postal voted to remain already.
I’ve little to add to what others have said already.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned here though is that if we vote to remain and it actually becomes clear that being in the EU is a net bad thing, then we always have the option of further referenda . If we vote to leave and it becomes clear it is a net bad thing, we are well and truly stuck with it.
Also regards improved trade deals. Why does anyone think that a small economic entity will be able to cut a better deal in a negotiation than a large economic entity? The opposite would seem more likely to me.
Regards gaining greater democracy. Getting a brand new unelected extra right-wing government by default doesn’t seem very democratic to me and shifting them if the Scots end up extracting themselves could prove very tricky.
-
Each to their own political opinions and that, but I've been shocked by lots of people who I thought were intelligent telling me they'll be voting out, and they all want to because of immigration.
This.. :slap: :shrug: :no:
I spent the weekend with an old friend who I was gobsmacked to hear say he was un-decided, despite spending the rest of the weekend lambasting the tories/boris anyone with an anti immigration stance. He "liked the idea" of being out.
I'm just hoping beyond all hope, that the silent masses turn out and vote in. I think its going to be a close run thing.
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
By having to give employees annual leave, shit like that?
Its a conundrum I know and there is a balance to be struck but added employment legislation and protection are disincentives to employers to recruit in the first place particularly international companies weighing up the advantages of varied countries to set up offices and factories. Flexible working conditions tends to lead to fuller employment. The more job openings there are, the more opportunity there is to move to a better employer or better paid job. We are competing internationally so its not an even playing field in the competition to sell goods and services around the World and I would prefer that we made our own decisions on employment legislation rather than have them decided for us.
Also known as a race to the bottom. The end point of which is a competition between nations with regard to who can provide the worst working conditions. And having eschewed freedom of movement for workers it's not as if those able can bugger off to somewhere more sane.
At least as part of the EU we are free from an arms race of worker bashing with our near neighbours.
-
One point that hasn’t been mentioned here though is that if we vote to remain and it actually becomes clear that being in the EU is a net bad thing, then we always have the option of further referenda . If we vote to leave and it becomes clear it is a net bad thing, we are well and truly stuck with it.
Good point
-
What BJ said.
-
The polls got very close just before the Scottish referendum too - it's just the media feeding frenzy. Ladbrokes still have it at 62% Remain.
In the last two referendums we have voted for the status quo. I don't see any clearer case for change this time so I'm pretty sure it'll be the same again.
In the last week (I've been checking) bet365's brexit odds have changed from 12/5 to 11/5 to 7/4 last time I checked. Ask 3T but that's a big shift in what the bookies think will happen.
All this comes down to is whether or not you think the grass is greener on the other side. I don't. And have seen no evidence (just rhetoric) to show anything different.
-
Just checked. Now 6/4 brexit, 8/15 remain.
-
I’ve postal voted to remain already.
I’ve little to add to what others have said already.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned here though is that if we vote to remain and it actually becomes clear that being in the EU is a net bad thing, then we always have the option of further referenda . If we vote to leave and it becomes clear it is a net bad thing, we are well and truly stuck with it.
Also regards improved trade deals. Why does anyone think that a small economic entity will be able to cut a better deal in a negotiation than a large economic entity? The opposite would seem more likely to me.
Regards gaining greater democracy. Getting a brand new unelected extra right-wing government by default doesn’t seem very democratic to me and shifting them if the Scots end up extracting themselves could prove very tricky.
This.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
By having to give employees annual leave, shit like that?
Its a conundrum I know and there is a balance to be struck but added employment legislation and protection are disincentives to employers to recruit in the first place particularly international companies weighing up the advantages of varied countries to set up offices and factories. Flexible working conditions tends to lead to fuller employment. The more job openings there are, the more opportunity there is to move to a better employer or better paid job. We are competing internationally so its not an even playing field in the competition to sell goods and services around the World and I would prefer that we made our own decisions on employment legislation rather than have them decided for us.
Also known as a race to the bottom. The end point of which is a competition between nations with regard to who can provide the worst working conditions. And having eschewed freedom of movement for workers it's not as if those able can bugger off to somewhere more sane.
At least as part of the EU we are free from an arms race of worker bashing with our near neighbours.
No that's not what it is known as. There are other factors at play like democracy. It is also not a zero sum game when the world economy is growing. Competitive international capitalism has on the whole been a force for good bringing billions out of subsistence. Clearly it is not perfect and exacerbates inequality. The challenge for richer nations is to maintain competitiveness by relentless efficiency and innovation and effective deployment of capital and investment into such things as education. Finite resources then enter the discussion but we have another thread for this stuff (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19178.msg342153.html#msg342153)
-
The problem I have with the sovereignty/control of our own destiny is that I don't trust the politicians in Westminster to do the right thing, I don't particularly trust the politicians in the EU parliament either, but a lot of complaints I hear about red tape or from businesses wanting to not have to treat workers or the environment correctly, either that or someone in the pub who genuinely believes that France have a problem with the shape of our bananas. On balance I like being part of Europe, more than harking back to some ideal time when we weren't, (and borrowing a phrase) also if I look at the people backing leave I'd be surprised if any of them made it all the way through Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
-
immigration
http://newsthump.com/2014/11/28/ukip-warns-of-schrodingers-immigrant-who-lazes-around-on-benefits-whilst-simultaneously-stealing-your-job/
-
I see the UK competitive advantages in the World Economy such as creativity, entrepreneurship, flexibility being dragged down by being in the EU in its current form and the way it is "progressing"
Sounds good Shark but how exactly are these competitive advantages being dragged down?
By having to give employees annual leave, shit like that?
Its a conundrum I know and there is a balance to be struck but added employment legislation and protection are disincentives to employers to recruit in the first place particularly international companies weighing up the advantages of varied countries to set up offices and factories. Flexible working conditions tends to lead to fuller employment. The more job openings there are, the more opportunity there is to move to a better employer or better paid job. We are competing internationally so its not an even playing field in the competition to sell goods and services around the World and I would prefer that we made our own decisions on employment legislation rather than have them decided for us.
Also known as a race to the bottom. The end point of which is a competition between nations with regard to who can provide the worst working conditions. And having eschewed freedom of movement for workers it's not as if those able can bugger off to somewhere more sane.
At least as part of the EU we are free from an arms race of worker bashing with our near neighbours.
No that's not what it is known as. There are other factors at play like democracy. It is also not a zero sum game when the world economy is growing. Competitive international capitalism has on the whole been a force for good bringing billions out of subsistence. Clearly it is not perfect and exacerbates inequality. The challenge for richer nations is to maintain competitiveness by relentless efficiency and innovation and effective deployment of capital and investment into such things as education. Finite resources then enter the discussion but we have another thread for this stuff (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19178.msg342153.html#msg342153)
How does withdrawing from a large, open market, make us a more efficient capitalist society?
I think "Race to the bottom" is an apt description for the erosion of employment rights, too.
I don't think I have any difficulty in hiring and firing as required by the business's needs and worker performance. I think the living wage sucks (as it is an artificially introduced wage hike that does not reflect an improvement in the economy etc etc), but that's not a European imposition. As far as I can see, as an employer, I'm quite well protected by current law (much of it European in origin) and most "Worker rights" are fair (however annoying (and it is) paying two people for the same job, when one is on holiday). The biggest shit bag of being an employer is Statutory Sick pay, which must be born by the employer (not the Government) and, again, is not a product of European regulation, but UK.
So, as an Employer, I have no gripes with the EU.
As a Surveyor and Consulting Engineer (when I was), I used the EU freedom of movement very much to my advantage, and to the advantage of my customers and suppliers. This will not be possible for the current generation for some considerable time after a Brexit, and there is no guarantee that any such arrangements will ever be negotiated with the EU in the future. Fancy applying for a working visa to do a short consult in France? Bloody stupid.
All I hear are vague mumblings, punctuated by the only audible, staccato, one word arguments "Control!" or "Immigration!" or "Great Britain!"; without any damn substance or rational beyond overly optimistic national pride.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Lets not mention the wider implications of leaving will have, when other countries then decide to leave too, and the whole thing crumbles into a shit pile. Security then ? free and easy trade?
-
As an aside - what the farmers thinking... I assume they're in on the basis they'll lose out on the massive EU subsidies the farming industry gets (reputedly)
-
Lets not mention the wider implications of leaving will have, when other countries then decide to leave too, and the whole thing crumbles into a shit pile. Security then ? free and easy trade?
Oh don't be silly Sam, nothing bad will happen.
Lot's of very trustworthy people, like that nice chap Farage, say so.
I'm quite sure all those supposed "Experts" who predict bad things are just "vested interests" and Euro-shills.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There is an argument that the Eurozone will implode soon anyway - one size monetary policy clearly cannot fit all - and we are wise to be as far away as possible when it happens.
-
As an aside - what the farmers thinking... I assume they're in on the basis they'll lose out on the massive EU subsidies the farming industry gets (reputedly)
Out, as they get less than some continental farmers and are living in the vain hope that a post Brexit government will give them a bigger subsidy that that of the current EU gift.
-
There is an argument that the Eurozone will implode soon anyway - one size monetary policy clearly cannot fit all - and we are wise to be as far away as possible when it happens.
Which is the reason why the folk I know who are voting for Brexit are i.e. Greece is on life support, Italy is going to go the same way.
-
Lets not mention the wider implications of leaving will have, when other countries then decide to leave too, and the whole thing crumbles into a shit pile. Security then ? free and easy trade?
That isn't a compelling argument to remain in any Union - essentially 'remain in the EU, or the EU will fail'.
Doing it for the kids..
-
I voted "out" last week.
-
I came out last week.
-
That was the week before! Doylo video'd it but luckily no one believed it
-
Interesting how many people stand to make a killing on a Brexit and that the financial markets see it as a negative move.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-14/pound-traders-double-down-on-weaker-pound-wagers-to-35-billion
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Although i am NOT british, i found éléments of resonance in this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-the-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/
Err... Typo.
Of course I'm Italian!
And I hate EU as much as I love France, Italy, Spain, UK, etc... ;-)
-
One thing about the "I don't trust our politicians, so I trust the EU more" argument.
I've seen it already elsewhere (other countries and times).
The scary thing is that it follows a cultural change in which a technocracy is seen as better than politics: there is no need for a social compromise, as long as we find out the right set of rules (laws)
It is ok if one consciously adheres to liberalism, and believes that individual interests will self balance (ie, you believe in the invisible hand, that private vices make public virtues, etc)
The problem is, I see it more as the result of liberalism being presented as the obvious philosophical option, with any alternative vision being discredited as either "old", fascist, communist, non scientific (can any philosophy be a science?) etc...
-
http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf?force=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/brexitbreifspdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Seeing the 'polls' going in favour of Brexit is fucking depressing,
Especially as the genesis of this whole farce was Tory infighting and Hameron's desire to bribe Tory voters not to defect to UKIP, and now the rest of us are dragged into this as collateral damage. The fucking cunt.
Yes. This is not brought about by a major external watershed that would legitimately prompt a referendum such as Russia being allowed to join the EU or a million immigrants rafting up the Thames or being told we have to join the Euro or we are out.
Most normal people don't want a vote but have to vote because it is so important. Most normal people realise that voting is based on guesses about a largely unknowable future. Furthermore it has been initiated by a government whose leaders didnt want a referendum in teh first place.
-
I don't believe the title of this article is true ("Brexit is the only way the working class can change anything") ,but I believe that feeling is what is driving most leave-voters.
Personally I'd like to vote "leave" as I dislike concentration of power, but I am Dutch. I have voted against the "European constitution" like most of the voters in the Netherlands years ago, then our European rulers changed the name to "European binding contract" and told us we would learn to like it..
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/brexit-working-class-sick-racist-eu-referendum
-
Just a quick question on the sovereignty bit. So the EU robs us of self determination but all the other international agreements we have made don't?
The fact that as a NATO member we are obliged to go to war, if certain conditions are meet, is somehow not a problem vs. but we agree to have lower power light builds and that is a problem?
I get anger at the current crop of politicians.
I get a feeling that things are moving in the wrong direction.
I get a desire for better.
I just don't get how all that lands at the EU's feet, and how the proposed exit from one international body, albeit a very important one, is going make things better?
PS. The Scottish parliament had to get permission to hold a referendum on UK membership, but the UK did not need permission for this referendum. Sounds a lot like sovereignty to me...
PPS. The UK has the least regulated labour market of any EU member and one of the least regulated in the OECD (http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf).
-
I have voted against the "European constitution" like most of the voters in the Netherlands years ago, then our European rulers changed the name to "European binding contract" and told us we would learn to like it..
This isn't meant to be rude, but frankly how much did you know about the content of the European Constitution when you voted against it? I'm curious, honestly!
(This is when you tell me that you are lawyer of international law and I feel a bit sheepish.)
-
Thank you erm.
-
Just a quick question on the sovereignty bit. So the EU robs us of self determination but all the other international agreements we have made don't?
The fact that as a NATO member we are obliged to go to war, if certain conditions are meet, is somehow not a problem vs. but we agree to have lower power light builds and that is a problem?
I get anger at the current crop of politicians.
I get a feeling that things are moving in the wrong direction.
I get a desire for better.
I just don't get how all that lands at the EU's feet, and how the proposed exit from one international body, albeit a very important one, is going make things better?
PS. The Scottish parliament had to get permission to hold a referendum on UK membership, but the UK did not need permission for this referendum. Sounds a lot like sovereignty to me...
PPS. The UK has the least regulated labour market of any EU member and one of the least regulated in the OECD (http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf).
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
-
Well I've voted. Deciding where to put the cross was the easiest bit of the instructions.
-
Voting out but not too bothered either way
-
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
I am not sure I would, but in a post-Soviet world NATO does seem less important. I picked it because it is an extreme example but there are of course lots of others: WTO, WHO, UN, BIS, OECD, IMF, WB. Commonwealth, NEA, NSG, NNPT, G5/8/10/20, WIPO, OPCW, UPU (how we do post internationally) and the list goes on.
All of these bodies require some agreement which could be characterised as a surrender of sovereignty, some sacrifices are small and some are big. That was really the only point I was trying to make with regard to NATO/EU. Sorry if it was a little crass, come overplayed.
-
Just a quick question on the sovereignty bit. So the EU robs us of self determination but all the other international agreements we have made don't?
The fact that as a NATO member we are obliged to go to war, if certain conditions are meet, is somehow not a problem vs. but we agree to have lower power light builds and that is a problem?
I get anger at the current crop of politicians.
I get a feeling that things are moving in the wrong direction.
I get a desire for better.
I just don't get how all that lands at the EU's feet, and how the proposed exit from one international body, albeit a very important one, is going make things better?
PS. The Scottish parliament had to get permission to hold a referendum on UK membership, but the UK did not need permission for this referendum. Sounds a lot like sovereignty to me...
PPS. The UK has the least regulated labour market of any EU member and one of the least regulated in the OECD (http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf).
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
French sovereignist party upr says: Out of euro, out of EU, out of NATO.
-
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
I am not sure I would, but in a post-Soviet world NATO does seem less important. I picked it because it is an extreme example but there are of course lots of others: WTO, WHO, UN, BIS, OECD, IMF, WB. Commonwealth, NEA, NSG, NNPT, G5/8/10/20, WIPO, OPCW, UPU (how we do post internationally) and the list goes on.
All of these bodies require some agreement which could be characterised as a surrender of sovereignty, some sacrifices are small and some are big. That was really the only point I was trying to make with regard to NATO/EU. Sorry if it was a little crass, come overplayed.
I think with a Putin strong Russia being a member of NATO is pretty important. It may seem at times weak, or not to do much, but look at Russia's annexing of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine... Russia's intervention there was partly due to their percieved threat of Ukraine joining NATO.
Voting out but not too bothered either way
Why did you vote then?
-
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
I am not sure I would, but in a post-Soviet world NATO does seem less important.
But what about in the world of the post-post-Soviet Putin nationalist thuggery school of foreign policy? He'll will be rubbing his hands at the thought of NATO or the EU becoming less strong. Pick off a few more Baltic states, why not.
-
If you think we are in a safe, calm, post soviet region....scare yourself a bit reading about the US Army in Europe... CUrrently tooling up all around the Russian perimeter...
http://www.eur.army.mil/
-
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
I am not sure I would, but in a post-Soviet world NATO does seem less important.
But what about in the world of the post-post-Soviet Putin nationalist thuggery school of foreign policy? He'll will be rubbing his hands at the thought of NATO or the EU becoming less strong. Pick off a few more Baltic states, why not.
I haven't given it much thought to be honest. If I was faced with the question I would go away and learn more about the nature of the obligations and the associated costs (financial and otherwise). Fortunately that isn't I question that seems likely to be asked anytime soon.
-
I have voted against the "European constitution" like most of the voters in the Netherlands years ago, then our European rulers changed the name to "European binding contract" and told us we would learn to like it..
This isn't meant to be rude, but frankly how much did you know about the content of the European Constitution when you voted against it? I'm curious, honestly!
(This is when you tell me that you are lawyer of international law and I feel a bit sheepish.)
i hardly read a word of the original text, sure, BUT i read lots and lots of (different) newspapers and commentators. i have all my life. i didn't read the original text because i am not a lawyer (i do not read spanish or russian newspapers because i don't speak the language).
but you finds sources that you trust over the years, people /journalists/ thinkers/ lawyers sometimes even politicians who make sense most of the time.
that's how i try to form my opinion.
gotta get back to work
-
Voting out but not too bothered either way
If you are not really bothered either way why not vote in, as this would maintain the status quo you obviously don't particularly have an issue with?
-
+1
-
+2
BE BOTHERED! (if you're not, don't vote - certainly don't just follow the herd)
-
Vote out if you're not bothered. Then you can say you helped change things instead of keeping them the same.
-
Vote out if you're not bothered. Then you can say you helped change things instead of keeping them the same.
WTF :blink: oh Aye, fuck it...let's just have a change, could be a good laugh eh?
-
Laugh? I'm not laughing at all
-
Vote out if you're not bothered. Then you can say you helped change things instead of keeping them the same.
So, you are in a pub with a mate. You have been having a good night, your absolute favorite beer isn't on tonight and there was a bit of rowdyness earlier, but all in all its been a pleasant night. Your mate offers you another pint. You are not sure if you want another, you could have another pint but are feeling a bit full and tired.
What should you do? You could
A. Have the pint.
B. Have a pint of coke or lemonade, after all, you can always have another pint in the next round.
C. Give up alcohol for ever.
In this tedious analogy, Ducko voting out is the same as C. E.g. an extreme response.
-
That's not an analogy. It's someone saying he's been having a good night but doesn't know if he wants another beer.
-
and who is talking about forever?
is great Britain going to drag itself away?
leave ireland behind?
if britain does really badly without the eu, and the eu badly without britain, as we are all told, then in a few years time you'll just join again
-
Yeah, just waltz back in. Won't have to take the Euro, won't have to join Shengen. Right now we have a great deal in terms of what we don't have to do with Europe, that if we were to want to join again are not guaranted at all. I really don't think it is as simple as "if we don't like it we can just join again".
-
if britain does really badly without the eu, and the eu badly without britain, as we are all told, then in a few years time you'll just join again
No you won't. This isn't a tryout, you don't just go knocking at the door and it opens again. The full reapplication would be a long and tedious process, involving voting by other member states, and renegotiation of terms.
edit - wot he sed.
-
I'd vote out of NATO if it was put to a referendum
I am not sure I would, but in a post-Soviet world NATO does seem less important.
But what about in the world of the post-post-Soviet Putin nationalist thuggery school of foreign policy? He'll will be rubbing his hands at the thought of NATO or the EU becoming less strong. Pick off a few more Baltic states, why not.
If you think we are in a safe, calm, post soviet region....scare yourself a bit reading about the US Army in Europe... CUrrently tooling up all around the Russian perimeter...
http://www.eur.army.mil/
Absolutely.
And not just the Yanks. The RN presence in the Gulf and IO (where there are legitimate risks to British flagged shipping) has been quietly scaled down over the last 4 months and vessels repositioned this side of the Suez canal.
I figured that was a Syria related move, but some have gone further west than I would have expected and even on Black sea/Dardanelles visits. Pure conjecture of course.
There is also the possibility that the Type 45's really don't like warm water and it's getting embarrassing...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
and who is talking about forever?
is great Britain going to drag itself away?
leave ireland behind?
if britain does really badly without the eu, and the eu badly without britain, as we are all told, then in a few years time you'll just join again
what? do you really think that???
-
of course i don't think it's simple, nothing is.
nor do i think it is impossible
-
If the financial risks are so transitory and the Leave campaign so certain that we can weather any storm, why are the supposed experts, appointed to oversee the health of our economy; so anti-Brexit? The only non-racist argument I have heard anywhere for Brexit is that we will be better able to compete in the global market, our economy will improve and we are in imminent danger of being dragged under in a Euro zone collapse.
Yet the Bank of England say the opposite, that the greatest threat to our economy and prosperity is Brexit, not Euro melt down, despite the Bank being heavily gagged and repeatedly being told to stay out of Politics (as if that were a separate reality, with no real world repercussions).
Am I supposed to believe it's all a Jewish/Rockefeller/Illuminati/Lizard alien conspiracy?
New world order!
(Actually, why is that bad?)
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/005.aspx
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Then, there's this:
https://www.facebook.com/brian.king.3994/posts/10209593022524088
Sorry for the facebook link, but:
Are we, again, now saying that our own Academics, at our own premier Universities; don't know what they are talking about but Nige and Boris do?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I can't believe we are even asking the question. The vast majority of the population are simply not qualified to answer such as fundamental question. Trying to think of a good analogy, I suggest it's something like asking a bunch of 16 year olds studying biology to perform heart bypass surgery on a reasonably healthy patient! At the very least a prerequisite of voting in the referendum should be having a degree in macroeconomics. Meanwhile a bunch of people in the 60+ age group are likely to vote us out based on decades of misguided out-of-date rose-tinted ideas of 'how good it used to be'. The fact it won't effect them as it will be decades before the fall-out of an exit has settled. They'll all be long gone. Our kids will be left to pick up the pieces of a crippled isolated back-water economy. Don't think we'll be back in to play any time soon, we'll still be going through the messy divorce decades from now and I dread to think how much the separation will cost the country. :'(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-flirts-with-economic-insanity/2016/05/01/bb8d7a4a-0e1f-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html?postshare=7891465903206568&tid=ss_tw
-
"it is worth mentioning that the forecasting record of the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England is rotten"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/05/brexit-forecasters-miss-everything-that-matters-to-real-voters
-
I can't believe we are even asking the question. The vast majority of the population are simply not qualified to answer such as fundamental question. Trying to think of a good analogy, I suggest it's something like asking a bunch of 16 year olds studying biology to perform heart bypass surgery on a reasonably healthy patient! At the very least a prerequisite of voting in the referendum should be having a degree in macroeconomics. Meanwhile a bunch of people in the 60+ age group are likely to vote us out based on decades of misguided out-of-date rose-tinted ideas of 'how good it used to be'. The fact it won't effect them as it will be decades before the fall-out of an exit has settled. They'll all be long gone. Our kids will be left to pick up the pieces of a crippled isolated back-water economy. Don't think we'll be back in to play any time soon, we'll still be going through the messy divorce decades from now and I dread to think how much the separation will cost the country. :'(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-flirts-with-economic-insanity/2016/05/01/bb8d7a4a-0e1f-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html?postshare=7891465903206568&tid=ss_tw
+1
-
"it is worth mentioning that the forecasting record of the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England is rotten"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/05/brexit-forecasters-miss-everything-that-matters-to-real-voters
Seriously? Because there was once a recession/crisis all those organisations must now be idiots, who know nothing (despite lessons learned)?
The worst part about all this is that no-one will change their position based on any evidence, good or bad, because it really only hinges on whether you are an "us and them" person or of an "all together" bent (not necessarily racist, just nationalistic).
But I'm bombarded with stuff like this:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160616/43af0ae155d13dd9ee89a6d918174b1c.jpg)
On the one hand, and this:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160616/f3e2c34a0fc4e416fc0cffbc2e7d8e9c.jpg)
On the other and I know which makes more sense to me.
I know thst's a bit of a straw man, but give me something more persuasive than "they made a mistake once".
Oh, and Boris is well clued up, like, inn 'e..
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4NewsDemocracy/videos/992615087483101/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
No one can possibly believe absolute bullshit like that “EU regulation of cabbage” is nearly half a short novel in length. Without googling I confidently predict that there is no specific EU-wide regulation of cabbage at all.
-
I don't need to give you anything persuasive Matt, just vote how you want
-
"it is worth mentioning that the forecasting record of the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England is rotten"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/05/brexit-forecasters-miss-everything-that-matters-to-real-voters
Seriously? Because there was once a recession/crisis all those organisations must now be idiots, who know nothing (despite lessons learned)?
I know thst's a bit of a straw man, but give me something more persuasive than "they made a mistake once".
They are wrong quite often.
Just ask anyone in Greece
Or look at the first graph in this link
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/02/22/five-trends-that-will-shape-the-future-of-the-u-s-economy/
http://online.wsj.com/media/imf-growth-projections.png
-
Will everyone stop posting links that nobody gives a shit about reading, especially you Matt. It doesn't make you look smarter, you're just posting links. :)
The world's flooded with information to the point we're overwhelmed by informed opinions on both sides of every topic under the sun. It'll all be alright, just close your eyes, draw an X and hope for the best we'll work it out..
-
No one can possibly believe absolute bullshit like that “EU regulation of cabbage” is nearly half a short novel in length.
If only that were true...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
No one can possibly believe absolute bullshit like that “EU regulation of cabbage” is nearly half a short novel in length.
If only that were true...
It isn't: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b074zy97#play (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b074zy97#play) - Link to Radio 4 More Or Less which is a stats / economics show which explodes this cabbage regs myth. Been a while since I listened to it but it is false and the perpetuation or an urban myth from early c20 America, though the regs do exist and are not short. They are also written by the British Cabbage Growers Lot if I recall correctly i.e. they would be precisely the same if we left.
-
Update - the section on cabbages was coincidentally (!!) re-broadcasted today on R4. Link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07hjy4z (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07hjy4z)
-
Will everyone stop posting links that nobody gives a shit about reading, especially you Matt. It doesn't make you look smarter, you're just posting links. :)
The world's flooded with information to the point we're overwhelmed by informed opinions on both sides of every topic under the sun. It'll all be alright, just close your eyes, draw an X and hope for the best we'll work it out..
Weren't you the one that complained of my lack of argument in an earlier post? [emoji12]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Voting out but not too bothered either way
If you are not really bothered either way why not vote in, as this would maintain the status quo you obviously don't particularly have an issue with?
Poor use of words, Id personally prefer to leave for various reasons but if we end up staying I won't be devastated about it.
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Many people would consider me a racist, and i'm voting remain.
What I can't understand is why the pro-EU camp hasn't put more effort into promoting a European sense of identity. There seems to be no propaganda effort at all in this direction. A lot of the problems people have with being in the EU (and perhaps one day becoming part of an United States of Europe) would go away if we didn't think in terms of 'them' and 'us'.
-
Will everyone stop posting links that nobody gives a shit about reading, especially you Matt.
As someone much more worried about a lunatic taking power in the heavily-armed country to my immediate south, rather than the institutional future of my land of birth, I have been keeping out of this thread. But no reasonable person could read pete's post without feeling the urge to post a link ...
From Boris' old shop, a pro-Brexit article that makes a few good points ...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/
... but I would still vote Remain if I had a vote (I have been too slow to get a postal vote in time for the referendum).
Didn't read it, can you summarise?
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Many people would consider me a racist, and i'm voting remain.
What I can't understand is why the pro-EU camp hasn't put more effort into promoting a European sense of identity. There seems to be no propaganda effort at all in this direction. A lot of the problems people have with being in the EU (and perhaps one day becoming part of an United States of Europe) would go away if we didn't think in terms of 'them' and 'us'.
Are you out of your mind? That would be disastrous. 'Try to sway little-britoners to feel good about being members of the EU by promoting more of a sense of EU-identity' - even a majority of remainers don't want any closer integration with Europe than our current arm's length status quo FFS!
Which is why it's such a close-run thing, even the remainers find it hard to be passionate about large bits of the EU. There must be something I can link to that says similar...
-
Which is why it's such a close-run thing, even the remainers find it hard to be passionate about large bits of the EU.
I definitely feel there is some truth in this. I'm for "remain", but have been made aware by my Dutch girlfriend that I still talk about "Europe" as a separate entity. I do feel that while part of the EU, and very much "European", the UK is slightly set-apart.
I have tried to read some of the more well thought out Brexit pieces and I in some ways agree with quite a few of their arguments as to the EU's failings; where I cease to agree is the follow on that leaving the EU and handing power to the right-wing loon brigade will improve anything!!
-
If you don't want to listen to 11 minutes there's a text summary here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35962999
-
In the event of a leave vote, what are the odds of a General Election Shortly thereafter? Boris and the right wing rump of the tories will have nothing like a workable majority, and a vote of no confidence must be pretty likely to go through I guess?
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Undecided as yet but the most compelling seems to be that the EU economy is gradually going down the toilet compared to the rest of the world and we don't need to tie ourselves to it?
My biggest problem with the Remain campaign is the complete lack of any positive argument as to why we should stay in, it's all been Project Fear and how the world will end if we vote to leave.
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Undecided as yet but the most compelling seems to be that the EU economy is gradually going down the toilet compared to the rest of the world and we don't need to tie ourselves to it?
Compared to who? US? They have more growth bit staggering personal debt issues and massive inequality.. S.America? Chile's doing Ok but Brazil, Argentina? Australia is only rich as its sold / selling its resources.. Russia? Japan? S.Africa? All have big problems...
Has any economist said its a good idea for the UK?
Ok. So economies doing well: China, India, Oz - should we expect to be doing as they are?
The economic argument for leaving is (imho) built on nostalgia... Empire.. Make Britain Great again etc... Absolute bollocks - the worlds a very different place now.
Can anyone name a country (similar size to us) that is doing well on its own - that's in a similar position to us in terms of little/no natural resources to plunder nor massive funds in reserve? It's not rhetorical - I can't think of one..
-
(Sounding a bit arsey above - soz)
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Undecided as yet but the most compelling seems to be that the EU economy is gradually going down the toilet compared to the rest of the world and we don't need to tie ourselves to it?
My biggest problem with the Remain campaign is the complete lack of any positive argument as to why we should stay in, it's all been Project Fear and how the world will end if we vote to leave.
So, we've worked together to make Europe more prosperous, stable and generally "free" (free movement, free trade, freedom from persecution etc.etc.) but now the Greece and Spain are dragging us down so "fuck 'em, let em burn" we'll do better on our own?
The North of England is dragging London down...should we just cut them free too? There are only 10m people in Greece. The EU could easily afford to just pension everyone above 50 off and it wouldn't even make a dent. FFS the entire GDP of Greece is only 1.3% of the EU GDP. We could literally just pay Greece to put their feet up for the next 100 years without even feeling it.
Re: the second point. I agree that only focusing on the negatives does put some off. The difficulty with trying to sound "positive" especially with regards to the economy is that the status quo is exactly that - so remain = no major change. So, it would be false to say - "vote remain for an amazing new super-economy". As this clearly won't happen. So the only option left is to point out the potential downsides of leaving.
So, all the major economists, BoE, FT, etc. etc. are all shouting really loudly that it is a terrible idea and it all comes across a bit "project fear" which I can see could be a turn-off, and is maybe unlikely to win you over.
I would just urge you to think about WHY so many leading economist think it is total suicide? Not as in "don't do it because it might be risky". Risk can be rewarding, remember, I voted for Scottish independence - this clearly had risks but the arguments for and against were very even matched....which is far, far from the case in this referendum.
-
But the Japanese have got a completely different set of morals than British people. Living off the state is seen as shameful whereas we have a television programme called benefit street with people saying how bloody great it is...
I have not studied japan for decades let alone 10 minutes btw so may be very wrong.
A problem we have in the UK (and lots of other places) is soldiering. Doing as little as possible without getting the sack. Factory workers realising it doesn't matter how hard they work, they will always get paid the same whereas if they work more the guy at the top gets it all.
Maybe in Japan they work harder? :shrug:
-
Undecided as yet but the most compelling seems to be that the EU economy is gradually going down the toilet compared to the rest of the world and we don't need to tie ourselves to it?
My biggest problem with the Remain campaign is the complete lack of any positive argument as to why we should stay in, it's all been Project Fear and how the world will end if we vote to leave.
The NHS will end if we leave and PM BJ then does a trade deal with the US which allows US healthcare providers in on any qualified provider and they cherry pick all the easy sectors of healthcare. EU work freedoms give the uk valuable people to work in IT, healthcare, finance... if we leave wave bye bye to a lot of British agriculture as well, and hello to farmers newly impoverished by lack of subsidies selling up to building developers.... So remaining is good for UK healthcare, finance, agriculture, industry... how much more positive does it need to be?
-
Factory workers realising it doesn't matter how hard they work, they will always get paid the same whereas if they work more the guy at the top gets it all.
What's wrong with that might I ask? Seems reasonable. Are you Karl Marx and do I get £5?
-
If this thread has taught me anything it is that whatever the available facts are, people will sort through them until they find the ones that support their own predeliction, cling to them, and shrug off any conflicting information.
-
If this thread has taught me anything it is that whatever the available facts are, people will sort through them until they find the ones that support their own predeliction, cling to them, and shrug off any conflicting information.
Is that a fact?
-
If this thread has taught me anything it is that whatever the available facts are, people will sort through them until they find the ones that support their own predeliction, cling to them, and shrug off any conflicting information.
did you not go to university for that lesson?
-
If this thread has taught me anything it is that whatever the available facts are, people will sort through them until they find the ones that support their own predeliction, cling to them, and shrug off any conflicting information.
That's confirmation bias. Isn't it dave?
-
Undecided as yet but the most compelling seems to be that the EU economy is gradually going down the toilet compared to the rest of the world and we don't need to tie ourselves to it?
In the event of Brexit the EU would likely remain our biggest trading partner, our failure to trade more the the BRIC nations is not a product of EU membership but our own choices.
So we can be in the club and try to influence it for better or get dragged by the gravity trade with the biggest developed trading block in the world, if a collapse actually occured.
My biggest problem with the Remain campaign is the complete lack of any positive argument as to why we should stay in, it's all been Project Fear and how the world will end if we vote to leave.
I would watch the video of Gordon Brown in Coventry catherdral if you want to hear some one put a positive argument for remain out there. It is based on what we have achieved with the EU and what the British should strive for in Europe (It's only a little over 2 minutes long, so I will include the link :ras: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPX9MLALjAE).
-
Compared to who?
In the spirit of the thread and posting obscure links:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/The_EU_in_the_world_-_economy_and_finance
From as I understand it the EU's own statistics agency? Fig 3 on the right hand side, not overly clear but the EU-28 GDP appears to be the bottom line on the first two graphs and above only Japan on the 3rd. From your list of comparators, Russia, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa all, as you say, have big problems and yet are doing massively better than the EU over the 10 years to 2013...
-
So, we've worked together to make Europe more prosperous, stable and generally "free" (free movement, free trade, freedom from persecution etc.etc.) but now the Greece and Spain are dragging us down so "fuck 'em, let em burn" we'll do better on our own?
The North of England is dragging London down...should we just cut them free too?
You're being a bit dramatic, no?
There are only 10m people in Greece. The EU could easily afford to just pension everyone above 50 off and it wouldn't even make a dent. FFS the entire GDP of Greece is only 1.3% of the EU GDP. We could literally just pay Greece to put their feet up for the next 100 years without even feeling it.
If it's that easy and the EU is such a benevolent organisation, why the fuck don't they do that then, rather than dragging Greece through economic hell with out even the promise of a light at the end of the tunnel?
I would just urge you to think about WHY so many leading economist think it is total suicide? Not as in "don't do it because it might be risky". Risk can be rewarding, remember, I voted for Scottish independence - this clearly had risks but the arguments for and against were very even matched....which is far, far from the case in this referendum.
Personally I would have put that that the other way round. I feel more optimistic about the UK as an entity making it's way in the world outside the EU than Scotland if it had left the UK. At least there won't be an absurd debate about what currency the UK would use...
-
Russia, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa all, as you say, have big problems and yet are doing massively better than the EU over the 10 years to 2013...
I think to characterise these countries as doing better than Europe, as a whole, is pretty far off base.
Russia - Kleptocracy, where the politcal leadership is invading other nations to distract the people
Argentina - Doesn't have full access to the world finance markets because it has defaulted repeatedly and refused to pay. Previous governments have raided the pension funds (private and public) to keep the wheels moving.
Brazil - Corrupt with poor infrastructure and heavily dependent on commodities which have dived in value.
SA - Still hasn't overcome apartheid's long run impact with a president that should stand trial for corruption. Unemployment over 25%.
-
Ok, substitute the narrow definition of 'experiencing greater economic growth' for 'doing better'. And the point really is, given all the problems these countries face, WTF is wrong with Europe that the economy here is growing more slowly?
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?
I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.
-
Ok, substitute the narrow definition of 'experiencing greater economic growth' for 'doing better'. And the point really is, given all the problems these countries face, WTF is wrong with Europe that the economy here is growing more slowly?
They start from being much poorer, and they treat their workforces much worse.
-
Ok, substitute the narrow definition of 'experiencing greater economic growth' for 'doing better'. And the point really is, given all the problems these countries face, WTF is wrong with Europe that the economy here is growing more slowly?
Our political leaders, here and in the rest of the EU, have broadly been captured by the idea that expansionary austerity is even possible. This economic policy is considered a failure by a growing majority of economists (but they're an "elite" and have been wrong before - so ignore them).
Couple this with the internal political difficulty in a place like Germany, where the standard of living, on average, increased hugely after reunification but hasn't matched the strong growth of the last 20 years or so (Germany has in effect suppressed wages to maintain competetiveness).
The creditor nations should be saying "we lent the Greeks (and others) money we should not have and we will have to accept responsibility for that".
From this would follow debt haircuts/forgiveness in the PIIGS, that would allow their economies to start growing properly again and bring the Eurozone into a better position and EU with it. The current state of affairs is now a product of selling the difficult proposition that the savers will have to suffer to help the borrowers, in order to get things moving again for all of us.
-
I told myself I’d keep an open mind on this until the final straight, and read a lot of the arguments, which I have tried to do. The upshot is that surprisingly I find myself less bothered about which way to vote or what the result will be. As Dave has expressed, we are being asked to decide on membership of the EU purely so that David Cameron can attempt to put a lid on both internal conservative party divisions and the rise of UKIP stealing votes from the right. Let’s face it this is a referendum he never thought he’d have to call - he thought the expected hung parliament at the last election would lead to another coalition, so he could revert to type, duck it, and blame the Lib Dems. This referendum wasn’t meant to happen and the politicians are like rabbits in the headlights. Talk about hoist by your own petard. To sum up my exasperation at the campaign – basically no-one has anything good to say about our membership of the EU. No-one has a vision, because the question wasn’t meant to be asked and caught everyone on the hop. So we have the sorry sight of a naturally Eurosceptic PM with his bullshit “renegotiated membership” deal (where is mention of that now pray-tell?) backing remaining in an EU which he hates on the basis that things will be worse if we leave. Basically “things are shit now, but they will be shitter if we leave”. Inspirational. However, at least they can prove their case for staying in very easily – "things are shit now and if we keep the status quo they’ll be just as shit tomorrow". That at least is a fact you can hang your hat on.
The other side of the campaign seems to think that things are shit now but they will be better if we leave. Its cloud cuckoo land stuff, but on that basis its not hard to see why it appeals to many in the electorate who are disaffected. Lets face it most people won’t be voting for the question on the paper, they will project their own question and answer that. And if they are pissed off with their situation at the moment then they are hardly going to vote for the status quo are they? They will vote leave to lash out at a political system that has always failed them. They won’t consider arguments in depth, they’ll just believe some mendacious statement from someone like Farage or Gove and run with that. But hey that’s democracy.
I know the above sounds like an argument against referenda, but it isn’t. The concept of putting it to the people is sound, but I think in this case the principle is undermined by the lack of intent of any of the parties. Cameron’s heart isn’t in it. Corbyn’s heart isn’t in it. Johnson couldn’t care less apart from getting what’s best for him. Farage at least has been consistent (a lunatic, granted, but a consistent one). If its genuinely such a fucking nightmare leaving then don’t put the chance of that happening on the table just so can can shut up your backbenches, its pure negligence. If you are still going to put it on the table then make damn sure you can carry the demos along with you. If there’s an overwhelmingly positive message for remaining in floating about out there then clearly a great many people haven’t heard it as all the polls have Leave ahead. For christ’s sake they haven’t even managed to be clever enough to pay off the Sun to back remain! The door is therefore left open for a protest vote from a lot of people who feel fucked over from years of UK-mandated austerity. Leaving the EU isn’t the answer but if that happens its because that’s the question we are being asked. And that’s because of a failure of UK politics, not the EU.
Basically whatever the result it’s the UK that needs reform, not the EU.
-
There is also still the not so minor point, that regardless of the outcome of the referendum; an act of Parliament is required to begin/give the article 50 notice (to the EU).
Some estimates put the split of parliamentarians opinions as high as 97-3% for remain. Even after a Tory party coup, with a Boris at the helm, that estimate doesn't shift much.
I have read much speculation (it's ok I won't link Pete) that the Government will begin the protracted process of passing that Bill (in the event of a leave win), which may take several months and then return to a further referendum prior to issuing the Article 50 notice (two year notice).
By the time they are ready, or IF. they can get the Bill through; there should be a much clearer picture of the consequences.
The referendum is advisory, it does not mean the Government will follow it's outcome. I think that must be a function of the size of the majority and the turnout.
Say a 51/49 split on less than 60% turn out, might be insufficient to force Parliament to follow the result.
Might be an interesting can of worms...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well none of the U.K. Papers have dared headline the link between The murder of Jo Cox and Brexit.
But papers across Europe make the link no one here dare speak..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2016/jun/17/european-newspaper-front-pages-on-jo-cox-death-in-pictures
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?
I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.
National identity is not important to me (am I unusual?).
I love the landscape, Geography, sense of humour, and usual tolerance of the U.K. (I even like the weather). Or is this a national identity? There in lies an interesting question.
We live in a far broader world than we did even 20 years ago... This leads to cultures, language, populations diffusing around the world far more than they ever had. I don't see nostalgia or hankering back for how things were as being a good or progressive force for the world... Or the UK.
Anyway - Democracy is far more like an algorithm or procedure/method than dictatorship... Is that your preferred form of governance? ;)
(Note the smiley..)
-
Well none of the U.K. Papers have dared headline the link between The murder of Jo Cox and Brexit.
But papers across Europe make the link no one here dare speak..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2016/jun/17/european-newspaper-front-pages-on-jo-cox-death-in-pictures
My Arab FB friends are volubly complaining that it hasn't been branded "Terrorism"...
(I don't think it is. If Britains Worst had claimed responsibility and lauded their "Fighter", then you could call it that. But a well documented man with serious mental health issues? No).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If a Muslim with well documented serious mental health problems killed someone whilst yelling Allah Akbar it would most certainly be branded as religious terrorism. Why not this guy, he seems to have had links to Neo Nazi groups in the past and supposedly yelled something political during the murder.
I do not see the difference.
(Edited for spelling)
-
If you Stoke the fire enough... :(
-
If a Muslim with well documented serious mental health problems killed someone whilst yelling Allah Akbar it would most certainly be branded as religious terrorism. Why not this guy, he seems to have had links to Neo Nazi groups in the past and supposedly yelled something political during the murder.
I do not see the difference.
(Edited for spelling)
I don't doubt it, not for a second.
It doesn't make it correct. I'm fairly sure that many solo acts are not "terrorism" per se (Orlando? Possibly, remains to be seen) even though some group might claim it.
If the weapons/orders/training turn out to have come from somewhere other than his own head ( the idiot here or the one in Orlando), then it's terrorism; otherwise it's delusional behaviour by an individual. That, he could have equally carried out on behalf of the Radical Divine Pink Unicorns of Justice Party...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
“Terrorism” is one of the most abused words in the English language. I think that technically it means “the harmful targeting of a civilian population for the purpose of achieving political ends”. Sorry if that’s a bit loose but I can’t check it right now. Essentially its an extension of the old dictum “war is diplomacy by other means” applied to non-state actors. It has been totally debauched though so that now the common understanding is I’m afraid “bad things brown people do”. As such it makes a non-sequitur of most government policy. “We can’t negotiate with terrorists” – unless they’re Irish, then we can, even the Queen can have tea with them. “Isis are a death cult” – well in that case they’re nihilists, not terrorists. However I don’t know many nihilists with their own start-up state. That’s going slightly off the point though. The fact is that most far-right murders are carried out by, according to the press / government - “crazed loners”. They aren’t termed terrorists because they are white and it would upset the narrative. And it is easily upset as until Orlando the far right were knocking off more people in the US than radical Islam (if you take out 9/11). But hang on if they didn’t have a political agenda then they wouldn’t be described as far-right would they? Of course its terrorism, being in a club of one and not a proscribed “terrorist organisation” does not to my mind nullify this. If they do happen to be mentally disturbed as is often the case and this is the real reason then fair enough, but in that case apply it across the board – was the Orlando shooter a jihadist or mental? If the former then he certainly wasn’t “in Isis” as he claimed (as a clean shaven drinking probably gay man with no evidence of contact with them), he self-radicalised, probably in just the same way as the Jo Cox suspect will turn out to have done but in a neo-Nazi direction. Its just that ISIS are happy to take the credit whereas Britain First aren’t. I think OMM’s Arab friends probably have a point…
-
Mind you there's this...
(Copy and paste, sorry for any errors)
"Amongst speculation about the motives behind the tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, proof of the identified assailant Thomas Mair’s links to international far-right groups has emerged.
Here are the documents that have surfaced regarding Mair’s history of involvement with the far-right US National Alliance and South Africa’s SA Patriots.
The US Southern Poverty Law Centre has sourced images of receipts from National Vanguard Books, publisher of the US neo-nazi group the National Alliance (NA), billed to Thomas Mair at his address in Yorkshire. (National Vanguard Books is not to be confused with the National Vanguard, a splinter group of the NA formed in 2005 who took their name from the NA magazine and publisher.)
The first of the receipts, from 13th May 1999, lists several items – one being the Improvised Munitions Handbook which outlines how to make explosives, and a homemade gun. It is alleged that Mair used a gun that “looked homemade” in the shooting.
improvised munitions handbook homemade gun Thomas Mair
Also on that 1999 receipt are other books about explosives, and a copy of ‘Ich Kämpfe’ (in English: ‘I fight’) , the 1942 Nazi pamphlet issued to all new party recruits about their ‘successes’, written by Goebbels and others.
thomas mair 1999 receipt national vanguard books
Two more receipts, from 2003, show subscriptions to the National Vanguard and Free Speech magazines.
It has also been pointed out that Mair had links to the South African pro-apartheid group White Rhino Club, via subscription to their magazine S. A. Patriot. The publication was later re-launched in the UK as S. A. Patriot-in-Exile. In the lead-up to the re-launch the publication publicly thanked Mair as one of their “earliest subscribers and supporters.”
While admitting, yet downplaying, this link the editor of today’s S. A. Patriot-in-Exile, A. D. Harvey, has released a statement condemning the attack. He claims that Mair’s subscription in the mid-1980s was brief, with Mair receiving only a few editions and never renewing his subscription. Harvey describes the public mention of Mair as one of several ‘staged events’ to drum up support for the re-launch.
sa statement
These documents suggest that Mair engaged with and was exposed to long-standing influence from far-right ideas from at least the mid-80s to the mid-2000s.
Of the various speculations surrounding his mental health and the proximity to the referendum the motive of political opposition to Cox’s broadly inclusive stance is one that currently appears far clearer."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?
Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?
I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.
National identity is not important to me (am I unusual?).
It isn't to me. But to understand why a lot of people feel the way they do about issues such as the EU you need to accept that vague notions like national identity are really fucking important.
The majority of the population aren't concerned with trying to be especially cultured, academic, or intellectual, progressive etc. etc. I doubt the population of this forum is an accurate representation of the population in general but perhaps I'm being a bit cynical.
-
Surely comparing the UK with the US is a bit like comparing Arkwrights corner shop with Wallmart?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sorry Dense/Pete, but this opinion piece is worth reading. For the interested, of course:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/day-after-brexit-what-happens-if-we-vote-leave-eu
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd like to see some reliable information about what will happen to all the hundreds of thousand of expats living and working in Europe. I hear lots of blind assumptions that someone will work something out at some point in time. Shit, I might even have to marry my wife and become French.
-
Sorry Dense/Pete, but this opinion piece is worth reading. For the interested, of course:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/day-after-brexit-what-happens-if-we-vote-leave-eu
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read that at work this morning and this caught my eye:
The expectation at the Bank is that a Leave vote would trigger a sharp decline in the value of sterling and a period of heightened inflation. In that case, the expectation is that the Bank would have to increase the basic rate of interest, which has been held at 0.5 per cent for seven years.
That would trigger an immediate crisis in Britain’s housing market – several banks estimate that about one-third of buy-to-let landlords would be unable to pay their mortgages in the event of a 2 per cent rate rise. According to officials at the Bank of England, the true figure may well be higher, as many buy-to-let landlords have mortgages with multiple banks. Renters would face a toxic cocktail of rent rises, banks that were unwilling to lend even as house prices dropped, and homeowners stuck with mortgages greater than the equity in their homes, unwilling and unable to sell up – even if buyers could be found.
So I'll finally start getting a decent return on my savings, the housing market bubble will face a correction, and some of the BTL landlords will be shaken out. Happy days.
-
Anyone remember that 1990 "correction"?
Took 10 years before my house was worth what I paid for it...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd like to see some reliable information about what will happen to all the hundreds of thousand of expats living and working in Europe. I hear lots of blind assumptions that someone will work something out at some point in time. Shit, I might even have to marry my wife and become French.
I've just moved to France, shit I need to find a wife ;)
-
become French.
an excellent plan
(I would never cut it as a German)
-
The expectation at the Bank is that a Leave vote would trigger a sharp decline in the value of sterling and a period of heightened inflation. In that case, the expectation is that the Bank would have to increase the basic rate of interest, which has been held at 0.5 per cent for seven years.
This is one of the bollocks scare myths that is being bandied around. If the economy is going to adversely by leaving then raising interest rates will make it worse. Why would the bank of england do that? The Remain campaigners cant have it both ways.
-
??
to control inflation and support the currency?
-
??
to control inflation and support the currency?
Yes - there would both a push and a pull but given their form over the last 8 years of taking the bigger picture my view is that unless absolutely forced to by international markets they will keep the base rate as low as possible especially given the context of a globally low inflation/ low interest rates
In the case of Brexit, as Carney and his colleagues made clear, the decision would be more balanced. The slump in sterling and the consequent rise in inflation would argue for higher rates, while the hit to growth would make the case for a cut. A cut would not do much – I am pretty sure the Bank will not want to follow other central banks and opt for negative rates, so from 0.5% to zero would be as far as it goes. A half-point cut in interest rates would not do much to offset a growth shock. As the governor said, there is only so much that monetary policy can do.
Which way would it go? The Bank is not saying. If it thought the rise in inflation resulting from Brexit was temporary, then it could “look through” it, as it has done before, and cut to try and keep growth going. If, on the other hand, a post-Brexit slump in sterling turned into a rout, the Bank might have no option but to raise rates to prop it up.
-
At last some sensible arguments about how migration has suppressed wages for low paid jobs and led to a growth in the rich-poor divide and how this also impacts the rental market. Not saying I agree - but something non emotionally argued....
https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/jun/18/eu-vote-brexit-working-people-rents-wages
-
You've spoilt it tomtom.
Would have been more interesting to have a vote based on what people would vote if they had to vote today and see if views had changed in 4 months.
Ok. If I post up a new poll tomorrow (or you Shark I don't mind as long as it's the same question) and lock this thread then we can see whether there has been a shift in UBK EU opinion. Ja?
-
Anyone got any opinion on what may actually happen according to the polls i.e. a near 50-50 result? Could be a right shit show. Anyone got any potential scenarios they want to throw out there? What about the result being within 1% either way (49.5-50.5 or vice versa), whichever side "wins" gets shouted down and triggers a vote of no-confidence, a general election is called, Labour-SNP coalition wins with a huge majority and Corbyn is prime minister 6 months from now...(caveat I know very little about whwther this could *actually* happen so feel free to correct me!)
-
Corbin couldn't be prime minister, what a wet fish. We'll end up staying in and get walked all over but that's life. Migration will cause the Eu to implode in 5-10 years.
-
John major was a bit of a wet fish..
-
Still bummed Edwina Curry though.
-
Good point. Wonder what his policy was reference withdrawing.
-
Well he didn't bother with a referendum
-
Well he didn't bother with a referendum
What, on whether to bum Edwina?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'd recommend watching this. A few home truths about Brexit from Prof. Michael Dougan (univ. of Liverpool) who specialises in EU law.
http://youtu.be/USTypBKEd8Y
-
Brexiters generally have the attention span of a gnat, especially when the subject matter is challenging their views.
-
You've found that have you?
-
Brexiters generally have the attention span of a gnat, especially when the subject matter is challenging their views.
This is the only place I've heard anything more than moronic tub thumping and flag waving, in support of Brexit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd recommend watching this. A few home truths about Brexit from Prof. Michael Dougan (univ. of Liverpool) who specialises in EU law.
Thanks for posting that - I've now shifted from v.v.scared to terrified.
-
After all the other parties confirming that they wouldn't contest Jo Cox's vacant seat, this fucking cockwomble and his "party" didn't get the memo.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/ (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/)
-
I'd recommend watching this. A few home truths about Brexit from Prof. Michael Dougan (univ. of Liverpool) who specialises in EU law.
Thanks for posting that - I've now shifted from v.v.scared to terrified.
Habrich/Shark might find it interesting. What the eu means for trade was especially interesting - and precisely how trade deals treaties might me negotiated was revealing. Very Scary stuff indeed.
-
What do we make of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
It's been shared by a few people on my facebook feed. For the record, I'm voting to remain but I was intrigued to watch some of the remain propaganda out of curiosity...
-
After all the other parties confirming that they wouldn't contest Jo Cox's vacant seat, this fucking cockwomble and his "party" didn't get the memo.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/ (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/)
Why do you think that is?
Have you seen the articles about how fast (and how many) tweets/pictures etc BF are deleting because he featured prominently...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Oi ... don't pigeonhole me in with my Little Englander business partner!
You make it sound like parochialism is a bad thing
-
Oi ... don't pigeonhole me in with my Little Englander business partner!
You make it sound like parochialism is a bad thing
Can you both only last two minutes? ;)
-
After all the other parties confirming that they wouldn't contest Jo Cox's vacant seat, this fucking cockwomble and his "party" didn't get the memo.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/ (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-19/jo-coxs-seat-will-be-contested-by-former-bnp-member/)
Why do you think that is?
Have you seen the articles about how fast (and how many) tweets/pictures etc BF are deleting because he featured prominently...
I hadn't, but it's totally believable given this that I read yesterday - about the rise of right-wing parties in the "heartland" of West Yorkshire:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/far-right-home-in-west-yorkshire-britain-first (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/far-right-home-in-west-yorkshire-britain-first)
-
Are we out of Europe tonight or Thursday? I'm confused
-
#bantz equivalent of premature ejaculation there Dense...back page headline writers across the country are fine-tuning their "out of Europe" puns in advance of England's inevitable exit on penalties to Germany!
-
Keep thinking of thatcher until Friday morning - you can drop your shopping then.
-
What do we make of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
It's been shared by a few people on my facebook feed. For the record, I'm voting to remain but I was intrigued to watch some of the remain propaganda out of curiosity...
I thought it was good, and made a nice companion to watching little Wales put mighty Russia to the sword, cunts. :clap2:
Vote out ;)
-
What do we make of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
It's been shared by a few people on my facebook feed. For the record, I'm voting to remain but I was intrigued to watch some of the remain propaganda out of curiosity...
I thought it was good, and made a nice companion to watching little Wales put mighty Russia to the sword, cunts. :clap2:
Vote out ;)
I couldn't bear to watch such a long segment of propaganda (I find the misinformation filled campaign broadcasts on the telly bad enough) so skipped ahead to a random section. If you watch from about the 36 minute mark you're treated to a charming sketch that plays on every stereotype going and completely misrepresents the issue. Worth watching it to see the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at.
-
The whole umbrella sketch - :o :no:
I couldn't bear much more after that. The whole issue is making me more and more angry, and I'm dismayed at some folks I know who are voting out to the point that I'm questioning our friendship.
-
At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.
-
At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.
That's quite the crystal ball you have....fancy betting your pension on that? :fishing:
-
Saying it's definitely going down the pan sounds like those massive oil reserves in West of Shetland that were subject to secretive deals and any information about them would not be released until after the Scottish Referendum. (we still wait).
-
At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.
Even should the Euro Zone crumble, how does that constitute a collapse of the union? The common market is a larger entity than the Euro Zone. Babies and bath water etc.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.
Can you clearly define what you mean by 'implode' ? :shrug: what form does this implosion take.
Could it just be that it means there's a bit of a shake up of the EU and the "big 3" (DE FR GB) get to knockheads and sort out some of the major issues it faces.
In your vision, following brexit, will the boats of people coming over from war torn middle east just U turn, thinking oh well, thats blown it, back to the shelling and sniper fire.
Great Britain will still be expected, and should, on humanitarian grounds, accept more refugees than we do now, or would you rather just watch the kids being shot, or drowing in the med on Murdoch News inc.
-
The interesting thing is, at the moment, "migrants" are stopped at the French side of the channel; under a by lateral agreement, independent of the EU. This means those migrants are processed by the British authorities on French soil and (mostly) prevented from entering the UK France has (understandably) intimated it would withdraw from this agreement in the event of Brexit, leaving us to deal with those people. Something we should be doing anyway imo.
So, Brexit will likely mean a flood of refugees, a dam break; not a reduction.
And, what is the refugee crisis to do with Europe anyway?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
One factor contributing to the putative implosion would be the loss of our net input to Brussel's income which would need to be replaced from other members. Elections soon in D and F I think. That would be hard to sell to the electorates.
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
-
One factor contributing to the putative implosion would be the loss of our net input to Brussel's income which would need to be replaced from other members. Elections soon in D and F I think. That would be hard to sell to the electorates.
I watched a German information clip about this, where they stated Germany's increase would be just under 3% from current (or less than €100 per person, per year) and this would be the largest increase of any EU country.
Might have been glossing over, but it seemed reasonable in their explanations.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-fake-revolt-eu-working-class-culture-hijacked-help-elite
This sums up my thoughts on the matter.
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.
that's putting 2 + 2 together and getting 39, what's to say they haven't waited a few weeks too?
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
An asylum seeker becomes a refugee when they are told they can stay in a country. A refugee will have all the rights of a regular citizen an asylum seeker had very close to none.
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
You've raised the subject of something I've talked about with my friends. We've given it the name Schroedinger's immigrant.
-
Raised the subject of something I've talked about with my friends. We've given it the name Schroedinger's immigrant.
Simultaneously stealing your job, whilst lazing around on benefits.
The Doctors surgery thing happened to me, except it was one Pole and a pretty Chinese lady. The first was the Nurse and the second my GP...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.
One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".
So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:
1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work
So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?
I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".
That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.
Sadly, and I know it doesn't sit well, Three Nine is probably right about this - that is exactly how some people perceive the situation. The echo chamber of the rightwing press doesn’t help either. Possibly what a lot of us middle class climber types (of which I am one) miss is that quite often they aren’t making this situation up – especially in the South East. I worked for 6 months in Swaffham (Norfolk) about 10 years ago, it was then (and probably still is) a down at heel old market town whose main square had a couple of crap pubs, a coffee shop, a charity shop, a job centre, and a Polish shop. A local guy we had labouring for us said that “all” of the fruit / veg picking was now done by Poles. As such he struggled to find work. I strongly suspect that was not the only reason as he fulfilled a lot of negative stereotypes of the feckless Brit (!), but fact is that he put the blame on them. I doubt the situation has changed much in the intervening 10 years. He would no doubt vote to leave.
Now, I know all the arguments in favour of immigration and I agree with them. For instance I would say that if you’re struggling to get a doctor’s appointment then we need more doctors (we do), and that this is a problem which originates with UK government policy. However many people in certain areas will look at the anecdotal evidence around them, such as the man in my anecdote above, and draw their own conclusions from that. That I think is Three Nine's point. Paul Mason did a good Guardian article yesterday which made the point that small towns, like Swaffham, don’t have the “social capital” to absorb influxes of migrants in the same way that say London does. Maybe the UK government should recognise this and maybe provide some kind of subsidy to support local services in areas of high net migration, and thus make the positive case for migration?
The above doesn’t account for how nationwide we overestimate migrant numbers massively in terms of public perception – the gatekeepers of the press and Brexit politicians must take the cop for that bit of propaganda.
-
All I've seen on this thread is a lot of people who think they're clever/right laughing and making out that others who don't share their opinion are racists and/or idiots. This is why I don't really get involved with these type of threads, politics, religion etc. A lot of people have been saying I haven't heard anything from the leave camp that's changed my mind to leave, well? I didn't know the issue was to get each other to change sides?
All I can say to you SamT is that if you're questioning your friendship with people because they have a different social view than you is that you obvious don't deserve them as friends, take that how you want although it's meant as an insult to you.
And omm that's really funny, had me laughing for ages. No, wait..
-
I wrote that before I read Nigel's post, who hasn't been saying everyone who votes leave is thick as fuck, so I'm obviously not replying to his post but the ones above.
-
What do we make of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
It's been shared by a few people on my facebook feed. For the record, I'm voting to remain but I was intrigued to watch some of the remain propaganda out of curiosity...
I thought it was good, and made a nice companion to watching little Wales put mighty Russia to the sword, cunts. :clap2:
Vote out ;)
I couldn't bear to watch such a long segment of propaganda (I find the misinformation filled campaign broadcasts on the telly bad enough) so skipped ahead to a random section. If you watch from about the 36 minute mark you're treated to a charming sketch that plays on every stereotype going and completely misrepresents the issue. Worth watching it to see the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at.
No doubt Will that there's factual inaccuracies in that film, like every other piece of propaganda surrounding this referendum.. Show me anyone campaigning hard on either side of the debate who's delivering a 100% accurate account of the facts surrounding the EU or who's able to give an unbiased entirely accurate representation of what will happen in an unknowable future. It isn't possible.
That the film is propaganda isn't the point - that's politics, it revolves around trying to sway people's hearts through propaganda and rhetoric.. It isn't lab research - i.e. the subject matter is something people feel passionate about and there isn't a correct or incorrect answer. People will vote according to their feelings as much as by being convinced by any ream of knockout factual statistics that settle it once and for all.
At the film's heart is a very simple message: people don't like living with the feeling of being under the authority of a distant unaccountable labyrinthine institution which doesn't have their interests at heart; run by anonymous un-elected technocrats who aren't answerable to any electorate. It's a simple message that resonates with a lot of people it seems.
Comments like your 'the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at' make you come across (even if you're not) as the sort of patronising sneering intellectual portrayed in the film, contemptible of the silly people who he thinks he knows better than how their lives should be run. In my eyes it puts you on a level with the blinkered 'little-englander nimby' types on the brexit side who are unable to digest any argument that conflicts with their view of how they think the world should be.
I'm curious to try to understand how the UK could do well outside the institution of the EU and so be responsible to a greater degree for our own direction. I'm interested in how other European countries outside the EU (and countries further afield) get on and what systems/concessions they have in place. I'm open to the possibility that trade will continue, free movement deals will be struck - with probably very similar concessions to free movement as we currently have. Is it possible we can have many of the benefits we currently have of trading and living in a large local market, still make many of the same concessions we currently make, but without being a member of an undemocratic, massively bureaucratic and expensive club? There are successful precedents.
I'm also open to the possibility that it might be bad news for the economy. Any worse than we might already suffer as part of the EU in the next inevitable economic shock? My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.
-
I'm curious to try to understand how the UK could do well outside the institution of the EU and so be responsible to a greater degree for our own direction.
What could we be doing that we currently aren't doing, if only we could be responsible for our own direction? The fact that the UK is very different from France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc suggest that we are responsible for our own direction, but clearly this is a far from uncontroversial statement.
Is it possible we can have many of the benefits we currently have of trading and living in a large local market, still make many of the same concessions we currently make, but without being a member of an undemocratic, massively bureaucratic and expensive club?
Politically, nope. Because getting all the advantages of membership without paying for them is not something clubs tend to go for.
There are successful precedents.
Who? Greenland?
My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.
That sort of statement is perfectly of its time. It might not age well, however.
-
I'm pretty sure having negotiated being in the EU, without being in either Euro or Schengen, that we've already got the best of both worlds.
The only part I've had (indirect) involvement in in is EN standards for rope access. Without the UK on the standards committee I know we would have much worse standards. Redrafting them all as BS standards would take forever, cost an absolute fortune, and be pointless as all the big manufacturers are on the continent.
If the EU is considered undemocratic what is your model of a proper democracy?
-
Eh? Without the uk on the standards comittee the standards would be a lot worse? To me that says the uk have pushed the standards not the rest of the eu. So without the eu our standards would be better
-
Eh? Without the uk on the standards comittee the standards would be a lot worse? To me that says the uk have pushed the standards not the rest of the eu. So without the eu our standards would be better
The whole point of having standards across the EU - for rope access to what types of foam you can put in pillows, it means a manufacturer or operator can work or sell their wares in any Eu country rather than having to comply and be ratified by the different standards different countries have.
Furthermore, if we leave the EU - if we want to do any work or any business in the EU then we'll have to comply with their standards anyway! Watch the prof from Liverpool speak on the video I posted (about half way through) it's very informative.
-
What you're missing dense is that if you want to sell to the EU you have to meet "their" standards. Whilst we're in the EU we get a say in what that means.
Outside the EU we have no say in those standards and if you want to sell goods, or services, to the EU you still have to meet them.
Since each trading block has their own standards, this means that selling to >1 block can mean separate production lines for each country you sell to. usually this means small manufacturers only sell to one or two countries, but inside the EU they can sell to >20.
Since it's the done thing to post links on this thread, this post is from a good mate, climber and lecturer in economics and policy, so he knows his onions. Most importantly he is by instinct a leaver, and for sound reasons. His blog post is about why he's voting to remain anyway...
https://nealhockley.com/2016/06/21/the-short-uncertain-and-unenthusiastic-case-for-remain/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dense - you are bang on the money about Sam not deserving the friendship of his friends. I'm pro-life and I have plenty of friends who are ok with putting children to death in the womb. We're all in the same boat - we're all seasick.
Nigel - the poles in the drs surgery scenario, that's exactly my thought process.
Petejh - my gut routinely tells me to do all sorts of stupid and morally reprehensible things.
Remain people - you dont help your cause by being such patronizing, holier-than-thou cunts. Its so not obvious what the sensible or morally right thing might be to do in this case. I'm voting remain in deference to some people who I think are more clued up/more morally upright than I am, not because its so fuckin clear to me what to do.
-
BTW his point 2 is the best to my mind. Whatever the pros of brexit, leaving the EU would require a whole lot of complex renegotiation of trade deals and a review of almost all our legal framework. I don't trust our current lot of politicians with this task.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm voting remain in deference to some people who I think are more clued up/more morally upright than I am,
Fuck me, if I applied that rationale, then nearly every one I've met is more morally upright than me.....
-
Remain people - you dont help your cause by being such patronizing, holier-than-thou cunts.
I might be wrong here but it seems to me that the patronising cunts are addressing one group of leavers, and another group (I.e you and dense) are assuming it's directed at them.
If you don't believe that sizeable chunks of the population are voting leave because they are both bigoted and not that bright you've clearly got your eyes closed.
I'd have thought it obvious this doesn't imply there's no case for leave, or that all leave supporters have the same motivations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Eh? Without the uk on the standards comittee the standards would be a lot worse? To me that says the uk have pushed the standards not the rest of the eu.
Well, for us I mean, doing rope access the IRATA way. Without our input the standards would be different, we would be forced to do things differently. The French make the best kit, but their training is bizarre, it's like a steeplejacks' apprenticeship. If we leave Petzl will keep making the best gear but we won't have any input on what we need.
So without the eu our standards would be better
BS standards in my experience are inferior to EN as they are much lower budget, and susceptible to too much influence from small groups. Ensuring strong representation on the EN standards committee seems to be by far the best for us.
For example, if we were not in the EN the Aberdeen lobby might well have persuaded a BS committee to produce a standard certifying the Stop and Shunt for rope access. But Petzl would not have bothered with type certification, so they would never officially meet it, and they'd refuse to supply them. Meanwhile, DMM would make a new device and ensure it met the EN standard anyway so they could sell it abroad. All this would take several years, cost a fortune and get us nowhere.
-
Stu, on the standards point, how do countries that aren't in the eu manage this? Switzerland and Norway; and every other country in the world that isn't in the eu?
Also, I'd imagine after 40 years of trading in europe and complying with EN standards, we as a country are as well prepared as anyone to continue doing so no?
That we can sell goods to >20 countries with one standard is a big plus for any manufacturer anywhere in the world who wants to sell to the eu. It doesn't follow that this means it's in every country's interest to be in the eu group.
-
Every other country in the world has to meet them, and doesn't get to set them. This is clearly non-optimal, which is why big countries want to negotiate TTIP type things with the EU.
We are pretty well placed to deal with existing standards, but the big issue is new markets. For example (as heard on R4 this morning), the EU is starting the process of setting standards for selling digital products. This could be a huge market for the UK, which has a big software industry. Now would be an especially bad time to lose the influence we have on what those standards will be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Stu, on the standards point, how do countries that aren't in the eu manage this? Switzerland and Norway; and every other country in the world that isn't in the eu?
Also, I'd imagine after 40 years of trading in europe and complying with EN standards, we as a country are as well prepared as anyone to continue doing so no?
That we can sell goods to >20 countries with one standard is a big plus for any manufacturer anywhere in the world who wants to sell to the eu. It doesn't follow that this means it's in every country's interest to be in the eu group.
One of my previous incarnations was designing Fire rated bulkheads. Since it was a Dubai based operation, this generally involved getting them certified under several different jurisdictions. A lengthy and arduous process. I have lived and worked both inside and outside the EU and trading outside is harder. For instance, even though there was a UAE standard for these things, we would need either EU or US certification, just to sell to a fellow GCC state a few kilometres away.
All the time I live there, I heard others and my self lamenting that things were so much better in Europe...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Remain people - you dont help your cause by being such patronizing, holier-than-thou cunts.
I might be wrong here but it seems to me that the patronising cunts are addressing one group of leavers, and another group (I.e you and dense) are assuming it's directed at them.
If you don't believe that sizeable chunks of the population are voting leave because they are both bigoted and not that bright you've clearly got your eyes closed.
I'd have thought it obvious this doesn't imply there's no case for leave, or that all leave supporters have the same motivations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah you're probs right there. I guess I just find it irritating - its a bit like when i'd ask Barrows something about training and he'd look at me as if he couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid as to ask that question.
-
As I find myself saying about Barrows so often, I think that's just his face.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Stu, on the standards point, how do countries that aren't in the eu manage this? Switzerland and Norway; and every other country in the world that isn't in the eu?
Also, I'd imagine after 40 years of trading in europe and complying with EN standards, we as a country are as well prepared as anyone to continue doing so no?
That we can sell goods to >20 countries with one standard is a big plus for any manufacturer anywhere in the world who wants to sell to the eu. It doesn't follow that this means it's in every country's interest to be in the eu group.
One of my previous incarnations was designing Fire rated bulkheads. Since it was a Dubai based operation, this generally involved getting them certified under several different jurisdictions. A lengthy and arduous process. I have lived and worked both inside and outside the EU and trading outside is harder. For instance, even though there was a UAE standard for these things, we would need either EU or US certification, just to sell to a fellow GCC state a few kilometres away.
All the time I live there, I heard others and my self lamenting that things were so much better in Europe...
Many on here have worked outside the EU. You think it's better than the UAE? That's hardly high praise! The only reason anyone in their right mind would choose to live and do business there is the lure of money, simple.
I personally found myself and others saying Canada and New Zealand were better when I lived in each.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]
-
I wasn't missing the Euro standards point at all Stu, what I meant was if we have a better input ie design/have better ideas than the other countries which it seemed like Johnny was saying, then we would meet the Euro standards immediately, this being lower than the uks. You don't need to boycott eu standards you just have to meet them to trade in the eu.
I know what you mean about putting pressure on bs to do what the big boys want but this would be a failing of a different kind.
-
Pete. One of the salient points the Liverpool Prof made in his film was that Britain makes sweet FA nowadays - but it does have its foot (and more) in the EU so we effectively sell access to the EU and its markets by being part of it. I've probably not explained it well but he does in the lecture.
His point re trade deals was that these were actually easy to negotiate - it's the product standards that are a nightmare to work out - especially as there are tens of thousands of them. Of course you could simply adopt/abide by these regs (which would be part of a trade deal) bit then you have no chance to influence or change them.
-
So what? What would happen to us if we couldn't influence or change regs in the eu?
-
Dense, here's a hypothetical scenario: UK software industry is worth >21bn. Suppose we leave and the EU starts the process of negotiating the standards which will apply to digital goods and services. What's to stop them setting interoperability standards which favour, say, German software companies?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well, let's say that the UK furniture building industry are all geared up to use chemical X in their process.
The EU want to change the furniture making standard so X isn't allowed and you have to use chemical Y instead. This would potentially cost the uk furniture industry millions to re-tool/change their production line.
Outside of the EU we have no choice but to abide with the standard if we want to sell into the EU.
Inside the EU we can lobby, vote, persuade, get exemptions etc.. And negotiate to hopefully not to get X banned. And thus save money/jobs/hassle for the industry.
-
(stu's example is better :) )
-
And in your hypothetical example Stu (and TT!) how would the rest of the trading world manage this?
How does Switzerland manage to have such powerhouse industries, without being a member of the EU? According to your arguments it shouldn't be possible should it?
Oh and TT 'save money for industry'. You just claimed UK doesn't have any. You can't have it both ways!
-
They have to comply with the EI rather than have the chance (and we have a big influence in the EU) to change to rules to their benefit.
-
if we have a better input ie design/have better ideas than the other countries which it seemed like Johnny was saying, then we would meet the Euro standards immediately, this being lower than the uks.
If it's advantageous to have additional BS standards over and above EN then we already do that in some circumstances. But type certification is expensive; any manufacturer will do the EN first, and you can't get EN by default by just meeting a BS. So generally the BS is filling a gap not competing with the EN.
The ISO's recent move to Australia has apparently not worked out and their influence is waning globally; most of the world now looks to the EN standards as the global standard. Even Australia has a law stating that if an established standard exists and is good then Australia should adopt it instead of writing their own. Mostly they use ENs; the same will be true in many countries. ENs are also mostly way ahead of the US ANSI's, making them more likely to follow our lead.
Norway have set up a decent rope access system but it is basically an attempt to keep Norwegian jobs for Norwegians; most techs and companies end up using IRATA as well - techs to keep in work, companies to get enough staff. And of course they rely on EN equipment standards but have no input. There is very little potential for growth for them.
The standards thing is the only thing I'm well informed about, and I'm basically voting remain on this single issue. I can see the same issues will be played out across many industries. If you don't have a voice, you are unable to lead and must always play catch up. As Stu says, it's highly likely that those with influence may move to actively exclude you.
-
Stu, on the standards point, how do countries that aren't in the eu manage this? Switzerland and Norway; and every other country in the world that isn't in the eu?
Also, I'd imagine after 40 years of trading in europe and complying with EN standards, we as a country are as well prepared as anyone to continue doing so no?
That we can sell goods to >20 countries with one standard is a big plus for any manufacturer anywhere in the world who wants to sell to the eu. It doesn't follow that this means it's in every country's interest to be in the eu group.
One of my previous incarnations was designing Fire rated bulkheads. Since it was a Dubai based operation, this generally involved getting them certified under several different jurisdictions. A lengthy and arduous process. I have lived and worked both inside and outside the EU and trading outside is harder. For instance, even though there was a UAE standard for these things, we would need either EU or US certification, just to sell to a fellow GCC state a few kilometres away.
All the time I live there, I heard others and my self lamenting that things were so much better in Europe...
Many on here have worked outside the EU. You think it's better than the UAE? That's hardly high praise! The only reason anyone in their right mind would choose to live and do business there is the lure of money, simple.
I personally found myself and others saying Canada and New Zealand were better when I lived in each.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]
I have also lived in Canada (Halifax and St Johns) and nearly stayed there too. It is an excellent place. But their labour laws leave something to be desired (only two weeks annual leave when I was there) and their natural resources make the economy a very different fish.
I have also lived in the US, much of my teens in San Jose. I was stationed in Port Canaveral for just over a year in my twenties and I worked in Universal Shipyards in Thunderbolt (Savannah) for almost two years. I'm aware you (and Dense) think I'm trying to be a wise-ass, or showing off, but that is not what I'm intending (the apparent arrogance is a function of the way I write/speak, I'm not that bad in person and I've never intentionally called anyone an idiot or intended to be insulting).
Of course my life experiences influence my views and saying "I think x/y/z because..." seems like a perfectly reasonable form of debate. I certainly haven't abandoned any friendships because of this issue and (as I said on FB) I actually think the UK could be ok out of the EU. And it won't be painless, almost everyone agrees with that. I just don't get why some people seem to find the EU so objectionable. As far as I can see, the advantages outweigh the negatives. The out argument seems to be heavy on the jingoistic nationalism and light on tangible benefits. Not so much the points raised here, as I said before I've seen far more reasoned argument for out on this thread than anywhere else, but in the media as a whole.
So, we are discussing why we intend to vote the way we will and I'm genuinely interested in what you all think. I'm not particularly interested in trying to change anybody's mind, it will make sod all difference after all. I'm not averse to changing my own mind, given suitable evidence, however much I may come across otherwise.
Dense, the surgery joke, was a joke and the whole subject was raised (I thought) as an example of (again) confirmation bias. As it happens, my GP really is Hong Kong Chinese and one of our nurses is Polish, there is also a Romanian nurse in the practice (as was the midwife when my son was born). Our tenants, two doors down, are a Polish dentist and his family. There are, in my kids school, Romanian, Russian, Chinese, Polish, Filipino, Italian and Bulgarian; that I know of and a whole bunch of foreigners I can't even guess at. My kids think it's normal (there are ~300 kids in that school). You wouldn't guess at the parents nationality by listening to the children either, I've often been surprised to find out that some of the kids aren't English.
So I look around at this multicultural, wonderful, country we live in and I don't see it as a problem. I know, for instance, that I am of Italian descent. And of Norman French. And Dutch. Oh and there's a Scottish line there too. Still got cousins (umpteen times removed) in Malta.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone here has been the slightest bit racist, but the leave campaign has been, massively, contingent on peoples fears of the foreigner. And I genuinely think this is wrong. I also think it is a backwards looking trend, which is pissing into the wind of human progress.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Another good point made by the Liverpool Prof was that the Uk civil service is geared up to make 2 trade deals a year (each can take years) - if we leave the EU we have to negotiate ALL our trade deals/terms as all of ours are via the EU. That sounds like more than a couple of years work to me...
-
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
-
This argument that Stu and TT and others are making about us 'having a good deal of influence in the EU to change things (standards etc) for our benefit'. How true is this really? Honest question. There are a lot of other countries in the EU all with their own interests - we can't steamroller over everyone else. How successful has the UK been in changing 'things' for our benefit? How did Cameron get on with his renegotiated deal? It wasn't a great success as far as I can tell. What evidence is there to support this assertion that we have all this influence in EU law-making? Crucially - who decides what new laws to make?
-
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
So...what, hire all those other suitably experienced civil service trade deal negotiators who are just waiting for this opportunity? How is going to train them? Do you really think there's any chance of that going quickly and smoothly?
-
Is this really such an impossible a thing to comprehend?
-
Is this really such an impossible a thing to comprehend?
Yes. You have to make a highly specialised department 100 times bigger in no time. Sure it can be done - not in a (Boris Johnson style dismissal) 'couple of years'...
Naa. Won't be a problem. There's international trade deal negotiators all over the shop. I had to move a load on at the end of the road who were getting in the way of the bin men...
-
Explain why 'in no time'. That makes it sound like one week or one month. You must be aware that there's a minimum two-year exit process during which we remain with the current trade deals no?
It's good to debate these points and I'm open to being convinced but debate based on facts where they exist.
-
This argument that Stu and TT and others are making about us 'having a good deal of influence in the EU to change things (standards etc) for our benefit'. How true is this really? Honest question. There are a lot of other countries in the EU all with their own interests - we can't steamroller over everyone else. How successful has the UK been in changing 'things' for our benefit? How did Cameron get on with his renegotiated deal? It wasn't a great success as far as I can tell. What evidence is there to support this assertion that we have all this influence in EU law-making? Crucially - who decides what new laws to make?
You're mixing laws with trade rules...
But of course we have influence. We are one of the largest members - have a larger number of MEP's - and contribute a large amount. We've successfully lobbied to reduce air pollution controls (because London is so polluted), lobbied to reduce steel import tariffs (that led to the collapse of tata). Not positive examples - but all examples of where we've got the rules changed in order to suit our (then) desires...
-
I'm not mixing laws with trade rules, I'm asking what evidence there actually is for the UK having 'a lot of influence' in the EU. Be that law-making, trade rules, standards etc. etc.
MEPs. What powers do MEPs have to influence law-making in the EU? I understand from the debate that they don't have any real power to influence EU law-making.
-
Comments like your 'the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at' make you come across (even if you're not) as the sort of patronising sneering intellectual portrayed in the film, contemptible of the silly people who he thinks he knows better than how their lives should be run.
While this may be a fair portrayal of how some people have responded in the wider debate from the In side, the film seems to assume that the watcher doesn't know a great deal about the how the EU actually works. This then allows the narritive to be cast in what I would call a misleading light.
PS. While I know little about it, I find the description of what Magna Carta to not match my understanding - I'll check, for my interest, later.
-
So Mrs Obi popped into the travel agents to get some euros in case the rate craps out after Thursday. The girl behind the counter had postal voted leave because 'we're getting a bit full'. When it was suggested that an exit may negatively impact both the exchange rate and her industry in general she seemed rather surprised. I fear we are all doomed.
-
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
It might take us a while to train staff in trade negotiation and would likely be more effective to recruit internationally to acclerate this type of work. Not something that has been addressed by leave, how we fill skills gaps at short notice that is (remember big F is going for 30,000-50,000 migrants a year, so drop of an order of magnatude).
If I could make a wider point on what I have seen/heard/read:
- In have done a piss poor job of mythbusting and making a positive case
- Out haven't made a case. No answer on what the actual relationship we should have with EU/World. Instead they contradict themselves (Norway model sans free movement being feasible) and tell lies (Turkey will join the EU, flooding us with migrants and our vetos mean nothing).
Frankly from, both sides, it is below the required standard and mostly just embarrassing. But as a professional scientist hearing "serious" politicians say we should ignore the experts is really really scary and worry about the long term consequences that that idea will have (climate change, vacines, etc)!
-
MEPs. What powers do MEPs have to influence law-making in the EU? I understand from the debate that they don't have any real power to influence EU law-making.
This is lifted from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure) - best description I could find:
"
The procedure which has slowly become dominant is the "ordinary legislative procedure" (previously named "codecision procedure"), which provides an equal footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do (or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority. If the Council does not approve these, then a "Conciliation Committee" is formed. The Committee is composed of the Council members plus an equal number of MEPs who seek to agree a compromise. Once a position is agreed, it has to be approved by Parliament, by a simple majority.[7][51] This is also aided by Parliament's mandate as the only directly democratic institution, which has given it leeway to have greater control over legislation than other institutions, for example over its changes to the Bolkestein directive in 2006.
"
The odd thing with this of course is that legislation is proposed by the Commission which isn't elected. However, each member state nominates a person for a role (there are 28 jobs handly) which are all confirmed by the parliment. So the MEPs get in on this one too.
The "Council" here are the various councils of minister (agriculture, justice, enviroment and so on) - which are staffed by the relevent ministers from the member states. So this body is also demonctratic but less directly than the parliment. The parliment also plays a part, with the Council again, in passing budgets.
I have seen the parliment and Council described as upper and lower houses in past, although I am not sure the comparison is fair to be honest.
-
Politics is, in a way, ignoring what is "scientifically right" and instead reaching the most social acceptable compromise, or fits a certain long term vision best, etc.
The current cult of the scientific method and the attempt of any discipline to reach a status of "hard" science, in particular when it comes to social sciences (economy, sociology, demographics, etc) can be partly explained as a mean to restrict the horizon of political action, by putting it under "un-debatable" pressure..
-
Remain people - you dont help your cause by being such patronizing, holier-than-thou cunts.
I might be wrong here but it seems to me that the patronising cunts are addressing one group of leavers, and another group (I.e you and dense) are assuming it's directed at them.
If you don't believe that sizeable chunks of the population are voting leave because they are both bigoted and not that bright you've clearly got your eyes closed.
I'd have thought it obvious this doesn't imply there's no case for leave, or that all leave supporters have the same motivations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What Stu said in each paragraph.
-
So Mrs Obi popped into the travel agents to get some euros in case the rate craps out after Thursday. The girl behind the counter had postal voted leave because 'we're getting a bit full'. When it was suggested that an exit may negatively impact both the exchange rate and her industry in general she seemed rather surprised. I fear we are all doomed.
My previous comments were born of frustration at this sort of attitude which has mercifully been entirely absent from this thread but is rife elsewhere. I am a member of a Facebook group called "Harrogate Grumbler (No Rules)" which has a membership of about 20k people in Harrogate and the surrounding areas. The best way to describe it is that, in amongst the buying and selling, it's like an online version of the Jeremy Kyle show and is very much a guilty pleasure of mine. However it is also a useful gauge of public opinion as it seems to be populated by a broad demographic of people who are all there to speak their mind. I have been absolutely terrified at the amount of simplistic sentiment similar to what Obi relates above, and this is in Harrogate where they might be socially conservative but are nowhere near as affected by net migration as those in the SE of England.
I had a conversation about the referendum with my Singapore resident brother a few days ago. We can always be relied upon to disagree, with him being MUCH more conservative than I, but he does debate well. He made some very cogent points about why we should leave, but interestingly thought that the pragmatic way forward was to vote remain. They're the same points that Pete might make, however this is not the level that most people are thinking at. I would hazard a guess that 10% of the population share Pete's point of view (I.e a reasonably argued Leave position) and 35% of people have read the Sun this morning and think "we're a bit full". It's deeply depressing.
On a different note, I'm delighted to learn that JB is one of those awful technocrats that we keep hearing about! A technical expert in his field who has had an input into advising the EC. Tell us JB, how does it feel to pull the strings of the EU puppet with no accountability to anybody? Must be a bit of a kick, right?
Joking aside, can anybody explain to me how the system of technical experts making policy recommendations to those who draft legislation, which is in turn voted on by elected officials, is any different to our own system of governance? As I see it now the EU system is largely similar to our own yet seems more resilient to lobbying by those who don't have the people's best interests at heart. One point my brother made in our conversation was that the UK government could pass useful laws such as the WFD on their own. My counterargument was that "could" doesn't equal "would".
-
Politics is, in a way, ignoring what is "scientifically right" and instead reaching the most social acceptable compromise, or fits a certain long term vision best, etc.
The current cult of the scientific method and the attempt of any discipline to reach a status of "hard" science, in particular when it comes to social sciences (economy, sociology, demographics, etc) can be partly explained as a mean to restrict the horizon of political action, by putting it under "un-debatable" pressure..
Politics predates the scientific method having been around since civilisation started. Science by definition is about the public sharing of testable and disprovable models, to best meet the evidence at hand. It gives us a useful tool to assess the veracity of what politicians say. If anything is a cult in this interface with science, it's some politicians: the attempted misuse or abuse of social science... creationalist ideas in US politics being a good example of the crazy end but the simple mundane misrepresentations of scientific results (that the scientists would not support) are all too common.
-
Politics is, in a way, ignoring what is "scientifically right" and instead reaching the most social acceptable compromise, or fits a certain long term vision best, etc.
The current cult of the scientific method and the attempt of any discipline to reach a status of "hard" science, in particular when it comes to social sciences (economy, sociology, demographics, etc) can be partly explained as a mean to restrict the horizon of political action, by putting it under "un-debatable" pressure..
Politics predates the scientific method having been around since civilisation started. Science by definition is about the public sharing of testable and disprovable models, to best meet the evidence at hand. It gives us a useful tool to assess the veracity of what politicians say. If anything is a cult in this interface with science, it's some politicians: the attempted misuse or abuse of social science... creationalist ideas in US politics being a good example of the crazy end but the simple mundane misrepresentations of scientific results (that the scientists would not support) are all too common.
Here here.
Also, the "cult of science" has been our single most effective problem solving method to date. Vaccines, dams, long distance communication (the sharing of ideas), widgets in a tinny...
-
My previous comments were born of frustration at this sort of attitude which has mercifully been entirely absent from this thread but is rife elsewhere. I am a member of a Facebook group called "Harrogate Grumbler (No Rules)" which has a membership of about 20k people in Harrogate and the surrounding areas. The best way to describe it is that, in amongst the buying and selling, it's like an online version of the Jeremy Kyle show and is very much a guilty pleasure of mine. However it is also a useful gauge of public opinion as it seems to be populated by a broad demographic of people who are all there to speak their mind. I have been absolutely terrified at the amount of simplistic sentiment similar to what Obi relates above, and this is in Harrogate where they might be socially conservative but are nowhere near as affected by net migration as those in the SE of England.
I had a conversation about the referendum with my Singapore resident brother a few days ago. We can always be relied upon to disagree, with him being MUCH more conservative than I, but he does debate well. He made some very cogent points about why we should leave, but interestingly thought that the pragmatic way forward was to vote remain. They're the same points that Pete might make, however this is not the level that most people are thinking at. I would hazard a guess that 10% of the population share Pete's point of view (I.e a reasonably argued Leave position) and 35% of people have read the Sun this morning and think "we're a bit full". It's deeply depressing.
On a different note, I'm delighted to learn that JB is one of those awful technocrats that we keep hearing about! A technical expert in his field who has had an input into advising the EC. Tell us JB, how does it feel to pull the strings of the EU puppet with no accountability to anybody? Must be a bit of a kick, right?
Joking aside, can anybody explain to me how the system of technical experts making policy recommendations to those who draft legislation, which is in turn voted on by elected officials, is any different to our own system of governance? As I see it now the EU system is largely similar to our own yet seems more resilient to lobbying by those who don't have the people's best interests at heart. One point my brother made in our conversation was that the UK government could pass useful laws such as the WFD on their own. My counterargument was that "could" doesn't equal "would".
Harrogate is a 'blue rinse' conservative dominated town, I'd expect it to be firmly in the leave camp.
I'm in Malaysia currently and some of my old chinese research student pals are really interested in brexit following the death of Jo Cox and are attracted to the 'being in contol' message of leave. They have also noted the conspiracy theories that Jo was killed by a secret pro stay cabal.
In reality control is rather overstated: if we leave just swap some control to a different group of people with different democratic deficits (we have a monach in the political system, no written constitution, the lords -with some taking ministerial posts, FPTP elections which heavily distort the proportions not voting for the two biggest political parties, a civil service which is not as detatched from politics or forming law as it should be and just as much lobbying as in Europe)
As for JB he straightens bananas.
-
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
It might take us a while to train staff in trade negotiation and would likely be more effective to recruit internationally to acclerate this type of work. Not something that has been addressed by leave, how we fill skills gaps at short notice that is (remember big F is going for 30,000-50,000 migrants a year, so drop of an order of magnatude).
Of course if the UK is suddenly renegotiating trade deals with everyone then the foreign trade negotiators might be a bit busy working for their own countries? After all, we're the 5th biggest economy you know and all the countries will want to do a deal with us (except the US, who has handily told us so). But these trade negotiators are probably career civil servants who wouldn't want to lose their cushty pensions for a short term contract with perfidious Albion, and who knows if they speak good enough English to draft highly complex technical documents. Sure, we could probably hire some British lawyers to do the job but they will all be salivating at the prospect of rewriting the oodles of UK law which would need to be untangled from EU law should we leave, and are we willing to pay loads of new unelected officials public servants the 100k+ a year needed to tempt them away from the private sector.
As if thinking about a massive increase in capacity in one of the more technical aspects of running the country doesn't throw up some obvious and rather difficult to solve problems, there's the obvious irony of getting in some immigrants to help us reduce our reliance on immigration. It would be funny, if it wasn't so serious.
As for the smart Leavers, who are like rich folks staying in trailers in a rain-soaked Festival of Dumb and trying not to get their chinos muddy, do you really trust your leaders to steer you through the course ahead? Boris, with his well known inability to grasp of detail. IDS, whose attempt to reform the benefits system reached about 150,000 people after six years of effort. Gove, with his flagship policy of creating new schools in areas that didn't need them, the radical destroyer whose own boss described him as "a bit of a Maoist". Steve "blue sky thinking" Hilton who wanted to close jobcentres, abolish maternity leave and alter the weather. Government by TED talk isn't my idea of fun. And, erm, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt.
You might want to divorce the principle from the personnel, but you can't. These are the people we'll have running the most complex and intricate challenge the government has faced in decades. Feeling lucky?
-
I had a conversation about the referendum with my Singapore resident brother a few days ago. We can always be relied upon to disagree, with him being MUCH more conservative than I, but he does debate well. He made some very cogent points about why we should leave, but interestingly thought that the pragmatic way forward was to vote remain. They're the same points that Pete might make, however this is not the level that most people are thinking at. I would hazard a guess that 10% of the population share Pete's point of view (I.e a reasonably argued Leave position) and 35% of people have read the Sun this morning and think "we're a bit full". It's deeply depressing.
Pete's posts sound to me like he'd vote remain but is just challenging the arguments and pointing out that it's not black and white and just shouting "Dumb Racist" at people considering voting to leave isn't very conducive to convincing them to change their vote.
-
You forgpt to mention this will supposedly occur in a civil service pared to the bone due to austerity and post brexit that will be run by small government fanatics. It's all so unlikely that they must have a privatisation plan for the necessary regulatory change.
-
Current betting markets offering - there or thereabouts:
1/4 - Remain
3/1 - Leave
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result (http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result)
-
Interesting on the odds - all the media/papers are giving it all this "it's a close thing, it's all hanging in the balance" stuff based on opinion polls, yet the bookies are painting a vastly different picture, and the bookies are usually right on these things, especially given how wrong the polls were a year ago in the election. Are the papers just trying to talk-up their own influence?
-
Interesting on the odds - all the media/papers are giving it all this "it's a close thing, it's all hanging in the balance" stuff based on opinion polls, yet the bookies are painting a vastly different picture, and the bookies are usually right on these things, especially given how wrong the polls were a year ago in the election. Are the papers just trying to talk-up their own influence?
The pollsters are trying different methodologies to compensate for the effects which affected them at the general election.
For a bookie looking at a general election they can discount all the safe seats and then look at the big issues of the day, as they relate to the few swing seats which actually exist. In this question there are no safe seats so you can't narrow the number of actors/variables as in the general election.
Still the bookies give me some hope.
-
Hope ? Try this...
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/half-of-leave-voters-believe-eu-referendum-will-be-rigged
-
Seankenny, do I trust the politicians who will get in if we vote leave? No, is that a question for a simple child? I wouldn't trust them any more or less than I do any other politician.
Regarding smart leavers v idiot racist leavers, it doesn't matter which is which. Same as in any other kind of vote with equal weighting. You deal with what's in front of you before you deal with the next bit.
-
Well whatever happens I hope people remember that the arguments, hate and general bad feeling surrounding the referendum are all self inflicted.
Thanks To Cameron and the Faustian pact he made to get his party behind him in the General election. Bell. End.
-
If I could make a wider point on what I have seen/heard/read:
- In have done a piss poor job of mythbusting and making a positive case
- Out haven't made a case. No answer on what the actual relationship we should have with EU/World. Instead they contradict themselves (Norway model sans free movement being feasible) and tell lies (Turkey will join the EU, flooding us with migrants and our vetos mean nothing).
That pretty much sums up the whole debate - pretty embarrassing and depressing to be honest from both sides.
I actually think leave have presented the more compelling case, albeit it's been based on 90% fiction.
-
Hope ? Try this...
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/half-of-leave-voters-believe-eu-referendum-will-be-rigged
I always find conspiracy theories funny, because most of them are either so complex as to seem impossible or require so many people to be in on it that stopping a leak would be impossible.
-
Seankenny, do I trust the politicians who will get in if we vote leave? No, is that a question for a simple child? I wouldn't trust them any more or less than I do any other politician.
I can accept the "long game" argument. I had the same with the Scottish IndyREF - I'm not great fan of Alex Salmond but I was looking past the immediate aftermath to the green grass utopia that would follow (haha, as if...anyway).
In this referendum I think this is a more difficult matter - Gove, Boris etc. would be in power right at the moment that all these new EU-less laws and trade agreements need to be drafted and all the "Heavy" regulations modified. So what we'd be doing is basically giving them a free reign to mould these laws exactly to suit themselves, and on their recent track record I don't think they can be trusted, but that is my opinion.
You could still play the long game, but there's a lot of shit to work through to reach the holy grail of self governance. (a target which I think has been massively overplayed)
-
Seankenny, do I trust the politicians who will get in if we vote leave? No, is that a question for a simple child? I wouldn't trust them any more or less than I do any other politician.
Regarding smart leavers v idiot racist leavers, it doesn't matter which is which. Same as in any other kind of vote with equal weighting. You deal with what's in front of you before you deal with the next bit.
The problem with your reply is that it assumes all politicians are of equal competence - and to be sure, it's competence as in get the job done that I'm talking about here, not any moral quality or vision which might inspire trust. Perhaps politics is an outlier separate from all other forms of human activity, in which there are degrees of ability, but I find this suggestion unlikely. And given that there are degrees of ability at actually getting stuff done, I'd suggest that Boris and IDS are at the lower end of that spectrum.
-
Hope ? Try this...
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/half-of-leave-voters-believe-eu-referendum-will-be-rigged
I always find conspiracy theories funny, because most of them are either so complex as to seem impossible or require so many people to be in on it that stopping a leak would be impossible.
Remarkable that this is even before the result in announced. At least in the Scottish Indref they waited until the next day.
-
Interesting on the odds - all the media/papers are giving it all this "it's a close thing, it's all hanging in the balance" stuff based on opinion polls, yet the bookies are painting a vastly different picture, and the bookies are usually right on these things, especially given how wrong the polls were a year ago in the election. Are the papers just trying to talk-up their own influence?
If you take it alongside the boost to the FTSE earlier in the week I think you might be right, though of course that could just be another pro-Remain echo chamber as much as the "it's really close" echo-chamber!
What it does mean is that if you are a stanched Brexiteer and you think that's gonna be the result, forgetting all the previous comments; the one respect in which I can legitimately call you an idiot would be not putting your money where your mouth is and smashing a few hundred quid at those 3/1 odds!
I eagerly await screenshots of Shark / Pete and Dense's betting accounts...of course for any Remainers, an "emotional hedge" might be a good idea in the event we wake up Friday morning to a Leave result. At least you'll have a few quid to buy some beers to drown your sorrows.
-
I've never put a but on, but I'm wondering about putting £50 on brexit....just to soften the blow if it happens!
-
I've just received an out of the ordinary call from my brother who lives in Paris (probably only hear from him in person maybe once every couple of months) asking me to make sure I vote remain tomorrow. As he has lived there for 20 years now he's no longer eligible to vote so wanted to make sure me and the rest of the family were doing their bit for him instead....
Didn't get a chance to question his reasoning behind it as I'm at work but I'll make sure I get the detail from him next time we speak :worms:
-
I'm pretty sure having negotiated being in the EU, without being in either Euro or Schengen, that we've already got the best of both worlds.
The only part I've had (indirect) involvement in in is EN standards for rope access. Without the UK on the standards committee I know we would have much worse standards. Redrafting them all as BS standards would take forever, cost an absolute fortune, and be pointless as all the big manufacturers are on the continent.
If the EU is considered undemocratic what is your model of a proper democracy?
The standards are already British Standards, that is what the BS in BS EN means.
Having worked on the Climbing Wall Standards when I was at the BMC I would say that they would have been worse from the UK perspective if we weren't at the table eg single texture mats under bouldering walls like in France
-
Explain why 'in no time'. That makes it sound like one week or one month. You must be aware that there's a minimum two-year exit process during which we remain with the current trade deals no?
It's good to debate these points and I'm open to being convinced but debate based on facts where they exist.
What about the fact that the Dept for Business, Innovations & Skills is shedding 4,000 jobs. That might have an impact on possible trade negotiations.
-
I'm pretty sure having negotiated being in the EU, without being in either Euro or Schengen, that we've already got the best of both worlds.
The only part I've had (indirect) involvement in in is EN standards for rope access. Without the UK on the standards committee I know we would have much worse standards. Redrafting them all as BS standards would take forever, cost an absolute fortune, and be pointless as all the big manufacturers are on the continent.
If the EU is considered undemocratic what is your model of a proper democracy?
The standards are already British Standards, that is what the BS in BS EN means.
Having worked on the Climbing Wall Standards when I was at the BMC I would say that they would have been worse from the UK perspective if we weren't at the table eg single texture mats under bouldering walls like in France
Technocrat scum! My local MP should have been deciding those standards! Rah rah rah where's my Stella?
-
Technocrat scum! My local MP should have been deciding those standards! Rah rah rah where's my Stella?
On the Working Group everyone was from the climbing wall industry. I guess this is the case for all European Standards but this is overlooked and we are all somehow faceless bureaucrats.
-
Same in rope access. You can't write by committee but it is a very powerful tool for editing. I'm sure this is the same in law. A non-elected individual or small group write under direction and approval of elected members.
Dense was suggesting we vote out write our own 'better' legislation. Putting/ keeping BS in front of EN is irrelevant to this, which is why I didn't mention it.
I have been clinging to the belief that this supposedly close race is purely due to excessive 'balance' from the press. When did the bookies last get it wrong?
-
I have been clinging to the belief that this supposedly close race is purely due to excessive 'balance' from the press. When did the bookies last get it wrong?
Still waiting for those screenshots, Leave voters... ;)
-
BREAKING NEWS
Remain are really pulling out the big guns now we're into the home straight:
https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/highlight/bobby-george-comes-out-for-remain-asks-us-not-to-fuck-up-his-future
-
BREAKING NEWS
Remain are really pulling out the big guns now we're into the home straight:
https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/highlight/bobby-george-comes-out-for-remain-asks-us-not-to-fuck-up-his-future
Great article, love the bit about Gove "We want to see him take Michael Gove in a crushing chokehold, and shout "ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTTTYYYYY!" in his ear until he promises not to tell any more lies about Turkey. "
-
I like the idea of having Gove in a chokehold.
Some one might have to tell me when to stop, though.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Stop when there's no pulse? Tempting, but pointless, after that.
-
I see that Sir Bobby Charlton is voting Out.
-
I see that Sir Bobby Charlton is voting Out.
Obviously lost his allegiance to United then ;)
-
I have been clinging to the belief that this supposedly close race is purely due to excessive 'balance' from the press. When did the bookies last get it wrong?
Still waiting for those screenshots, Leave voters... ;)
I don't understand your point? Why don't you bet on remain and post up a screenshot?
I'm not betting my money on anything to do with the remain/leave issue - I think it'll be a similar result to the Scotxit in favour of remain. I'll be content either way but a leave result wouldn't displease me. My money's in US and Canadian shares and the FTSE. :popcorn:
-
So Remainers, passing on the queen's supposed question (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/queen-elizabeth-dinner-party-debate-eu-referendum-claims-biographer) to you all: give me three good reasons why Britain should be part of the EU.
1.
2.
3.
-
1. Farage
2. Johnson
3. Gove
-
So Remainers, passing on the queen's supposed question (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/queen-elizabeth-dinner-party-debate-eu-referendum-claims-biographer) to you all: give me three good reasons why Britain should be part of the EU.
1.
2.
3.
1. Greater economic prosperity
2. Greater security
3. A rejection of navel gazing bullshit and a statement of meaningful engagement with the world at large
I have more if you want them?
-
So Remainers, passing on the queen's supposed question (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/queen-elizabeth-dinner-party-debate-eu-referendum-claims-biographer) to you all: give me three good reasons why Britain should be part of the EU.
1. Staying in means we have a say in the rules & regulations that govern the single market and other EU decisions.
I see a collection of SMEs in Wales pointless link (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/smes-wales-say-would-better-11508274) think that because most of them don't trade in the EU they shouldn't have to comply with EU legislation. What I don't get is why they think the UK will draft favourable new regulations? The UK govt will be just as influenced by big business lobbying (or more so, who knows?) when it comes to drafting new legislation. Wales is just as arse-end backwater as Scotland is in Westminster's eyes, so they're not going to be high on the priority list.
2. Staying in gives us bargaining power in the world market.
The UK exports the square root of fuck all these days. Having access to other EU exporters allows us more bargaining power on the world market than we would have alone
3. Because easily going to live & work in Europe, while other's come to live and work here is actually really quite good.
Seeing how much hassle it is for the hardworking, intelligent Mexican wife of my friend to try to relocate to the UK is quite an eye opener. She's not had her passport for 6 months!
4.5.6.7.8.9.10 are available on request.
-
2. Staying in gives us bargaining power in the world market.
The UK exports the square root of fuck all these days. Having access to other EU exporters allows us more bargaining power on the world market than we would have alone
Given that 78% of our GDP is in "Service industries", the majority of that are "Financial services" and we run at a trade deficit, this is probably an understatement.
Oh, and for anyone that might be concerned about how the EU has decimated our Agricultural industry. According to the ONS, it's little changed in relative value to GDP since joining at a whopping 0.3% GDP.
I mentioned that because it has been much mentioned by Brexit minded friends of mine (who seem to deem themselves "rural" despite mainly commuting from Devon villages to a desk in the nearest city).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
2. Staying in gives us bargaining power in the world market.
The UK exports the square root of fuck all these days. Having access to other EU exporters allows us more bargaining power on the world market than we would have alone
Given that 78% of our GDP is in "Service industries", the majority of that are "Financial services" and we run at a trade deficit, this is probably an understatement.
Oh, and for anyone that might be concerned about how the EU has decimated our Agricultural industry. According to the ONS, it's little changed in relative value to GDP since joining at a whopping 0.3% GDP.
I mentioned that because it has been much mentioned by Brexit minded friends of mine (who seem to deem themselves "rural" despite mainly commuting from Devon villages to a desk in the nearest city).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That tiny figure of course encompasses a large population of agricultural workers who exist on low wages. They don't add great value to the countries GDP compared to 'high value' workers in our beloved financial services. So what exactly are we saying here? That agricultural workers are of no interest us when it comes to debating about our place in Europe because they add fuck-all value to the GDP figure?
And investment bankers should be cherished and applauded as the beating heart of our country?
A lot of people on here are happy to change their tune to fit the dance aren't they.
-
I'm not at all sure farmers would be worse off out. They get money for nothing currently under CAP.
-
So Remainers, passing on the queen's supposed question (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/queen-elizabeth-dinner-party-debate-eu-referendum-claims-biographer) to you all: give me three good reasons why Britain should be part of the EU.
1.Immigration is a significant issue is the world at the moment. It's never been easier to move around and displacement due to conflict is at it's highest; because of this many developed countries are seeing more and more immigration. Cross boarder cooperation is needed to help tackle these issues.
2. Pressure on public services. Britain is changing. There's more people living here who don't work, disproportionately use public services (NHS, social care, buses, trains etc) and get a publicly paid for pension. At the same time birth rates are down. Without a large number of young healthy working age people coming into the country public funds are going to suffer.
3. Control. Not long ago the UK kept having to get involved in wars between European countries. It were right annoying and trading with countries that wanted to invade us was not possible. We managed to stop the warring a while ago now but lots of the countries were still ineffective trading partners (poor or communist or both). Through the EU framework we've successfully impressed our form of law, trading, standards, government, politics, economy, the list goes on... onto 25 other countries (i'm not counting France and Germany as they're in on it with us) to effectively create an ideal environment for us to sell our wares (mainly financial services these days). I'd like to retain control over Europe so we can carry on effectively dominating it.
-
That tiny figure of course encompasses a large population of agricultural workers who exist on low wages. They don't add great value to the countries GDP compared to 'high value' workers in our beloved financial services. So what exactly are we saying here? That agricultural workers are of no interest us when it comes to debating about our place in Europe because they add fuck-all value to the GDP figure?
And investment bankers should be cherished and applauded as the beating heart of our country?
A lot of people on here are happy to change their tune to fit the dance aren't they.
I don't see how someone saying that agriculture hasn't declined much (which is apparently a claim of the Leave brigade?) and that Financial Services make sup 78% suddenly makes everyone banker loving, anti-agriculturalists?
P.S. The three reasons I gave were not my three main reasons...just the three that I thought might resonate with potential leave voters.
Highrepute - clever what you did there. I like it.
-
So Remainers, passing on the queen's supposed question (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/queen-elizabeth-dinner-party-debate-eu-referendum-claims-biographer) to you all: give me three good reasons why Britain should be part of the EU.
1. Having our human rights, and fundamentals of many laws linked to the EU. They are overwhelmingly sensible, reasonable and aligned with my views. This stops some batshit Trump/Boris etc.. government wading in and introducing capital punishment, public flogging etc.. Furthermore, having this working across the whole EU ensures a political security - no wars between nations, and no worrying when wandering around other EU countries about being flogged for spitting or dropping chewing gum (looking at you Singapore...) for example... we forget how much we take all of this for granted.
2. In a world that is increasingly made up of LARGE alliances, global corporations, BIG thinking - it is important for us to be part of a big organisation, with big bargaining chips and a big market - and market clout. Without the EU we would be niche... We'd be like a cornershop trying to exist in the Trafford Centre.
3. Immigration. As highrepute said, an influx of young, working people is vital to prop up the demographic of our ageing population. We're not making enough children, so there will not be enough people working, paying taxes, paying into pension funds to provide for those retired or wanting to retire. 60 million population, 300k immigration last year - thats 0.5% growth... growth that we need. Further to this, we have to look at ourselves as a country. Are we narrow minded, raise the drawbridge, don't let them in - or willing to help others? to expand our outlook? to enhance our culture and multiculturalism. I regularly recruit PhD students and staff from across Europe - there are no barriers, no problems. I have tried to recruit from outside of the EU - the visa restrictions (and cost) and hoops we have to jump through to do this make it prohibitive, so often we just don't bother. In my field - there are no enough people in the UK capable of doing what I need - so we need a larger pool. Poor access to your doctor, to housing, to schooling etc.. thats not due to immigration, its due to poor planning by the government and a lack of spending (Doctor & NHS stuff is largely down to the restructuring and now piss poor relationship the medical profession have with the govt).
-
That tiny figure of course encompasses a large population of agricultural workers who exist on low wages. They don't add great value to the countries GDP compared to 'high value' workers in our beloved financial services. So what exactly are we saying here? That agricultural workers are of no interest us when it comes to debating about our place in Europe because they add fuck-all value to the GDP figure?
And investment bankers should be cherished and applauded as the beating heart of our country?
Make up your own mind Pete (as I'm sure you would anyway)
From wikipedia: "Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses 69% of the country's land area, employs 1.5% of its workforce (476,000 people) and contributes 0.62% of its gross value added (£9.9 billion)."
To put this in perspective - as a nation we have more Estate Agents (not bankers - but certainly a service industry).. From the daily mail in 2013 (sorry people) "The number of estate agents has soared to a record high with one in four jobs created in the past year in the property sector, according to official figures. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of jobs in the sector rose to 562,000 in the second quarter of the year, exceeding the 2008 peak and the most since its records began in the late 1970s."
-
TTT I don't really understand your little rant about put your money where your mouth is and bet a few hundred quid and post a screenshot. Wtf are you on about? I didn't know you needed to bet on something? News to me that. Here's what I've been saying all along, I've voted out you vote how you want. I'm not here or interested in trying to change a remain voters mind. Get a mind of your own. I've voted out I've already said that. I think, very strongly, that we'll remain by quite a margin but within 5-10 yrs the eu will implode. So what's just happened there? Man who has mind of his own doesn't want to be here yet thinks we'll remain due to others voting with different ideas having the bigger turn out yet I'm supposed to bet that my vote will win? Bizarre.
I wasn't really suggesting anything about bs numbers re Johnny, what I have been intimating is that if we do leave we won't really die very quickly on our own on a little island will we? I'm sure we've made some decisions for ourselves some time in the past.
-
And tt this is where the problem stems from, when the middle class collective of Ukb are talking about immigration and how it's needed, the people that are pissed off and the papers that are scare mongering aren't talking about this kind of immigrant. I don't think they're talking about the one that comes to work here.
-
And tt this is where the problem stems from, when the middle class collective of Ukb are talking about immigration and how it's needed, the people that are pissed off and the papers that are scare mongering aren't talking about this kind of immigrant. I don't think they're talking about the one that comes to work here.
What type of immigrant is this Dense? If its about those now working here then... (and bear in mind this contains not only those not working but those claiming in work benefits too..)
"DWP statistics show that as of February 2015, just over 5 million people were claiming welfare benefits; of those, about 370,000 (7.2 per cent of the total claiming benefits) were non-UK nationals (at the time that they registered for a National Insurance number; and of those, only 114,000 (2.2 percent of the total claiming benefits) were EU nationals. Since those born abroad make up 16 percent of the working age population, and those born in the EU make up about 6 percent, it can be seen that migrants of both types are considerably less likely to claim out-of-work benefits."
So, despite the years of "relentless" EU immigration into the UK, of the 3 million EU immigrants in the UK, 114 000 were claiming benefit. It seems here that the real issue is with non EU immigrants - over who we have total control and could impose whatever even stricter rules on their entry than we do now....
The whole immigration issue is vile, and cunts like Farage play on peoples concerns. The arguments made against immigration are carbon copies of made against immigrant Indians, Pakistanis, West Indians etc... in the 60's and 70's. "They'll steal our jobs and houses". The only difference is now those 'blamed' are Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc..
As John Barnes wrote today (a really good article btw)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9a4a9f90e986160da7f5425add5b66144b9f9178/0_137_1908_1144/master/1908.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=0a576624b38fcdc3000c70b4e986cab4)
"I hadn’t even felt that strongly about it previously – that’s why I hadn’t made it public knowledge that I was supporting remain. I’m a normal person, a layman, so when they’re talking about the economic arguments on either side it’s hard to follow. When 90% of analysts are saying we’re better off in, but the other side say that isn’t true, it’s hard to be sure what to believe. So my reasons for supporting remain are probably different from those of many others: immigration. And I don’t believe this is an issue that the leave campaign should be based on.
Leave is preying on people’s fears, telling the same story we’ve heard over the years about black people from Africa and the Caribbean coming to steal our jobs. Now we hear the same thing about Poles. If leave wanted to say that companies are paying migrants less than British workers, and so allowing them to take our jobs, then it should be looking at raising the minimum wage – not stopping migrants entering the country. The problem has nothing to do with the Polish workers – it is an issue about our labour laws. Yet leave maintains its focus on immigration."
and later on in the arcticle
"And when politicians talk about welcoming different, more skilled immigrants – who are they talking about anyway? If there were thousands of blond-haired, blue-eyed Americans landing at Dover, seeking refuge, I think many of us would be straight down there to help. So many groups of people, whether they be from Africa or the Middle East, have been demonised and dehumanised because they don’t look like us. I’m not accusing anyone of being racist. I’m black, I was born in Jamaica, but this affects me too. I know I would feel more empathy with that boat of white American refugees than I do with the thousands fleeing Syria. It’s because of what we have all been told and the environment that we live in. I don’t look like a white American any more than I do a Syrian – but I was brought up in a society that has taught me to empathise more with them."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/22/john-barnes-gove-says-voting-leave-wrong
-
Hopefully after tomorrow people will be able to stop cut n pasting or linking from other stuff. That's been one of my dreams for a while, oh and people will stop quoting the person above. It's the little things really
-
3. Immigration... an influx of young, working people is vital to prop up the demographic of our ageing population... we have to look at ourselves as a country...
...And what about the countries these young, working people come from?
Jacek Symanski: "3 million people left Poland looking for a job abroad trying to escape poverty and unemployment. In Poland we've got 400,000 so-called Euro-orphans, children whose parents left Poland looking for a job... these are the perfect conditions to grow fascism."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2ULdpyff8
'As Poland loses its doctors and builders, 'Euro-orphans' are left at home to suffer'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/15/euro-orphans-fastest-shrinking-town-poland-radom
The problem with the European Union may well be that the rich countries grow richer at the expense of the poorer ones.
I have no intention to vote tomorrow, but it seems to me there is a strong left-wing case for a leave vote articulated by the 'Lexit' campaign.
I have no strong feelings on immigration, but the arguments that the EU is an anti-democratic organisation that serves the capitalist interests of the neo-liberal corporate elites is the most compelling for me.
When the likes of Cameron, Osborne, Brown, Blair, the IMF, etc, run a Remain campaign bankrolled by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc, one has to ask oneself whose interests are being served.
-
Dense, I'm confused.
If you've already voted, have no interest in changing someone else's mind, or in reading the arguments put forward on either side then WTF are you doing on this thread, other than sticking your oar in for your own onanistic amusement?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What am I doing on this thread? I'm writing on an Internet forum. What are u on about? U can only post on something if u want to change someones mind? People are writing stuff on here as fact and their "argument" makes no sense to me ie we have better standards but we couldn't write them ourselves, to take one out of many. Everything that has been posted as reasons we can't/shouldn't leave I'm quite sure we could do on our own.
-
2. Staying in gives us bargaining power in the world market.
The UK exports the square root of fuck all these days. Having access to other EU exporters allows us more bargaining power on the world market than we would have alone
Given that 78% of our GDP is in "Service industries", the majority of that are "Financial services" and we run at a trade deficit, this is probably an understatement.
Oh, and for anyone that might be concerned about how the EU has decimated our Agricultural industry. According to the ONS, it's little changed in relative value to GDP since joining at a whopping 0.3% GDP.
I mentioned that because it has been much mentioned by Brexit minded friends of mine (who seem to deem themselves "rural" despite mainly commuting from Devon villages to a desk in the nearest city).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That tiny figure of course encompasses a large population of agricultural workers who exist on low wages. They don't add great value to the countries GDP compared to 'high value' workers in our beloved financial services. So what exactly are we saying here? That agricultural workers are of no interest us when it comes to debating about our place in Europe because they add fuck-all value to the GDP figure?
And investment bankers should be cherished and applauded as the beating heart of our country?
A lot of people on here are happy to change their tune to fit the dance aren't they.
God no.
Not my point at all. The relative GDP of Agriculture is unchanged as a result of joining the EU. My point was that it has not been decimated at all, in fact, it must have grown at the same rate as the rest of the economy. That people have lost their livelihoods within that sector has (I would suggest) far more to do with increased efficiency/automation/technology; than EU regulation (and similar shifts can be seen within the sector globally).
I certainly don't value the financial sector (pun intended), my point there was that extracting the "service industries" from our total GDP gives a better picture of the relative value/size of our production/export base. It isn't large.
And, the financial sector (love them or loath them) are the corner stone of our economy , but also the most at risk in Brexit. The easiest to pick up and shift wholesale too, should they so wish, if things get difficult for them to trade into Europe.
I have a good friend who is a Dairy farmer, she's for Remain. Her reasoning she hasn't shared, however she has made it clear that :
EU = good.
Supermarkets = F&£#*~g Devils seamen cupcakes, corporate tossers.
So, possibly because of my Devonian location, a great deal of the propaganda that has been shoved through my door, has centred around the EU's decimation of the UK's Agricultural industry. So I looked it up and couldn't find the decimation (at least not in terms of the industries value).
Also, given the relatively small value in GDP terms, why should we risk the rest of the economy for this (well hidden) decimation?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What am I on about?
You said: "I've voted out, you vote how you want".
So you're not on this thread to guide how you vote.
You said:"I'm not here or interested in trying to change a remain voters mind"
So you're not here to press a case.
You said: "Hopefully after tomorrow people will be able to stop cut n pasting or linking from other stuff"
So you're not interested in reading arguments for either side.
The only other reasons I can think of for posting are:
1) you're disingenuous and would like to change minds
2) you just enjoy arguing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think it's you that enjoys being argumentative, you've been telling people how it is since you climbed 9a
-
You're right there. I love it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What am I on about?
You said: "I've voted out, you vote how you want".
So you're not on this thread to guide how you vote.
You said:"I'm not here or interested in trying to change a remain voters mind"
So you're not here to press a case.
You said: "Hopefully after tomorrow people will be able to stop cut n pasting or linking from other stuff"
So you're not interested in reading arguments for either side.
The only other reasons I can think of for posting are:
1) you're disingenuous and would like to change minds
2) you just enjoy arguing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're starting to sound/write like me.
Please seek medical attention immediately (or Mumra will be round to give you a pasting).
Both you and Dense have a point. Though, as to whether Dense cares about what other people think, let the evidence speak for it's self...
I genuinely just like debating. I suspect he's the same.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I suspect so too. Hence "onanistic amusement", which is a more insulting way of saying the same thing.
Dense is a dear, but if he's just here for an argument it winds me up when he whines about people supporting their view with links. I'm petty that way.
Dense: to address your substantive point - did people actually suggest "we have better standards but we couldn't write them themselves"? I though JB and others point was that we could have great standards if we wrote them ourselves, but we couldn't impose them on the French?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah but Stu during your sessions attempting your 9a did you get 8 quality redpoints?
If we left the EU you would, that's a FACT.
-
6. But I would have got 8 if it was a euro 9a. Which is kind of the point we're making about standards. If we remain, maybe one day we can sort Spanish grades out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Typical remainer's attitude, let's tell the Spanish what to do with their grades before getting our own trad grades in order.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt0anp7WK8
-
I'm not against people supporting their views with links, I'm against 8 links in 9 posts. Same with anything, like the coat with 9 buttons but you can only fasten 8
-
Amazing. Not long ago they were his biggest supporters...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160622/e777736ed8abeee325ed6c6056161d0d.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Anthony Hilton
I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice
-
Well, I voted IN motherfuckas.
-
Quick straw poll of people I've met in the first hour this morning - builder round fitting our new front door is voting out, his wife and their two kids are also voting out. The young assistant isn't voting. Shopkeeper next door is voting out. My father's voting in.
I'm voting out. Because I'd like us to be a member of a European trading area (as well as building trade agreements worldwide), and to have free movement. For which I'm happy that the country makes concessions. But I don't agree this in any way needs to go hand-in-hand with being part of a political union which isn't accountable enough for me.
I think over the next ten years if another country wants to leave the EU - a not completely unlikely event the way the momentum is swinging, and another Eurozone crisis, it risks the whole thing failing. In which case the fallout would likely involve the EU being renegotiated back to something resembling its original intent in the 60s/70s which was a free trade and free movement agreement, not an ever closer political union which makes political decisions on our behalf.
-
All I've seen on this thread is a lot of people who think they're clever/right laughing and making out that others who don't share their opinion are racists and/or idiots. This is why I don't really get involved with these type of threads, politics, religion etc. A lot of people have been saying I haven't heard anything from the leave camp that's changed my mind to leave, well? I didn't know the issue was to get each other to change sides?
All I can say to you SamT is that if you're questioning your friendship with people because they have a different social view than you is that you obvious don't deserve them as friends, take that how you want although it's meant as an insult to you.
Not had chance to retort yet, but basically, at no point have I implied that out voters are 'as thick as fuck'.
The whole umbrella sketch - :o :no:
I couldn't bear much more after that. The whole issue is making me more and more angry, and I'm dismayed at some folks I know who are voting out to the point that I'm questioning our friendship.
and I said..
some folks I know
I know who my friends are. I was loosely pertaining to facebook type 'friends' really.
All I can say to you SamT is that if you're questioning your friendship with people because they have a different social view than you is that you obvious don't deserve them as friends, take that how you want although it's meant as an insult to you.
Water off a ducks back mate. Nice of you to drag it down to a level of personal insults.
-
I'm voting out. Because I'd like us to be a member of a European trading area (as well as building trade agreements worldwide), and to have free movement. For which I'm happy that the country makes concessions. But I don't agree this in any way needs to go hand-in-hand with being part of a political union which isn't accountable enough for me.
I'm baffled Pete... if we want to be part of an EU trading area and have free movement - it'll be exactly the same as now, except we have not say in what happens....? So we'd be part of the same political union, but with no way of changing anything...
Anyway - we'll see what happens. Glad its all over for now.
-
I though JB and others point was that we could have great standards if we wrote them ourselves, but we couldn't impose them on the French?
Actually no, I think we'd have worse standards due to a) a lower budget, and b) being more susceptible to influence from self-interested parties. Plus I think drawing from broader sources is always good - standards have to be carefully thought out so as not to stifle innovation.
Can't understand your beef with Dense Stu. The leave perspective is under-represented here and it's valuable input, whether or not folk are trying to influence or be influenced. The idea he and Pete present that the EU as is is doomed is fair, but I don't agree that it's a given. Leaving may well precipitate it though, as well as the break up of the UK (probably first).
In which case the fallout would likely involve the EU being renegotiated back to something resembling its original intent in the 60s/70s which was a free trade and free movement agreement, not an ever closer political union which makes political decisions on our behalf.
A free trade area is always going to gravitate towards a political union, as otherwise you don't have a level playing field for trade.
-
possible source of future Sun headlines
http://qz.com/713953/possible-names-for-eu-exits-for-all-members-of-the-eu/
-
I'm baffled Pete... if we want to be part of an EU trading area and have free movement - it'll be exactly the same as now, except we have not say in what happens....? So we'd be part of the same political union, but with no way of changing anything...
It needn't be. Canadian citizens and US citizens have free movement between their two countries - all that's required is a driver's license or other governmenrt proof of ID. Likewise with free movement of labour - it's a simple process (relatively for the US!) under the trade agreement to get 3-year work visas for the US/Canada, and these are renewable as many times as you wish.
Same with New Zealand and Australia, who have an agreement for free movement and free movement of labour.
You try telling a Canadian, a septic tank, a kiwi or an ex-convict that they must have a political union and that it must be run by technocrats over which they have no control, and see how well that goes down!
I find it slightly depressing when people can't envisage a UK that has free trade and movement without being centrally controlled by an unaccountable elite.
It needn't gravitate towards political union JB and TT as the four countries above prove. There are other examples. And if we're being scientific for a moment than the scientific method relies on disproving a hypothesis. Well clearly the remain hypothesis can be disproved just as the leave one can. So where does that leave us - with a choice of the heart. When I climb I gravitate towards the ground but I generally don't allow that to happen if it's not desirable.
Someone further up the thread commented 'against navel gazing inward-looking attitude' or words to that effect. I find myself thinking this about the remain in Europe point of view - e.g. it's all relative. I find 'looking into Europe as being the UK's best case scenario' to be a limited, inward-looking stance, compared to a scenario in which we can look outwards to the whole world.
-
You try telling a Canadian, a septic tank, a kiwi or an ex-convict that they must have a political union and that it must be run by technocrats over which they have no control, and see how well that goes down!
I find it slightly depressing when people can't envisage a UK that has free trade and movement without being centrally controlled by an unaccountable elite.
This is the bit that stumps me. Somehow this word technocrat has become pejorative when all it means is somebody who is an expert in their field. They can only make recommendations to the EU parliament; it's the MEPs, who are very much accountable to their electorate, who vote on the legislation.
Calling them "an unaccountable elite" just makes you sound like a foil hat wearer. This elite that you're talking about is actually people like Graeme, Adam, my boss at work etc, all of whom qualify in a meritocratic way to advise the European parliament.
I don't understand how you think that is any different from what happens in Westminster. The only difference to me is that in Brussels you bring in expertise from a wider variety of cultures - hugely valuable in solving problems in every field from climbing wall standards to water management, to combatting global warming.
If somebody asked my local MP (who is a card carrying fuckwit) to make a decision on any of these issues, and they didn't turn to experts for advise, I'd be fucking livid.
-
Pete, you seem to be mainly talking about free movement of workers, and four countries whose physical areas/resources are huge compared to their populations, relative to Europe. In Europe we are competing for dwindling resources: fisheries, for example. Do you really think any European fishery could survive without central control?
Do Canada adopt ANSI standards then? NZ seem not to bother with standards much afaik.
Interesting result from a guy who has fact-checked the campaigns: https://medium.com/im-trying-to-fact-check-brexit/fact-checking-brexit-the-conclusion-c1f56ba4cb70#.q4y8xhsxh
-
Yes, I'm still confused how comparing continents of federalised states, with massive populations and immense natural resources; pertains to an island nation smaller than almost all of those individual states.
Still, lets have a little light relief and consider a novel argument:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10839448/My-rivals-should-be-hanged-for-treason-says-Ukip-candidate.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Adam - when I worked there it entirely depended on the client. Some wished to see ANSI standards and others were content with EN. It isn't a show-stopper like some on here are portraying it to be.
-
Yes, I'm still confused how comparing continents of federalised states, with massive populations and immense natural resources; pertains to an island nation smaller than almost all of those individual states.
Still, lets have a little light relief and consider a novel argument:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10839448/My-rivals-should-be-hanged-for-treason-says-Ukip-candidate.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except for New Zealand. Or Switzerland. Or Norway. All countries that are regarded as brilliant places to live.
-
Are you trolling Pete?
-
Yes, I'm still confused how comparing continents of federalised states, with massive populations and immense natural resources; pertains to an island nation smaller than almost all of those individual states.
Still, lets have a little light relief and consider a novel argument:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10839448/My-rivals-should-be-hanged-for-treason-says-Ukip-candidate.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except for New Zealand. Or Switzerland. Or Norway. All countries that are regarded as brilliant places to live.
New Zealand is in some serious economic strife and has some serious issues with relations between settlers and the indigenous population mind, and some disparity between communities of the North and South islands. Still on balance, I'd agree with you and I'd like to live there.
http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/new-zealand/news/consumer-confidence/consumer-confidence-decreases-for-second-consecutive
Swiss, has a pretty specialised economy, a population of 8M (compared to our 68M) and I'm not sure how we are supposed to emulate that.
Norway has an even smaller population, circa 5M (or less than London, if you like).
These are not comparable to the UK. They have established economic niches and are not models that we can just slip into.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The replies of people like tt and omm, and possibly someone else are a bit baffling re one of you asked a question or implied something along the lines of "name me one country that does this" Pete them names about 4 and you say yes yes but that's different their population is 5m or I'm not sure how we're supposed to emulate the Swiss! So basically whatever answer is given will be shot down in flames since something somewhere will be different between our countries and elsewhere. Excellent
-
London could be like Swiz
Scotland could be like Norway
Yorkshire could be like New Zealand
-
The replies of people like tt and omm, and possibly someone else are a bit baffling re one of you asked a question or implied something along the lines of "name me one country that does this" Pete them names about 4 and you say yes yes but that's different their population is 5m or I'm not sure how we're supposed to emulate the Swiss! So basically whatever answer is given will be shot down in flames since something somewhere will be different between our countries and elsewhere. Excellent
OK, its a bit you said, he said blah blah, so being more constructive I'll turn it around and name countries 'closest' to what Britain could be like.... (which was kind of covered earlier in the thread but anyway..)
Japan.
Norway is probably the closest in Europe - though it is/was the biggest Oil exporter in the EU and has heavily invested its £££ from the oil - much more than we have.. in other words its like a much smaller UK with a Metric Fuck Gigaton of money in the bank...
Other suggestions?
(not being facetious - -I can't think of any more..)
-
Japan? It's a bit nippy out there!
No, I have no other suggestions. Britain is like no other country in the world. You got me.
You know when you say to your kids you have to stand up for yourself or you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up, because you believe it. What do you say to them if they say "but daddy why can't we leave the Eu?" "Leave the eu? Are you fucking mental child? We'd never be able to make it on our own. Which idiots put these ideas in your head? You wouldn't understand yet but don't worry some thick older people don't understand even now"
Don't worry I know most on here would start going on about the emf, the best thing they did being 3am eternal.
-
That was the KLF Dense ;) xx
Unbelievable:)
-
The replies of people like tt and omm, and possibly someone else are a bit baffling re one of you asked a question or implied something along the lines of "name me one country that does this" Pete them names about 4 and you say yes yes but that's different their population is 5m or I'm not sure how we're supposed to emulate the Swiss! So basically whatever answer is given will be shot down in flames since something somewhere will be different between our countries and elsewhere. Excellent
Because they are not models that we can follow.
I certainly did not, at any point, say "name me one country..." or anything similar. It is however a very common Pro argument, particularly the Norway analogy.
Pointing out the flaws in that analogy is hardly unreasonable.
You seem to keep saying "stop telling me what's wrong with my argument" but an argument that can be knocked down so easily is not something to fix your belay to, is it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The replies of people like tt and omm, and possibly someone else are a bit baffling re one of you asked a question or implied something along the lines of "name me one country that does this" Pete them names about 4 and you say yes yes but that's different their population is 5m or I'm not sure how we're supposed to emulate the Swiss! So basically whatever answer is given will be shot down in flames since something somewhere will be different between our countries and elsewhere. Excellent
OK, its a bit you said, he said blah blah, so being more constructive I'll turn it around and name countries 'closest' to what Britain could be like.... (which was kind of covered earlier in the thread but anyway..)
Japan.
Norway is probably the closest in Europe - though it is/was the biggest Oil exporter in the EU and has heavily invested its £££ from the oil - much more than we have.. in other words its like a much smaller UK with a Metric Fuck Gigaton of money in the bank...
Other suggestions?
(not being facetious - -I can't think of any more..)
Wow from what I understand the Japanese economy is in serious trouble so the UK might be able to follow that example in the event of a brexit
-
The point for me here is time.
What sort of place the-country-formerly-known-as-the Southern-UK might find for itself in the world outside the EU and Uk is impossible for anyone to say.
What we can say with more certainty is how long the financial uncertainty and uncertain trading conditions triggered by a Brexit might last & what I'm hearing is ~20 years.
Several years to somehow force Brexit through the Uk parliament - several more to dissolve the UK - 2 yrs to leave the EU then 7- 10 to negociate new agreements with the EU. At whch point negotiations with the rest of the world can start.
-
As long as our nuclear plants don't follow the Japanese lead, I'll be happy...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
On that note, don't all our nuclear plants belong to the French?
And do we still buy a shitload of 'lecky from the Frogs?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
As long as our nuclear plants don't follow the Japanese lead, I'll be happy...
Built by the Chinese and owned by the French is the plan. If they ever get built...
To be fair, the Tsunami and Earthquake risk is much lower in the UK
-
Anyway - anyone care to chance any predictions?
I'll go 56:44 (Remain:Leave)
-
Bugger.
I hadn't thought of this one but it seems we really do import a huge proportion of our Electricity.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160623/359e5dad22c75464a9f1e0f1e4f11cbe.jpg)
I've yet to track down which nations supply it, but France must be a good bet (all those plants along the Rhone).
So, if'n we piss off the people what make our power, does we 'av a probs, like?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I voted remain. I work in Science and it would be an umitigated disaster for UK science if we left the EU. I work with loads of talented european scientists on a daily basis here in Salford. And i spent a spell working in Belgium myself. All of this much harder if we left, in fact i think there could be quite a 'brain drain'.
To be honest I find the UKs attitude to europe embarassing. I feel like apologising to my colleagues.
-
Omm what are you talking about? Pointing out the flaws in that analogy is not unreasonable? My point was that you, collective, can quite easily point out flaws in any analogy given with the question ure asking.
So I.munro what is your point? You've given a good argument which either side can say belongs to me. Leave people "10 yrs is nothing", stay people "10 yrs is a long time, things will pass us by". That's not a dig btw ;)
-
You know when you say to your kids you have to stand up for yourself or you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up, because you believe it. What do you say to them if they say "but daddy why can't we leave the Eu?" "Leave the eu? Are you fucking mental child? We'd never be able to make it on our own. Which idiots put these ideas in your head? You wouldn't understand yet but don't worry some thick older people don't understand even now"
I love this analogy... but I think you'll find a flaw in it.
-
#usepens is trending on twitter. Supposedly some people are worried that if you use the pencil provided then it may be rubbed out and your vote changed - (probably by MI5). :slap:
I'm off to vote in a bit as the kids wanted to come with me, will I get laughed at if I wear my tinfoil hat whilst voting?
-
Only by the kids, very loudly I suspect!
-
I also voted remain. I've also found it embarrassing explaining the reasons why this is happening to my Spanish and Austrian colleagues (although the Austrian gets it a bit more as they nearly elected a fascist as president).
I've found it very hard to find people who are voting leave (i'm obviously very intolerant of anyone who doesn't think the same as me) that I can have a good discussion with. My mum just likes the personalities of the Leavers. My mate Ric's new girlfriend just said leaving felt right. It's all remain posters in the windows around Meersbrook. Seen a few England flags hanging out of windows but that could mean racist or England fan or both and they might not even be voting so it's difficult to judge.
So I appreciate Pete and Dense contributions to this thread.
I predict remain and not very close. for what it's worth my mum also thinks remain.
-
Because they are not models that we can follow.
What do you or any of us really know about what models the UK could or couldn't follow?
The only constant is change and people adapting to the demands of the circumstances they exist in. Countries change and sometimes quickly. No-one back in the 90s - not even the most pro-capitalist - ever believed that communism in the Soviet Union would collapse within two years.
No-one would have believed you in 1946 if you'd said that within 10 years the UK economy would lag behind Germany's 'economic miracle'.
Historians on here will be able to come up with numerous examples of rapid change. In every case people like you would be found saying 'that will never work'.
-
The chances of anyone coming from Mars are a million to one, but still they come.
I could have wrote your last paragraph highrepute, that about sums it up I reckon.
-
So I.munro what is your point? You've given a good argument which either side can say belongs to me. Leave people "10 yrs is nothing", stay people "10 yrs is a long time, things will pass us by". That's not a dig btw ;)
It's been less than ten years since the financial crisis and already it's turned the world upside-down, with more to come. Ten years of sorting Brexit shit out is ten years that the government can't concentrate on other things so much, like climate change, or productivity, or improving education, etc etc.
-
Well in the spirit of 'yes but' that exists on this thread, emissions regulations - or rather the enforcement of - are not an EU strong point.
-
#usepens is trending on twitter. Supposedly some people are worried that if you use the pencil provided then it may be rubbed out and your vote changed - (probably by MI5). :slap:
I'm off to vote in a bit as the kids wanted to come with me, will I get laughed at if I wear my tinfoil hat whilst voting?
That one's a real giggle! Imagine hundreds of people sworn to secrecy, erasers in hand, rubbing the night away.
It's ok though, karma will bite "them" (you know the illuminati or what ever), when they get sued by all those RSI victims (on a "no win, no fee basis of course).
I've already contacted Sloper. The TV ads begin tomorrow.
"Have you been injured at work, carrying out clandestine and nefarious election rigging for the secret Government? Call now on 0800 666 666..."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You try telling a Canadian, a septic tank, a kiwi or an ex-convict that they must have a political union and that it must be run by technocrats over which they have no control, and see how well that goes down!
I find it slightly depressing when people can't envisage a UK that has free trade and movement without being centrally controlled by an unaccountable elite.
This is the bit that stumps me. Somehow this word technocrat has become pejorative when all it means is somebody who is an expert in their field. They can only make recommendations to the EU parliament; it's the MEPs, who are very much accountable to their electorate, who vote on the legislation.
Calling them "an unaccountable elite" just makes you sound like a foil hat wearer. This elite that you're talking about is actually people like Graeme, Adam, my boss at work etc, all of whom qualify in a meritocratic way to advise the European parliament.
I don't understand how you think that is any different from what happens in Westminster. The only difference to me is that in Brussels you bring in expertise from a wider variety of cultures - hugely valuable in solving problems in every field from climbing wall standards to water management, to combatting global warming.
If somebody asked my local MP (who is a card carrying fuckwit) to make a decision on any of these issues, and they didn't turn to experts for advise, I'd be fucking livid.
Pete, just out of interest, have you not given a response to this because you can't be bothered or because you haven't got one? Don't mind either way.
-
Well in the spirit of 'yes but' that exists on this thread, emissions regulations - or rather the enforcement of - are not an EU strong point.
What have you been reading Pete that has said this? Why do you think they would be any better if we were outside of the EU?
Our older coal/oil fired power stations have been closed down because they bust/were about to bust EU guidelines... For cars, the UK car industry very strongly resisted EU rules that introduced catalytic converters to all petrol cars. The recent diesel emissions scandal was manufacturers playing the game of matching EU rules when a car is in test. New EU diesel rules and importantly tests will come in in 2017.
For air quality, the UK is in line for a big fine from the EU for persistently breaking limits in London and many other UK cities (maybe this is a reason to leave!). This incidentally was largely due to Boris dragging his feet on getting London compliance - do you see him vaulting to make UK super emissions groovy?
-
Well in the spirit of 'yes but' that exists on this thread, emissions regulations - or rather the enforcement of - are not an EU strong point.
Speaking as somebody who works in environmental regulation (industry, not regulator), I think this statement is absolute horseshit.
-
Woah there! - I'm playing the yes but game that's all. Nowhere did I say they would be better, worse or the same if we were not in the EU - who can say? Merely responding in the spirit du jour to the Sean's point that we will all 'waste the next ten years when we could instead be working on climate change' - because the UK shuts down if everything doesn't remain as it currently is.
-
#usepens is trending on twitter. Supposedly some people are worried that if you use the pencil provided then it may be rubbed out and your vote changed - (probably by MI5). :slap:
I'm off to vote in a bit as the kids wanted to come with me, will I get laughed at if I wear my tinfoil hat whilst voting?
The level of outright stupidity that is out there on the streets is utterly frightening.
Pete, it just sounds like you've run out of reason.
-
Lost me there Pete...
-
Really?! Absolute horseshit?
Not recognising and acting on the fact that 8.5 million Volkswagens in Europe were fitted with emissions cheating software and were utterly taking the piss and cheating emissions regulations; even though the EU's own regulators tested in 2007 and found emissions were four times higher than claimed, yet it took a US journalist to blow the story open, is not a glaring example of 'a weak point' in enforcing emissions regulations? I'm baffled by this.
Note: I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of brexit/remain. I'm starting to think any possible perceived slant against the EU will elicit a furious rebuttal from you Will.
Edit: Why have you quoted rich d in your post to me?
-
Just to reply to the rigging elections impossibility. About 10 years ago the mayor of Oldham was sacked a few or so months into office because "they" had found out that a considerable amount of his postal votes were rigged. Just a bit of light entertainment for you there, I know it can't happen really.
-
Woah there! - I'm playing the yes but game that's all. Nowhere did I say they would be better, worse or the same if we were not in the EU - who can say? Merely responding in the spirit du jour to the Sean's point that we will all 'waste the next ten years when we could instead be working on climate change' - because the UK shuts down if everything doesn't remain as it currently is.
That's not quite what I'm saying. There's a limited amount of political energy and focus. Spend it on one thing and other things necessarily go by-the-by, eg we invaded Iraq and took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. No government can do too many major projects at once.
Lawyers and constitutional experts warn us that if we leave the EU we'll have a massive job on our hands untangling 40 years of EU-infused law. The economy will either get smaller or grow much less quickly, so all those careful calculations about tax and spend go out of the window and we have to try and deal with all the downsides like closing factories, increased unemployment, etc. Of course we'll then be in the position of having to design a new immigration system, technically and politically that's going to be fraught with problems. Our police and security services are going to have to find new ways of doing what they already do in terms of working with their counterparts in Europe. We're going to have to negotiate scores of new trade deals, with just about everyone. And there's also the small matter of re-negotiating our relationship with the EU itself.
Those are all major projects. This will totally stretch the ability of the government for years. Building new houses, improving the health service, helping the environment? Those are going to be bit part activities for any post-Brexit government.
-
Just to reply to the rigging elections impossibility. About 10 years ago the mayor of Oldham was sacked a few or so months into office because "they" had found out that a considerable amount of his postal votes were rigged. Just a bit of light entertainment for you there, I know it can't happen really.
Shit I used the pencil attached to the booth by a piece of string and my wife postal voted :chair:
-
Fair enough. THough it was 2010 or 2013 when they were informed depending who you believe. Its quite an interesting story actually, about how the I assume very powerful European car industry lobbied the EU rules and rule making process..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#European_Union
OK. the EU fucked up there. Whats next?
-
Thank you.
Do you agree Will or is it too much for you to take?
I'll try to respond to your question a few pages back when I sit down to think it through.
-
What's next the Eu fucked up on tt? My sides can't take any more of this!
Tbh I'm more annoyed that every time I write eu it auto changes to euro and I have to delete 2 letters! First world problems I suppose. Syria's still keeping me awake at night.
-
What's next the Eu fucked up on tt? My sides can't take any more of this!
Tbh I'm more annoyed that every time I write eu it auto changes to euro and I have to delete 2 letters! First world problems I suppose. Syria's still keeping me awake at night.
Indeed, I've typed eu enough fucking times on this phone - it should recognise it.
ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Phones rigged!
-
my phone still doesn't recognise ducking count.
-
Thank you.
Do you agree Will or is it too much for you to take?
I'll try to respond to your question a few pages back when I sit down to think it through.
Soz. Was driving home, having dinner. The car scandal is a good point but an extraordinary event among a load of contradictory examples. TT nailed it i think so I'll just say "what he said".
My rebuttals are never furious (you cunt) :)
-
Just cast my ballot, have chosen to remain.
My early thinking was to exit to piss off all the city banksters.
But in the end that felt like shooting yourself in the foot.
At work(school) kids debated exit / remain.
The most convincing arguments were from remain.
A lot of unsubstantiated facts from the exiters.
I think better together than apart.
Speaking to mates at work, they wanted to exit for the flimsiest of reasons.
I think it is going to be very close, to be honest a little worried.
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160623/95f56119dc3b9ba1a705077be4fd14f0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You know - I'd really like to hear what sloper thinks of all this. I suspect he's be in - but would have some positions on the unedifying performances of most of the politicians.
Speak Sloper if you are lurking!! :)
-
unedifying performances of most of the politicians.
Ah the politicos, I have generally tried to avoid as much of the coverage as possible.
The footie has been a great filler.
As for the big beasts of Westminster, who would want to listen to anything they have to say.
Take your pick, spivs, tricksters, nutters, bozzer, Farage, Dave, jez, gove.
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160623/95f56119dc3b9ba1a705077be4fd14f0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure if I'm just being stupid, but having a majority that is angry about their vote not winning doesn't make sense. (I know the chart is a joke, btw).
Or maybe it's because MI5 are changing votes...
#usepens
-
It does make sense, you are being stupid. ;)
-
Gibraltar are staying then
-
Gibraltar is part of my Constituency!
I also can't help but notice there won't be any results from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man?! Did the Remain campaign ever mention how they manage to survive outside the EU?
#IDidn'tVote - seriously, it only encourages them.
-
Sunderland are leaving
-
He's even got a map like on "the day today" for football
-
is there a running total somewhere that is easily seen?
-
Google helped
-
is there a running total somewhere that is easily seen?
Google search for "EU referendum results" gives a running total counter for me
-
Of only BBC or sky could have some sort of banner at the bottom of the screen with the totals on... [emoji106]
-
I'm not turning the TV on for such an important event FFS
Radio 4 obvs
-
I might just stay away and not come home. Fuck this shit.
-
Pound isn't worth shit anymore.
-
I know, I've got another 5 months of shit exchange rates before coming home and failing to find a job because no one will be hiring given the uncertainty in how everything will pan out.. Nice one 'leave' fucktards.
-
A brave new world
-
The only quantum of solace I can take from this is that in ten years time, when the much vaunted better trade deals fail to materialise, when the economy is smaller than it could have been, when Scotland has left the UK, when the troubles in NI have flared up again and when people realise the EU was not to blame for low wages, poor housing and public services and are blaming some other group of minorities; on that day, I will be able to tell Dense he was wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Better tell me online, I'll be living in France
-
If Alanis Morrisette reads UKB, that's what irony looks like.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm thoroughly depressed this morning, ugh. If anyone has anything that could cheer me up, let's hear it.
Wish I could be 16 again. I'm 27 now and the future just looks like a steaming pile of shit, honestly.
-
If Alanis Morrisette reads UKB, that's what irony looks like.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brilliant :) first thing that's made me laugh this morning...
-
Well the country has spoken. As Grubes put it on Facebook - I hope that in ten years time it's worth it.
That's not being glib - I think it's the wrong choice but it's what we have. I hope we make the best of it.
I might start looking at that Dacha by the Black Sea ;)
-
Totally gutted
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
fuck... when I went to bed the Guardian minute-by-minute was assuring me that Remain was winning....wake up and feel the nation's been dragged into purgatory due to unmerited self-importance and misguided nostalgia for days that never were
-
Arse fucked by old people. Goodbye EU. Goodbye Scotland.
And I'm glad we got our euros out already - the £ is crashing
-
I also can't help but notice there won't be any results from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man?!
The isle of man isn't in the e.u. so can't leave it. Separate country innit?
I think it's the wrong descision for the UK, but that's democracy for you.
-
Currently taking a mock TCF French language test for what will be a lengthy procedure to get nationality.
-
Arse fucked by old people
This...
Both my daughters (and all their mates) voted in and I worry about what this will mean for their futures. Also, I worry what it will do to their apathy levels and whether it will affect how/if they vote in future.
Properly gutted :(
-
At some point, if things go as predicted, I now have to explain to my kids why Grandma can't come to stay anymore...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The only quantum of solace I can take from this is that in ten years time, when the much vaunted better trade deals fail to materialise, when the economy is smaller than it could have been, when Scotland has left the UK, when the troubles in NI have flared up again and when people realise the EU was not to blame for low wages, poor housing and public services and are blaming some other group of minorities; on that day, I will be able to tell Dense he was wrong.
my hope is that, as we approach that situation, the people of Britain realize that there is no one else to blame and so start to take a bit of responsibility for themselves - you know, stop voting for party promising the lowest taxes and think about spending money on making the place better
-
does this mean that we don't need UKIP anymore?
result
-
The only quantum of solace I can take from this is that in ten years time, when the much vaunted better trade deals fail to materialise, when the economy is smaller than it could have been, when Scotland has left the UK, when the troubles in NI have flared up again and when people realise the EU was not to blame for low wages, poor housing and public services and are blaming some other group of minorities; on that day, I will be able to tell Dense he was wrong.
my hope is that, as we approach that situation, the people of Britain realize that there is no one else to blame and so start to take a bit of responsibility for themselves - you know, stop voting for party promising the lowest taxes and think about spending money on making the place better
Unfortunately, the worse things get the stronger the far right becomes. The pound and the economy tanking will only help scumbags like Farage gain more power. It's almost as if they've done it on purpose....... Oh.
-
Fucking bastards. Absolute fucking bastards.
-
At some point, if things go as predicted, I now have to explain to my kids why Grandma can't come to stay anymore...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why won't grandma be able to stay? Price hike on the flights?
-
Cameron's gone. (By October)
-
At some point, if things go as predicted, I now have to explain to my kids why Grandma can't come to stay anymore...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why won't grandma be able to stay? Price hike on the flights?
She's Romanian Dense. I was with their mother several years before Romania joined the union and it took months to arrange visas. If you were over 55 it was virtually impossible. Unless we negotiate a free movement treaty with EU, it seems likely that those days will return.
Of course, if we do negotiate such a treaty, then half the argument for leaving is negated...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The only quantum of solace I can take from this is that in ten years time, when the much vaunted better trade deals fail to materialise, when the economy is smaller than it could have been, when Scotland has left the UK, when the troubles in NI have flared up again and when people realise the EU was not to blame for low wages, poor housing and public services and are blaming some other group of minorities; on that day, I will be able to tell Dense he was wrong.
my hope is that, as we approach that situation, the people of Britain realize that there is no one else to blame and so start to take a bit of responsibility for themselves - you know, stop voting for party promising the lowest taxes and think about spending money on making the place better
You have two hopes on that one.
And one of them is Bob Hope.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Jesus! Cameron gone already!
And this is the second post on my timeline of this vein.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/8b4c41f056e3cc1da5a8d2db496edb4b.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Why couldn't Cameron and Osborne stick to PR and towel-folding where they couldn't do any damage? Was winning the general election worth promising (and losing) an EU referendum? How does their long-term economic plan look now?
-
Cameron's gone. (By October)
That's the way to do it.
Lead the country into a right mess and then walk away.
Cameron a man of principle.
The vote was a smoke screen for the political shenanigans that are now going to take place.
As I said last night spivs, tricksters the lot of them.
The politicos dont care one way or the other.
The main concern is their careers.
If there is a snap election then there is no need for UKIP, job done for them, so this must be seen as a positive.
-
Independance day? I hope at least one of you is plotting to shoot that Farage cunt.
-
Arse fucked by old people. Goodbye EU. Goodbye Scotland.
And I'm glad we got our euros out already - the £ is crashing
Yep.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/d7e4b980bbcd9b2a197d4fa0ce53acc4.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Arse fucked by old people. Goodbye EU. Goodbye Scotland.
And I'm glad we got our euros out already - the £ is crashing
Yep.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/d7e4b980bbcd9b2a197d4fa0ce53acc4.jpg)
And to invoke Alanis again - all those pensioners have just voted 20% off their pensions, and probably fucked their BTL investments. Time will tell....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cameron's gone. (By October)
Lead the country into a right mess and then walk away.
I have used the word "lead" in the loosest possible way here.
-
I think I may now have a better understanding of the leave side - I now know what it feels like to lose my country.
-
This whole thing is particularly galling as I'm sure it will transpire in coming months than the Torys won the 2015 general election with dodgy campaign spending (i.e. cheated).
People have noted that classic northern Labour areas all voted "out". Is this not straight out of the Thatcher playbook? Undermine Labour areas? Thatchers did it with pit closures, Cameron has done it with austerity cuts that have disproportionately hit northern working class areas and/or Labour voting demographics - the north (I believe norther local authorities had greater per-capita cuts than down south), lower-end earners, the public sector, the disabled. Then opportunistic vultures like Farage have come in with the narrative that it's all the immigrants' fault. It's an easy narrative to sell, as we saw in 1930s Germany.
The Tory-LibDem coalition years are looking pretty fucking rosy now. Come back Cleggy.
-
I know what you mean Dave I think all the leave voters in the east west and south must have gone under the radar. Classic Thatcher
-
Was I even talking about the east west and south?
-
The economy has tanked and people are driving around Westminster sounding their horns in celebration.
The zombified, brainless cunts who have "taken their country back" are about to find out that, without the strength of unity, its a pretty shit place to be.
-
Let's hope they have a parachute....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WmPJKbXqUFJopM2yX8OxqhKpzJzCPCS2NcJcJGdW4KvoXo0xX8eMbyuwzxPvT9c3UYCzJQ3b9OvIMRLVMvPvikPvXXqqO-DvrE7oS-4gf6E-ESg7-ND0qjZfSI9KAbHbDrashTqCNBeIBeAVYyz093GelS6TAFBE3dOOXaqL5wZCSVFjQ8zlFZ0CAapzGtJn7jXwvjzan5sNEWaiKrTIpMl8i3jTw6vdtUd3oDAzB1y6forBBcVVtijwDxx7Ocu1fg-6dbmlDohU6W_RkRw3TIETzrjEd7T0zPw35NDcq9dBL1HTq3hTWnkK2OAPiRfcbYH9jNa8LAv6GqKxRm4LnnvPgNJI7WRikwax1g-kYgz3WFXa56anmr0OTImPgke-96TKhmQljAm5fR72iZDtIU99Vxhlf2a-qdoALRNFVdVxqDcEo_IOWzBNa-EeQQ1TJxmRdahiHaetIu1JqLDz0rlLtKCGlhlL2BmP5YDwOePudmNSSkY0EYW29B1qapWRWZJp3oxn6DnZQGr9x-EiMnZJGRsLIaXOaqnjnnq-4WwgaUM6YLfOyCrSBMkK4vAdF6lhGDney9oPqt_zKBoH4g1Z1Pvf0pM=w627-h356-no)
-
time for Londoners to find out what it feels like to have your opinion ignored
-
Says it all really
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/EE5A/production/_90081016_0afd9a63-812b-4314-98bb-beadbe55ab2c.jpg)
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/A03A/production/_90081014_033315538-1.jpg)
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/3EEC/production/_90080161_88dd6d77-9eb7-4be6-907e-eaa3ff6dfb47.jpg)
-
:wavecry:
-
The economy has tanked and people are driving around Westminster sounding their horns in celebration.
The zombified, brainless cunts who have "taken their country back" are about to find out that, without the strength of unity, its a pretty shit place to be.
As much as I'm gutted at the result, markets always over react and then settle over time. The economy hasn't tanked yet, lets see how it plays out.
Also, half the country are "zombified, brainless cunts"? It's rhetoric like this that alienated people in the first place.
-
I, for one, would like to welcome our new far-right overlords.
-
Surprise eh. Very divisive. Old vs Young. London vs Rump of England. Scotland vs Rump of England. Northern Ireland vs Rump of England. Oh yes and UK vs EU.
:popcorn:
-
The zombified, brainless cunts who have "taken their country back"
Nice
-
That would be the working classes, no?
Sunderland was the early tipping point .
The Professor on Radio 4 said " If I were not on the radio I'd be at home throwing wads of money at a Leave win"
-
The server has currently crashed. However once the flood has eased, this is probably worth looking at.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Very sad news. Germany will be even more powerful now.
Plus, in a few years Sheffield climbers will need a passport to go to Parisella and LPT, Doylo will never leave NW but we all know it would have happened anyway, and Crouch won't even notice the difference, walking the ten minutes from his house to the Cave. Dave McLeod will never repeat Pilgrimage because he won't get the long-stay visa, and you all will stop going around Euro crags ticking cheap grades. British climbing standards will fall, and you will cry. Hubble will be your only proudness left.
Seriously guys, I am gutted: seeing the reactions of Italian politicians, I think going out was a mistake. When Salvini, who is an idiot and an analphabet, is happy, you're in big trouble.
It's been good so far.
-
All the world moron racist nut job cockwombles are congratulating GREAT Britain this morning.
We are not great. The majority of the population are thick. This should never have been put to a referendum.
I'm fucking pissed.
Where's my French passport
-
Surprise eh. Very divisive. Old vs Young. London vs Rump of England. Scotland vs Rump of England. Northern Ireland vs Rump of England. Oh yes and UK vs EU.
:popcorn:
All I want is Shark vs The Oak
-
Surprise eh. Very divisive. Old vs Young. London vs Rump of England. Scotland vs Rump of England. Northern Ireland vs Rump of England. Oh yes and UK vs EU.
:popcorn:
Not sure :popcorn: is the appropriate response here Shark... NI vs England has a particularly nasty recent history.
Still - some fucker hedge funds will have coined it in...
Some may be celebrating Cameron out - but to me he's the lesser of all the Tory leadership (and thus coronated PM) candidates. We won't be getting a general election - and no other party is capable of winning it at the moment.
Anyway. I'm off to a Rubicon if anyone fancies it. Futile attempts on peak lime seems somewhat appropriate today :)
-
Very sad news. Germany will be even more powerful now.
Plus, in a few years Sheffield climbers will need a passport to go to Parisella and LPT, Doylo will never leave NW but we all know it would have happened anyway, and Crouch won't even notice the difference, walking the ten minutes from his house to the Cave. Dave McLeod will never repeat Pilgrimage because he won't get the long-stay visa, and you all will stop going around Euro crags ticking cheap grades. British climbing standards will fall, and you will cry. Hubble will be your only proudness left.
Seriously guys, I am gutted: seeing the reactions of Italian politicians, I think going out was a mistake. When Salvini, who is an idiot and an analphabet, is happy, you're in big trouble.
It's been good so far.
+ 0.8
(Sorry it's because of the exchange rate these days)
:no:
-
Very sad indeed.
And of course, not for financial reasons.
You can have a whole one really Lore.
:'(
-
Damn, that was quick.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3658031/Spain-demands-shared-sovereignty-GIBRALTAR-95-9-voted-remain-EU.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Butterfly effect.
The consequences of this vote will develop for decades and will change the world. It's the end of an era.
-
Very sad news. Germany will be even more powerful now.
Plus, in a few years Sheffield climbers will need a passport to go to Parisella and LPT, Doylo will never leave NW but we all know it would have happened anyway, and Crouch won't even notice the difference, walking the ten minutes from his house to the Cave. Dave McLeod will never repeat Pilgrimage because he won't get the long-stay visa, and you all will stop going around Euro crags ticking cheap grades. British climbing standards will fall, and you will cry. Hubble will be your only proudness left.
Seriously guys, I am gutted: seeing the reactions of Italian politicians, I think going out was a mistake. When Salvini, who is an idiot and an analphabet, is happy, you're in big trouble.
It's been good so far.
+ 0.8
(Sorry it's because of the exchange rate these days)
:no:
Never mind all that, what's all this done to the UKB Fuckall to £ sterling exchange rate?
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/746289865298444288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Bye bye UK
-
Lot of anger out there.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-cyclists-block-car-brexit-campaigner-boris-johnson
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I just came out of Natwest, doing the weekly bank; loud, heated discussion going on between a customer and the manager. Natwest have suspended currency exchange until further notice.
Think the poor sod was off on his hols tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd bet that he was hoping for a remain result and the pound would have given him a few extra euros for his holiday.
-
Interesting times ahead.
In the immediate short-term:
...
Source (https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eur/5082-pound-to-euro-exchange-rate-3434)
UBS: Pound to Dollar Rate Unlikely to Fall Below 1.30
UBS have briefed clients with their view on the outlook for sterling noting that there is a floor.
"We expect to see significant volatility in currencies and equities until a greater understanding of the consequences of the UK's decision is gained. In our view, it is reasonable to expect that sterling will settle in the mid 1.30s level against the US dollar until some clarity emerges. Beyond this level, we would note that sterling would be significantly undervalued and markets would probably be reluctant to sell," says Dean Turner at UBS.
Pound Steadier post-Carney
It appears Carney's appearance has aided a recovery in sterling.
At 1.2482 the GBP/EUR is actually not too far below the mid-June lows.
We are still some way above the February lows in the late 1.23s.
Germany's Commerzbank: Markets Will Recover
Commerzbank's chief economist:, Dr Jörg Krämer strikes a positive tone concerning the outlook:
"Markets already reacted strongly today, but not panicky. They could recover again in the medium term, as in our view an amicable divorce with a continued British membership in the single market is the more likely scenario. We also show that the negative impact on the UK real economy will be smaller than in past crises."
Where Next for the Pound v Euro?
Some points to consider:
UBS forecast GBP/EUR at parity
NAB's Parsons forecast GBP/EUR above 1.44 within days of Brexit. The battle of the analysts begin.
Nordea see 1.22 for GBP/EUR as an immediate target.
...
So that's clear then... it's wait and see.
-
Can't find the full text yet and won't watch that again, but did Boris just start back-pedalling?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And again?
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/aa61db4d393bc9cb2fad0507b0c32ef5.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Apols for links!
FTSE 100 today:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4OsNujFYzu_CdREk91zoiMEkNHIL7FBipxBeFJV1cdjNcj7dddBL0Rjq3g17MdqYmx81FfiLq3OMOThyINUEdztsJfDJ0NvIOJgxWY2fxEOrw425zEPS_CuYGTHc63GzJVXKTFCKvIPoY1H_7utM4Gssna0oO38xFqsFjSrycs2Rd0Q7czgZ3CETlu1w0CauCC-46oT1h7Rk5Kznby8w6jx-0uQI6BPvzNz35vHGE8Sx-kNGRE2InwKv5_hMZlK8TQaswvBt0Ui7oxcWOnGc85fjJzFeHK5_5Jts3ikfwGoeJ7oPyuxLtKEQu9lEQC2R9GllgUowcJU_kfS0ZBmqdqSE8zufA9iENnTJLLL_MfdZuXVFoaUq9ftvdRyRlP41rkFRWFM0p-_60ANoHxtNKxojacxfV1FcAVDQg6Pn_XtgzZ0VGV7t6nFvbCHqqN8Z7lBPvDhgw1oAJ9lorZorogDiM52iRP9DRFn19yL7ECR-tWEjFBXMMKd1XZEdl9Yf5pYpVCK5hHzFejnON4R_b6nD-U0nWNSS5Oj4nDgAUey-ABeuBUHUwOeRvQz8sFZmKdJTAl3xl8ddaAM4zeEwEUh5kTyTjZc=w600-h460-no)
3 years:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YNBjPg3RDOlQgZzXTBnSPv3eXhkE8We4wBFDyJY7Jwk6oyj-SdnYpK_qcZ-9sQ21lhiGKDmEcvZU0IDGH5Mlj2OEWY5T0vCLNQvgoLO6f3ij7ERtehg6MghPQAUzomePdmC9Fz5-FFhpqFZ8sZHfB0N5ojPD8DBKm6jUNixy_71Oiiv3O0tu5Vb_gMBlFHKQQRNudzMlM9HE4qXov40-cPSXpyunJIP8mqkTxPcddxLhdiPcGW6ruapj6fIFgxyRiKGeCxId0bGRjtfF21NZ6qrHKdqSsXv05ve818xXOdsVwAzB9148X7QJgn5mtBfgzT_wkPsbxZBZ6eGa0sO682abO5vNbEExZs2PL4vm2iYf5BtY36ak58yeabeAC-rI_SS8oz0sDz3h08sr-9zCr6gTy4vlPcDrhsFEdAbQ2KIVTu5ntWxJlEFhaRmXS6HOM5iyUnJTbP1vsoh6lBUafwcOdAjzePvhmHyMhq3NWaN7ijW05IR45YJ-GZEA5limOnX61QuNl-58LkPp5WPXBCtk2a7y6EUemrHC5d8rdmGwmMIQXhB5Sd3_meMxcfxc57F1si_N4dxpc6j7ieLH1hIjTmDGsU4=w600-h460-no)
It's hardly armageddon in the markets. The media are trying to make it sound Very Bad, as media are prone to do. A headline reporting 'Markets drop as much as 8%' is obsolete the minute it's released. The ftse100 is currently 3.5% down. The only meaningful indicator is where the market ends up at the end of today, end of next week, next month, next year, in 5 years and so on.
-
Harrogate is a 'blue rinse' conservative dominated town, I'd expect it to be firmly in the leave camp.
Interesting to note that Harrogate was one of three authorities in Yorkshire and Humber that returned a Remain majority.
-
FTSE 100 is mostly international companies, so not the best place to look to see how the market thinks this will affect the UK economy. Not that anyone really has a clue...
-
Maybe we can do it all again!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
-
As much as I might find the result dissatisfactory, the idea that we can just start again because a (slim) minority didn't like what a (slim) majority voted for is so un-democratic as to be unthinkable. I can't believe people are signing that petition.
The best that can be done now is to vigorously hold those responsible to account as they go about trying to piece the country back together.
-
Amen...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7376/27800315561_76c65f4fc1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JmBTgx) (https://flic.kr/p/JmBTgx)
-
Amen...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7376/27800315561_76c65f4fc1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JmBTgx)
(https://flic.kr/p/JmBTgx)
Agree.
Shame it doesn't fucking exist.
-
As much as I might find the result dissatisfactory, the idea that we can just start again because a (slim) minority didn't like what a (slim) majority voted for is so un-democratic as to be unthinkable. I can't believe people are signing that petition.
The best that can be done now is to vigorously hold those responsible to account as they go about trying to piece the country back together.
If this was the other way round 4% would certainly not put the debate to bed for the eurosceptics.
25% of people didn't even vote so only a minority have voted to leave. Given that this such a fundamental a permanent change then a clear majority should be needed as it was in the Scottish referendum.
The UK is made up of 4 countries two of which had a clear majority to remain and the other two with a small majority to leave.
Also why were commonwealth citizens eligible to vote but yet not EU nationals living in the UK?
A lot of this that isn't particularly democratic in my opinion. The whole thing was a bad mistake by the government.
-
It was a high turnout and more people voted to leave than to stay in. I really don't see your problem with this if you believe in democracy. Yes you may have issues with what you think is going to happen, but that's not going to change something where every vote counted, no elaborate nonsense how your vote is going to be offset with other areas. One person one vote. Every vote counts. More people wanted out.
Why would an eu national get to vote on the uk leaving the eu?
-
Compare and contrast the figures for the NUT strike ballot 91.7 % of a 25% turnout.
-
Its wrong to compare general elections to referendums - as different voting methods (ie tactical) are used with our first past the post system. But, bear with me -
in terms of large general election turnouts in recent times...
1992, John Major - Tories won 14 million votes
1997, Tony Blair - Labour won 13.5 million votes
Last night - Leave won 17.5 million votes
So talking about the mandate - e.g. number of people voting for one thing, I think its the biggest vote for any one thing in the UK's history (please correct me if I'm wrong, I've only done a bit of research). So whether or not its over 50% of the voting population, its a huge mandate, from 72% of those that could vote (a big turnout for modern times).
So whilst I find the result completely unsavoury (being polite) and think its a very very bad mistake - it's one we should stand by and we need to move forward. Get it done fast. Move on.
-
I understand your disappointment Roddersm but your argument's going nowhere. For starters, the 25% who didn't vote - they don't count. Literally. Their voices don't count for anything in this issue (except for the tiny percentage unable to vote through sickness/ natural disaster etc.). Additionally no side can claim a voiceless 25% speak for them exclusively.
A linked point (not yours Roddersm I know) is the issue of young voters. The media is reporting howls of protest from young people (18-25) claiming 'not in my name'...
Young people 18-25 have consistently returned the lowest turnout in every recent election and referendum. To put it in context it's highly likely the turnout for 18-24 year-olds in this referendum will be in the mid 50%; compared to high 70% for older voters. That's well worth considering when a student is complaining that they've been disenfranchised. As an overall age group they've got what they put in, a life lesson there if ever there was one.
I agree with the obvious conclusion - voting should be compulsory to avoid these sorts of grumbles.
-
Idiots (https://amp.twimg.com/v/7b0bb47f-6655-435a-8906-99529534de58) :jaw:
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
-
I agree with the obvious conclusion - voting should be compulsory to avoid these sorts of grumbles.
This.
I would add, however, that it should always have required a super-majority (or at least 60%) for a leave. Just too big a question for one half of the country to tell the other half 'suck it'.
-
The funny thing is that holidays to Benidorm will now be more expensive.
-
(http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Ill-vs-Good.jpg)
-
:lol: Or in other words a stereotypical 70 year-old in graph form.
I don't fit that mold in any of the categories.
-
Stereotypical contrarian then ;)
-
I understand your disappointment Roddersm but your argument's going nowhere. For starters, the 25% who didn't vote - they don't count. Literally. Their voices don't count for anything in this issue (except for the tiny percentage unable to vote through sickness/ natural disaster etc.). Additionally no side can claim a voiceless 25% speak for them exclusively.
A linked point (not yours Roddersm I know) is the issue of young voters. The media is reporting howls of protest from young people (18-25) claiming 'not in my name'...
Young people 18-25 have consistently returned the lowest turnout in every recent election and referendum. To put it in context it's highly likely the turnout for 18-24 year-olds in this referendum will be in the mid 50%; compared to high 70% for older voters. That's well worth considering when a student is complaining that they've been disenfranchised. As an overall age group they've got what they put in, a life lesson there if ever there was one.
I agree with the obvious conclusion - voting should be compulsory to avoid these sorts of grumbles.
Possibly the first time on this thread. I agree with everything you wrote there.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
:lol: Or in other words a stereotypical 70 year-old in graph form.
I don't fit that mold in any of the categories.
Oh come on!
We all know how you hate the interweb thingy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The Internet? Someone thinks the Internet is a force for ill?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Aside from the arguments to and fro, and the result - which I don't think is as surprising as some, how do folk feel about this?
Personally, I've never felt so completely - not sure I can find the words - floored?, by a political decision.
It's too easy to look for reasons and causes, blame? How does how you feel about this, change what you think you can do?
Bit of an open question, and one that - despite my own feelings - hopefully doesn't read as targeted one way or the other.
-
You know the feeling you had when you first jumped off Connor cove? The split second after you took off and thought "oh fuck, what have we done".
That's how I feel. Scared, uncertain and a tiny bit excited.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As an overall age group they've got what they put in, a life lesson there if ever there was one.
I agree with the obvious conclusion - voting should be compulsory to avoid these sorts of grumbles.
Possibly the first time on this thread. I agree with everything you wrote there.
Those who have a strong opinion on a matter but can't be arsed to vote on it get what they deserve.
Compulsory voting would be a blatant violation of basic liberties, completely unenforceable and only even faintly acceptable as a concept if every ballot included an explicit "fuck 'em all / I don't care" option.
-
I've never felt English.
Might sound daft, but born in Devon and raised from 5 in Cornwall, amongst my mothers Cornish family; "England" meant "Home counties" and we were the forgotten. The unheard.
It changed when I joined the Navy and my world view shifted.
But, there has been a lot of shit hurled (if you didn't see it, great) and I have unfriended old school friends on Farcebuck; who posted rank racist shit (predominantly about East Europeans) that cut me to the quick. Remember my kids are half Romanian and I know those people well.
Even had school parents telling me how great it would be without the foreigners in the school (all 12 out of 300), unaware that my kids are those foreigners.
I worry about the rise of the right, the new-found confidence of the idiots.
I, frankly, fear a lurch to the right.
My erstwhile Countymen, are of course a complete bunch of dicks:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html
And to them I have to say...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/d0899a2ea9b8bc2a8502d7549c22f53f.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Aside from the arguments to and fro, and the result - which I don't think is as surprising as some, how do folk feel about this?
Personally, I've never felt so completely - not sure I can find the words - floored?, by a political decision.
It's too easy to look for reasons and causes, blame? How does how you feel about this, change what you think you can do?
Bit of an open question, and one that - despite my own feelings - hopefully doesn't read as targeted one way or the other.
I feel hope that people can make the most of an opportunity to build something good and special for the right reasons. Mixed with fear and a degree of skepticism that people will fuck it up for the wrong reasons.
Excitement. Surprise. A tiny bit of schadenfreude toward some imagined establishment perhaps, but only fleeting.
Mostly hope and optimism - that 20 years from now the country will be more socially equal, more dynamic across the spectrum of people, less heavily divided by wealth. I'm not dumb enough to think the blame for all these ills lies at the EU's door, I think this result is better understood as a glaring symptom of a more fundamental ill today. That is you can't progress too far ahead by leaving half your people behind.
-
Mostly hope and optimism - that 20 years from now the country will be more socially equal, [....], less heavily divided by wealth.
Seriously? That's what you think? How?
-
Mostly hope and optimism - that 20 years from now the country will be more socially equal, [....], less heavily divided by wealth.
Seriously? That's what you think? How?
Go on Pete. What's the plan? How's that going to happen?
-
Pete, you are completely barking.
-
I feel ashamed of my country today, and scared of an ever increasing chance of a near future with boris, trump and le pen at the helm.
I also don't think it is as simple as saying the young reap what they sow with a lower turnout, as we should be asking the reasons for their disenfranchisement.
-
Compulsory voting would be a blatant violation of basic liberties, completely unenforceable and only even faintly acceptable as a concept if every ballot included an explicit "fuck 'em all / I don't care" option.
Australia has it don't they, how do they manage it?
-
Compulsory voting would be a blatant violation of basic liberties, completely unenforceable and only even faintly acceptable as a concept if every ballot included an explicit "fuck 'em all / I don't care" option.
Australia has it don't they, how do they manage it?
50 lashes or eat a bowl of raw Kangaroo sphincter s.
-
Yes Australia does have compulsory voting. You get a fine if you don't.
Still don't get 100% turn out though.
-
Belgium as well.
-
How is compulsory voting a violation of human rights and yet (I'm guessing) you don't protest compulsory Jury service? Compulsory school attendance?
Anything, essentially, you may be compelled, by Government/Society/Law to do against your will?
Actually, as an aside, I always quite liked the concept of earning Franchise through service (not necessarily military, say, nursing, policing, CPS etc etc).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes Australia does have compulsory voting. You get a fine if you don't.
Still don't get 100% turn out though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/07/proposal-to-give-australian-voters-burgers-coffee-for-voting-in/
-
Actually, as an aside, I always quite liked the concept of earning Franchise through service (not necessarily military, say, nursing, policing, CPS etc etc).
yeah - I like this idea
maybe an exam as well
-
Aside from the arguments to and fro, and the result - which I don't think is as surprising as some, how do folk feel about this?
Personally, I've never felt so completely - not sure I can find the words - floored?, by a political decision.
It's too easy to look for reasons and causes, blame? How does how you feel about this, change what you think you can do?
Bit of an open question, and one that - despite my own feelings - hopefully doesn't read as targeted one way or the other.
I feel hope that people can make the most of an opportunity to build something good and special for the right reasons. Mixed with fear and a degree of skepticism that people will fuck it up for the wrong reasons.
Excitement. Surprise. A tiny bit of schadenfreude toward some imagined establishment perhaps, but only fleeting.
Mostly hope and optimism - that 20 years from now the country will be more socially equal, more dynamic across the spectrum of people, less heavily divided by wealth. I'm not dumb enough to think the blame for all these ills lies at the EU's door, I think this result is better understood as a glaring symptom of a more fundamental ill today. That is you can't progress too far ahead by leaving half your people behind.
Good points Pete, but I fear they don't reflect the motivations of the majority of the Leave vote - just my assumption.
I saw this in a local window the other day:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7306/27603518550_3b21d55b6b_b.jpg)
It reads:
"If the leave campaign was about how Britain could contribute more to the world if it left the EU then I'd be interested.
But it's not. It's about how Britain can give less and take more from the world - and how it can keep the rest of the world out.
Come on Britain - we're better than that."
-
Why should we have compulsory voting? I don't normally vote, I've really not much interest in who leads the country for 4 or maybe 8 yrs, they're just horses of a different colour to me. However this vote was different, you had a voice whether to stay in Europe or leave, that simple. I don't want to be in Europe so voted for leaving, so my vote here actually meant something to me. If others didn't feel as strongly about their vote and didn't vote that's up to them.
-
Why should we have compulsory voting? I don't normally vote, I've really not much interest in who leads the country for 4 or maybe 8 yrs, they're just horses of a different colour to me. However this vote was different, you had a voice whether to stay in Europe or leave, that simple. I don't want to be in Europe so voted for leaving, so my vote here actually meant something to me. If others didn't feel as strongly about their vote and didn't vote that's up to them.
That's very open and honest.
If the campaigning had been less divisive, we may have ended up with a different result. As has been raised elsewhere, the vote has possibly been a reflection of how misrepresented many people feel.
Sometimes open expression of opinion is better than claims to the truth of various whys and wherefores - the celebration of differences, resulting in better relations - and that is what I'd seen our place at the table in Europe as being about. Perhaps I over-estimate the opportunity lost in that regard.
:(
-
How is compulsory voting a violation of human rights
You can't morally compel people to express an opinion they do not hold. Without the "fuck 'em all" option, you are effectively compelling people to state that they believe one of the candidates is a fit and competent choice. And if they don't?
-
The biggest disappointment to me was summarised by an FT article FD posted on FB (sorry :) ).
It described this as the first post factual campaign. When facts came up against myths - myths won every time. Eg the £350 mill a day on the bus that was shown time and time again to be (to be blunt) a lie- but people believed Boris and Gove instead of the fecking facts! Never before have I seen so many people be convinced that what the Brexit politicians said was true - when on many times it was baseless. Made up. Fabricated. Gove said 'we've heard from enough experts' and people seemed to agree. Why? It's nuts.
Facts and knowledge obviously don't matter any more. Bumbling charm and a mop of scruffy blonde hair seem to be more convincing than a room full of experts.
Those who believed the lies they were being fed by the leave campaign - may well end up suffering the most. Maybe in 5 years time when we're picking over the bones of what went wrong this will be exposed in the same way as the Iraq war lies have. Though it's not like we've been conned - people have just been fucking stupid enough to believe the shot.
-
Its nothing new, don't be so naive.
Hitler was full of shit. Everyone knew he was full of shit. He was full of shit in a charismatic and convincing way and the NSDAP became the largest party in the Reichstag.
-
Its nothing new, don't be so naive.
Hitler was full of shit. Everyone knew he was full of shit. He was full of shit in a charismatic and convincing way and the NSDAP became the largest party in the Reichstag.
I'm not being naive. And it's new in the context of an open and free world (mostly) where we have access to uncensored information. We even have laws to ensure we can get information.
I'll now patronise you as you called me naive :p
When Hitler came to power there was no tv. No global tv. No internet. The only sources of media were state radio, cinema and newspapers (at the control of the state of need be). We are in a completely different age where near anyone can check a fact in 5 seconds on a smartphone. People have an incredible access to information that they've never had. It's enabled things like the Arab Spring (showing that information cannot be hidden anymore).
-
Harrogate is a 'blue rinse' conservative dominated town, I'd expect it to be firmly in the leave camp.
Interesting to note that Harrogate was one of three authorities in Yorkshire and Humber that returned a Remain majority.
I was clearly very wrong... sincere apologies to the model citizens of Harrogate (note to self: don't regard bad experiences in what must be tourist tea shops as typical of a town). Please feel free to extract maximum fun at my expense in any future meets.
I am particualrly depressed with the age range and educational attainment range on the vote (r4 news this am had 72% of grads voted remain). Plus, has anyone got an audio clip of that mad old bloke on the radio 2 news this am crying because our soldiers now won't have to fight under the germans (what a welcome back to britain!)
-
Tomtom- You could argue we have an overabundance of information, much of it claiming factuality. Nobody can possibly have the time to properly check the facts on everything, so they go for lower effort alternatives such as believing the opinions of people or organisations they think share their interests.
Check your own facebook feed if you doubt the power of confirmation bias. Mine is full of people preaching to the converted. How much of that is me being friends with the like-minded and how much is the product of an algorithem I don't know.
The huge volume of competing info more than anything acts to keep people rooted in their existing biases. Whatever you want to think, there's an article out there somewhere telling you are right and quoting a whole load of 'facts' to back it up.
-
Yup. True. Esp a factor in the Us where the tv news doesn't have to be neutral. Leading to Fox News etc..generating its viewers based on beliefs that can be self perpetuated etc.
But we have access - incredibly good access to a broad range of information. So we can find out about things if we want to. Leave were in some ways clever by never having a plan for how to leave - so no one could fact check it etc...
Social media is very self selecting/reek forcing in terms of what you see - but it's easy to find info in other views.
Here I think it's an age thing - and maybe reflect s the vote leave/remain age factors. Younger people - more tech savvy - but more importantly grown up in an age where they are used to taking in vast amounts of info from disparate sources - sorting the wheat from the chaff - then snapchatting it ;)
10 years ago we had to teach our students about the dangers of getting wrong info for the web. Now there's no need - they've been filtering good from bad from the age of - I dunno 8 or more...long winded answer sorry. Rambling and Time for bed for me - not enough sleep last night.
-
(And loads of typo's - sorry dave)
-
I've never felt English.
Might sound daft, but born in Devon and raised from 5 in Cornwall, amongst my mothers Cornish family; "England" meant "Home counties" and we were the forgotten. The unheard.
It changed when I joined the Navy and my world view shifted.
But, there has been a lot of shit hurled (if you didn't see it, great) and I have unfriended old school friends on Farcebuck; who posted rank racist shit (predominantly about East Europeans) that cut me to the quick. Remember my kids are half Romanian and I know those people well.
Even had school parents telling me how great it would be without the foreigners in the school (all 12 out of 300), unaware that my kids are those foreigners.
I worry about the rise of the right, the new-found confidence of the idiots.
I, frankly, fear a lurch to the right.
My erstwhile Countymen, are of course a complete bunch of dicks:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html
And to them I have to say...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/d0899a2ea9b8bc2a8502d7549c22f53f.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was born and raised in Cornwall too, and I've never felt English am not English. Now, I'm sure many may find that hard to understand but identity is a peculiar thing.
We are very remote from those that govern us here and that's the main reason I did not vote on Thursday. Brussels is a damn sight more autocratic than Westminster but I really couldn't see the point in choosing between these two distant, undemocratic (to a greater or lesser degree), unrepresentative institutions - both of which know sweet FA about the needs and concerns of Cornwall and care even less. I knew there were people in this world whose lives would be more directly effected by the result than mine; I was happy to let them decide.
Now I'm sorry to hear about your experience at the school gate, bigotry is a terrible thing. We should unite against racism, bigotry and intolerance where ever it's found. It's not too hard to see how such views could, perhaps, have been shaped by the media repeatedly highlighting cases of criminals coming to this country from elsewhere even though any sensible person would know the acts, deeds or opinions of individuals do not represent the countries, peoples or places from which those individuals come.
I find generalizations are best avoided in such instances.
What most depresses me about today is seeing so many comments from the enlightened remain voters dismissing all the leavers as being motivated by racism, uneducated or thick. Perhaps it's better to be tolerant of people who express opinions that might contradict one's own, and try to understand them, rather than let the disagreement ferment hate.
While I understand your disappointment at the result I'd ask you to think twice before dismissing the Cornish as 'idiots' or 'complete dicks' just because 56.6% of them in Cornwall and 43.6% of Scilly expressed a view that didn't match your own. We should unite against bigotry where ever it's found.
I hope it goes without saying that I found the first part of your post quite at odds with the second.
Anyone fearing that the Referendum result was a lurch to the right might like to look into why so many of the working class, Socialists, Communists and Trade Unionists voted to leave...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kuJhkMLWs
Leave campaigner George Galloway: "There is nothing left-wing about unlimited mass immigration. It decapitates the countries from [which] the immigrants leave, and drives down wages in those where they arrive. The wealthy benefit from it, as they can afford cheap labor for their companies, or cheap au-pairs, cheap baristas, cheap plumbers. But the working class suffers. Likewise, there is nothing left-wing about what is effectively a “whites only” immigration policy.
"As it stands the entire population of Romania could move here if it wished to do so, overnight, yet our brothers and sisters from the Commonwealth, with whom we share so much and to whom we owe so much, have to jump through hoops of fire, rendering it virtually impossible for a Jamaican husband, an Indian son or a Pakistani sister, to get a Visa for their respective wife, mother or brother, even to visit. I have nothing against the people of Romania, in fact I like Romanians, and I believe I am the only British politician to have a book published in Romanian. But this, clearly, is grotesquely unfair and unsustainable."
-
This is a more than fair point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Things are moving fast:
http://news.sky.com/story/1717150/germany-warns-of-brexit-domino-effect
Associate membership?
WTF?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Oh, and I'm not the only one from Wadebridge that's amused by my brethren's thought processes...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160624/5d27553b0757cfa580a5460db40135a1.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
We are very remote from those that govern us here and that's the main reason I did not vote on Thursday.
Can I ask, did you vote in the AV referendum?
-
Its nothing new, don't be so naive.
Hitler was full of shit. Everyone knew he was full of shit. He was full of shit in a charismatic and convincing way and the NSDAP became the largest party in the Reichstag.
Off topic. Did you study history on the back of a pack of chips? I highly suggest that you read something more accurate, to prevent appearing a fool once again.
"Life and death in the Third Reich" by Peter Fritzsche could be a good start.
End of off topic.
-
I didn't Vote in the AV Referendum and, to be honest, forgot we had even had one. As it turned out my vote wouldn't have swung it! In Cornwall it was overshadowed by a boundary commission review recommending a cross-Tamar constituency so the whole process was not so welcome here.
No electoral system is entirely fair but, given the right circumstances and candidate, first past the post can lead to progressive parties securing seat(s) - Green MP Caroline Lucas being a good example. The main problem is the smaller parties can rarely compete with the big-spending campaigns of Con/Lib/Lab.
-
As it turned out my vote wouldn't have swung it
Said you and the other 28% of the population
-
Re the Lexit movie.
I'm not much swayed by arguments that attempt to appeal to the "true nature" of things.
Neither did I think of the vote as a binary choice of "Left vs Right" or "Society vs The Market".
The outcome may be binary, but the choice was a matter of interpretation - i.e. not between right versus wrong in and of itself. It's difficult to stand for what you believe in, on two paths at the same time. I feel that there were those who voted to support what they believed, and those who voted for the apparently most convenient option. I hate the thought of a second referendum, just so that those who might think they made a mistake can vote "in", just because it may now appear the better option financially.
Anyway, shouldn't we be arguing over whether it's "little britain" or "Little Britain"? ;)
-
As it turned out my vote wouldn't have swung it
Said you and the other 28% of the population
My comment was re. the AV Referendum where 57.8% of the electorate decided not to vote.
-
Re the Lexit movie.
I'm not much swayed by arguments that attempt to appeal to the "true nature" of things.
Neither did I think of the vote as a binary choice of "Left vs Right" or "Society vs The Market".
I wasn't swayed enough by them either, certainly not to take it to the ballot box, but it does help explain why some of the old Labour heartlands went the way they did. I don't generally like to think in terms of Left and Right, but it's how the Referendum has been packaged and it's clear to me that there were reasonable arguments either way from across the political spectrum (although it must be said there seems to have been near-unanimity that the EU needs reform).
Had the cross-party Grassroots Out campaign become the official one I think perceptions of what the Referendum was about, and how things were conducted, may have been quite different. Instead the BBC's coverage seemed to focus on the inter-Tory bunfight liberally spattered with Farrage.
Ultimately, I favour de-centralisation and people's right to self-determination. Law makers need to be close to the people the laws effect and politicians close to those they serve - both in the geographical and cultural sense. An ever-expanding Federal Europe is the antitheses of this.
-
Re the Lexit movie.
I'm not much swayed by arguments that attempt to appeal to the "true nature" of things.
Neither did I think of the vote as a binary choice of "Left vs Right" or "Society vs The Market".
I wasn't swayed enough by them either, certainly not to take it to the ballot box, but it does help explain why some of the old Labour heartlands went the way they did. I don't generally like to think in terms of Left and Right, but it's how the Referendum has been packaged and it's clear to me that there were reasonable arguments either way from across the political spectrum (although it must be said there seems to have been near-unanimity that the EU needs reform).
Had the cross-party Grassroots Out campaign become the official one I think perceptions of what the Referendum was about, and how things were conducted, may have been quite different. Instead the BBC's coverage seemed to focus on the inter-Tory bunfight liberally spattered with Farrage.
Ultimately, I favour de-centralisation and people's right to self-determination. Law makers need to be close to the people the laws effect and politicians close to those they serve - both in the geographical and cultural sense. An ever-expanding Federal Europe is the antitheses of this.
Interesting points, but cornish pasties and clotted cream enjoy protected status under eu laws, so perhaps Brussels was more effective than Westminster.
At least anyone will be able to make and sell clotted cream and Cornish pasties soon; that won't impact on anyone in Cornwall I'm sure :D
-
Not to mention the ~£70 million a year that Cornwall received from the EU, I'm sure that our new government will be happy to match this...
-
This is like reading about guys pining for their ex's who fucked them off. It's time for a new woman I'm afraid
-
Stop calling me Dense. The answers still no ;)
And you know I don't like roses.
-
Its nothing new, don't be so naive.
Hitler was full of shit. Everyone knew he was full of shit. He was full of shit in a charismatic and convincing way and the NSDAP became the largest party in the Reichstag.
Off topic. Did you study history on the back of a pack of chips? I highly suggest that you read something more accurate, to prevent appearing a fool once again.
"Life and death in the Third Reich" by Peter Fritzsche could be a good start.
End of off topic.
The Forum software has informed me that Godwin's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) rule has been invoked.
Time for a new thread?
I like Dense's "Brave New World"
-
:lol:
By the way, do I need a passport to post here now?
-
Ultimately, I favour de-centralisation and people's right to self-determination. Law makers need to be close to the people the laws effect and politicians close to those they serve - both in the geographical and cultural sense. An ever-expanding Federal Europe is the antitheses of this.
+1
thank you for boiling this point down.
all partys in europe talk of reforming the e.u. whenever they talk of the problems , but it is very very hard to reform a "supra national" institution. so they don't.
can anyone explain why we should trust a system that can not fix itself? ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html)
"It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.
Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.
On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.
A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France."
now i don't think the majority of the leave voters had this in mind when they voted.
but i do think the majority of the leave voters felt that they were not represented in the e.u. and therefor did not want to be in the e.u..
they probably feel that they are not represented in westminster... they would probably vote to leave westmister if they could. or
-
:lol:
By the way, do I need a passport to post here now?
No that's not necessary but we have asked Lagers to put together a test.
He has two years to implement it.
-
No problema.
-
How about renaming the forum? ;)
-
Not to mention the ~£70 million a year that Cornwall received from the EU, I'm sure that our new government will be happy to match this...
The headline figures on Cornwall's Objective One funding can't be taken at face value - it's how it's spent, rather than how much it is, that is important. The Eden Project, Falmouth Maritime Museum, Newquay Airport, probably wouldn't exist without it, but these 'success stories' regularly seem to need money from Cornwall Council - at a time when essential services are being cut - to help prop them up. Other things like road infrastructure, more often than not, are just to open up areas of green field for large housing developments to be built by national corporations. The civil servants who allocate how the money is spent (and whose wages are paid through it) are based either in Bristol or London so Cornwall isn't allowed even to see the benefit of these jobs.
I don't put the blame for these problems at the door of the EU, far from it, they're a symptom of a centralised decision-making process that favours corporate business.
I don't know, what have people in west Wales gained from their EU funding? It's interesting to note that the areas that have received most from the EU in 'direct aid' terms voted out. Fundamentally it seems people can't be bought.
The Cornish pasty thing is more relevant but I don't think Ginsters will be re-locating to Portugal anytime soon. Under these rules anyone from anywhere can make or sell a Pasty or Clotted Cream, they just can't call it a 'Cornish Pasty' or 'Cornish Clotted Cream' without falling foul of EU law. It remains to be seen if this regulatory idea can withstand TTIP http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/geographical-indications-ttip-impossible-task
So tell me, are people in Sheffield anxious about the impending demise of the Yorkshire Pudding industry? Bakewell Tarts? (But I see these don't have protected status so you're just being bitter :ras: )
-
As a former Aberystwyth resident - Ceredigion was one of the two areas in Wales that voted remain.
The main indicators of in/out vote are clearly age, wealth and education (if you want to make any generalisations). What's clear is there is a big big difference between what different parts of society are thinking of this.
The number of people I know (and that includes here) saying 'I don't know anyone who votes out!' Is really high - part of that is due to social media leading to you being 'around' people of a similar view - but it also means there's a view apparently held by half the country that I -or my friends don't see or don't get. To me that's the biggest shocker of all this...
-
There is also the "retirement" vote issue in the SW as a whole. Skewed demographics leave (people who see themselves as) "real" locals under represented. Artificially high house prices (relative to local economies) driven up by retirement and second home purchases; certainly "feels" like it's driving the locals out. It is, for sure, a commonly expressed sentiment amongst those of long standing residence and has been as long as I've been able to listen.
There has also been some indication/suspicion around how representative local politicians have been, for many years. The practice of some second home owners of registering one or more family members to vote in the wards of their second home, for instance; causes some quite sarcastic comments around polling stations...
I notice the Welsh have refrained from taking the direct approach to the "Second home" issue, for some time. I assume however the sarcasm persists?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
As a former Aberystwyth resident - Ceredigion was one of the two areas in Wales that voted remain.
The main indicators of in/out vote are clearly age, wealth and education (if you want to make any generalisations). What's clear is there is a big big difference between what different parts of society are thinking of this.
The number of people I know (and that includes here) saying 'I don't know anyone who votes out!' Is really high - part of that is due to social media leading to you being 'around' people of a similar view - but it also means there's a view apparently held by half the country that I -or my friends don't see or don't get. To me that's the biggest shocker of all this...
Yes, amazing.
I'd been pretty complacent about the result. I think we have to be more respectful to those who won, and consider what we do from here. Encouraging better dialogue, rather than slinging mud from entrenched positions would surely be the best thing here. There's perhaps some "winning over" that the people can achieve, where the politicians failed (from one perspective of course). Better negotiations can start now; it's a way, isn't it, not a destination.
Still shell shocked.
Good posts by A Jooser, above.
-
yeah - I like this idea
maybe an exam as well
Oi! That was my idea you bastard.
-
Don't give up hope yet. This is far from over.....
https://next.ft.com/content/3073daed-7458-38ed-826b-5b6d1dc81dad
-
Oh and.....
https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/24/when-i-say-no-i-mean-maybe/
Had an idea before the result and judging by the reactions of Boris and Gove I'm now pretty convinced it's right (was discussing this with FD today on Twitter).
They never actually wanted Leave to win, they wanted a close win for Remain in order to weaken / unsettle Cameron and push their personal agendas for leadership. They are now shitting themselves as they didn't think this would actually happen and have no real plan for what to do next. Compare how they reacted to the braying halfwit Farage, they look at sound completely shellshocked. They're like the many idiots we've seen / heard about who voted Leave and then realised that they didn't actually want it to happen.
Because of this, it's definitely not too late for some massive backtracking. Especially as ALL of the promises of the Leave campaign have already been shown to be total lies (that cunt Hannan's desperation on Twitter is particularly amusing).
So yes, it's definitely a :popcorn: moment and will be for quite a while.
-
No it won't. It's over and if it's not over then nearly half the country will never vote or listen to a politician again. Which would obviously suit nearly everyone on here, however it can't happen for the sake of democracy. It doesn't matter if they have no plan, they'll need to come up with one and fast. Don't try the old they told us lies ploy please jasper you're better than that.
-
Well some people disagree.
Now the biggest YouGov petition ever.
And apparently there is some legal case for the "less than 75% turnout" argument, I'm told.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/06/will-there-be-second-eu-referendum-petition-passes-175-million-signatures
No Dense, I'm not saying it reflects my opinion...
It does look increasingly like we might not exactly leave though. Both Boris, Farage and Redwood have all intimated their interest in the German proposal. That proposal looks suspiciously similar to the "new deal" Cameron failed to get a few months ago (with added bells and whistles) and just the kind of thing that might pacify some of the other restive states.
Possibly and admission of "We grew too big too quickly"?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes the bit that said there will be no vote and it will have no legal weight caught my eye
-
They never actually wanted Leave to win, they wanted a close win for Remain in order to weaken / unsettle Cameron and push their personal agendas for leadership. They are now shitting themselves as they didn't think this would actually happen and have no real plan for what to do next. Compare how they reacted to the braying halfwit Farage, they look at sound completely shellshocked. They're like the many idiots we've seen / heard about who voted Leave and then realised that they didn't actually want it to happen.
+1
-
And another Brexiter starts backtracking.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/tory-brexiter-daniel-hannan-leave-campaign-never-promised-radical-decline
Maybe that new woman, you mentioned Dense, is going to be the Ex's twin sister...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You do know that every link you post to NS is paywalled?
-
You do know that every link you post to NS is paywalled?
No, it's never been for me! Sorry!
Possibly due to trying to access it from outside the UK? Is that a thing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No it isn't, maybe a French thing?
-
Can't rip the clip, here's the commentary...
" Tory Brexiter Daniel Hannan: Leave campaign never promised "radical decline" in immigration
The voters might not agree...
BY MEDIA MOLE
It was the Leave campaign's pledge to reduce EU immigration that won it the referendum. But Daniel Hannan struck a rather different tone on last night's Newsnight. "It means free movement of labour," the Conservative MEP said of the post-Brexit model he envisaged. An exasperated Evan Davis replied: “I’m sorry we’ve just been through three months of agony on the issue of immigration. The public have been led to believe that what they have voted for is an end to free movement."
Hannan protested that EU migrants would lose "legal entitlements to live in other countries, to vote in other countries and to claim welfare and to have the same university tuition". But Davis wasn't backing down. "Why didn't you say this in the campaign? Why didn't you say in the campaign that you were wanting a scheme where we have free movement of labour? Come on, that's completely at odds with what the public think they have just voted for."
Hannan concluded: "We never said there was going to be some radical decline ... we want a measure of control". Your Mole suspects many voters assumed otherwise. If immigration is barely changed, Hannan and others will soon be burned by the very fires they stoked.
I'm a mole, innit."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No it isn't, maybe a French thing?
Apologies, I thought you'd paid and wasn't aware noone else could see the links. Must be just me :( to Matt obviously.
-
What Jasper said...
There's loads of stuff going on today that suggests that this is far from over. Forget that daft petition on a second vote. No-one from the leave campaign has said fuck all today other than back-pedalling on virtually every promise they made during the campaign. The original EU six are in Berlin (in a bunker?) for a closed doors meeting. Farage has been given the cold shoulder by the Leave negotiation team and is going to be locked out from anything important. No sign of George Osbourne or Carney or Boris or Gove or Theresa May. The press is full of loaded statements from Ford, Nissan, Deutsche, Goldmans etc. Juncker is saying we want Britain out quickly but the EU don't actually have the power to do that.
I don't like to make predictions but.. We've had a non-legally binding referendum that doesn't mandate that article 50 is invoked automatically. So my guess is that we're in a trial separation period, sleeping in the spare bedroom clutching Article 50 as a threat and there'll be a lot of posturing in public whilst behind-closed-doors negotiations go on. It's entirely feasible that we'll end up having had a referendum but we stay in for a long time, perhaps indefinitely. What a mess.
-
Spot on Ben. Its a fucking debacle, and for absolutely no good reason.
-
Oh and.....
https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/24/when-i-say-no-i-mean-maybe/
Had an idea before the result and judging by the reactions of Boris and Gove I'm now pretty convinced it's right (was discussing this with FD today on Twitter).
They never actually wanted Leave to win, they wanted a close win for Remain in order to weaken / unsettle Cameron and push their personal agendas for leadership. They are now shitting themselves as they didn't think this would actually happen and have no real plan for what to do next. Compare how they reacted to the braying halfwit Farage, they look at sound completely shellshocked. They're like the many idiots we've seen / heard about who voted Leave and then realised that they didn't actually want it to happen.
Because of this, it's definitely not too late for some massive backtracking. Especially as ALL of the promises of the Leave campaign have already been shown to be total lies (that cunt Hannan's desperation on Twitter is particularly amusing).
So yes, it's definitely a :popcorn: moment and will be for quite a while.
Better than what mate? Reading the facts and legalities of the situation and understanding them?
It's not about opinions, it's about understanding what's actually happening. Or not happening.
-
What Jasper said...
There's loads of stuff going on today that suggests that this is far from over [...] What a mess.
Indeed. Looks form page 19 section 70 of the official advice (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf) that Scotland and Northern Ireland may effectively hold vetos.
-
Better than what mate? Reading the facts and legalities of the situation and understanding them?
It's not about opinions, it's about understanding what's actually happening. Or not happening.
Tapatalk quote fail! Was replying to Dense, obviously.
-
Better than the old we can get out of this because a team of politicians told us lies. No shit Sherlock every vote in history we will have been lied to or dealt extreme hyperbole. It should be about moving forward now after more people wanted to leave than stay.
Anyway I hope you're enjoying the bbq, I'm sure I'm being slagged off as much as Doylo, monkey boy and Mawson were slagging me off last night for voting leave ;) seems you can do what you want as long as it's what your peers want you to do :-\ :P
#motherfuckers
-
If only there was a EU referendum on name dropping ;)
-
Chris says hi. (Doyle that is)
-
This is very worrying. First the whole Dense conspiracy and now George is missing...
http://newsthump.com/2016/06/25/concerned-nation-joins-hunt-for-missing-george-osborne/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Gideon has form for going missing for a few days.
-
Better than the old we can get out of this because a team of politicians told us lies. No shit Sherlock every vote in history we will have been lied to or dealt extreme hyperbole. It should be about moving forward now after more people wanted to leave than stay.
Anyway I hope you're enjoying the bbq, I'm sure I'm being slagged off as much as Doylo, monkey boy and Mawson were slagging me off last night for voting leave ;) seems you can do what you want as long as it's what your peers want you to do :-\ [emoji14]
#motherfuckers
You weren't mentioned mate. Not interested in slagging people off.
Just facts and what's really going to happen. Unlike everything the Leave campaign said.
-
What Jasper said...
There's loads of stuff going on today that suggests that this is far from over [...] What a mess.
Indeed. Looks form page 19 section 70 of the official advice (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf) that Scotland and Northern Ireland may effectively hold vetos.
Interesting, I wonder if it would be instigated. If it was, then there would no longer be "material change" and no second Scottish referendum, so I doubt they'll exercise it.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
I was only winding you up too :P (should have voted remain though).
-
Labour now imploding. The biggest result of this is going to be total disaffection with politics. Westminster just ate itself.
-
Labour now imploding. The biggest result of this is going to be total disaffection with politics. Westminster just ate itself.
Which probably needed to happen in some shape or form... I wonder if a lot of this boils down to our first past the post system - which meant that parties like UKIP had one mp on 4 million votes nationally. Don't get me wrong, I'd like UKIP to disappear - but those voters have (up til the referendum) had no voice in parliament..
-
Labour now imploding. The biggest result of this is going to be total disaffection with politics. Westminster just ate itself.
More the other way round. The result was a consequence of disaffection of politics in the wider sense of where we are and where we sit in the world. The majority of the ruling class have been demonstrated to be out of touch with the electorate. Time for upheaval.
-
Remember how Corbyn got to be leader? I think the Tory party is about to get a lot of new members... Only a fiver to get another vote on leaving...
-
I know I`m on my own but it would be interesting to know if HM Queen actually did get a 90th birthday present that she really wanted.
-
Remember how Corbyn got to be leader? I think the Tory party is about to get a lot of new members... Only a fiver to get another vote on leaving...
Is that right? Interesting!!
-
Quote from the Indy yesterday:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-manoeuvred and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Unless I misheard, I just watch Sturgeon threaten to veto the referendum.
Nicola Sturgeon says MSPs at Holyrood could veto Brexit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2241758/1125475
-
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2241758/1125475
Well, fuck me bendy and twice on Tuesday.
Now I feel so much better...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Remember how Corbyn got to be leader? I think the Tory party is about to get a lot of new members... Only a fiver to get another vote on leaving...
As I said on Facebook, this isn't possible under Tory party constitution. But I did blog about it more generally:
https://johnroberts.me/business/2016/06/8-reasons-positive-about-eu-referendum-result/
-
The post Exit future looks rosy.
In her speech today, Priti Patel said: “If we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs.” The TUC does not accept her claim on jobs and the economic boost of reducing these EU-derived rules, but notes her overtly hostile agenda towards workers’ rights.
- The TUC commissioned an independent legal opinion from Michael Ford QC on the consequences of Brexit for UK employment law and workers’ rights. A full copy can be found at www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Brexit%20Legal%20Opinion.pdf
- Michael Ford QC’s legal opinion suggests that, based on past history and extant policy documents, the workers’ rights most vulnerable to repeal are:
Collective consultation, including the right for workers’ representatives to be consulted if major changes are planned that will change people’s jobs or result in redundancies (as have been used in recent major announcements in the steel industry).
Working time rules, including limits on working hours and rules on the amount of holiday pay a workers is entitled to.
EU-derived health and safety regulations.
Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE), i.e. the EU-derived protections to the terms and conditions of workers at an organisation or service that is transferred or outsourced to a new employer.
Protections for agency workers and other ‘atypical’ workers, such as part-time workers.
Current levels of compensation for discrimination of all kinds, including equal pay awards and age discrimination.
-
The reason behind The Labour implosion today, quite likely...
Craig Murray
Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist
It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.
No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?
The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.
For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.
Yes, they are that nuts.
If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.
-
Remember how Corbyn got to be leader? I think the Tory party is about to get a lot of new members... Only a fiver to get another vote on leaving...
As I said on Facebook, this isn't possible under Tory party constitution. But I did blog about it more generally:
https://johnroberts.me/business/2016/06/8-reasons-positive-about-eu-referendum-result/
You've nailed it John. Exactly what I've been saying for the last two days. People need to realise that this is far from over.
-
The reason behind The Labour implosion today, quite likely...
Craig Murray
Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist
It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.
No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?
The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.
For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.
Yes, they are that nuts.
If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.
That sounds like tin foil hat stuff to me.
The reason the shadow cabinet are resigning en mass (and they're not Blairite - KARL Turner is a telling resignation) - is because Corbyn is (a) a bad leader and (b) unelectable as PM.
I'm totally fucking sick of Corbyns aggressive fan club saying every attack against him is by the Blairite agenda-ists.... I don't mind his views - agree with many of them. But he's proved himself an inept and rubbish leader. Fuck - he makes Ed Milliband look like Bill Clinton!
-
Agree Tom.
-
Sounds like a wet fish to me ;D
-
JR - like Jasper there is nothing there that I can really disagree with and it echoes what I think.
The Labour party now have a real chance at taking the middle ground here - I have a lot of time for Jeremy Corbyn and admire his principles hugely (and I think that those principles are relevant in current times) but he is, as TomTom put it*:
... (a) unelectable as PM and (b) a bad leader.
* I have deliberately changed the order around BTW as it reflects the overall situation and the urgency of said situation better IMO
Should Labour get its shit together and actually elect someone who is not a total Blairite and who can manage to steer the rest of the Labour MP's in roughly the same political direction then they have a chance to campaign on a pro Europe ticket and steal said middle ground from the Conservatives.
Anyway if anything good has come of the complete clusterfuck of the last couple of days it is that Boris and Gove have had their teeth pulled for the next few years at least. For that we can be thankful at least.
-
Here's a lovely thing.
My better half is South Asian. She was out at Kew Gardens today with her parents where she got called a "dirty Paki". She's never received any racial abuse in London in the 12 years we've been together. Is this a co-incidence? Absolutely not - I'm hearing that since the vote this is happening to all sorts of brown and black people around the country.
So, thanks, Leave campaigns which drew the poison to the surface and made casual racism acceptable again. If you're a Leaver, this is the kind of thing you supported. Maybe not explicity, but implicitly. I'm not saying you're racists, but you supported and empowered some pretty dark forces. I'm afraid to say this is partly your responsibility.
Don't like that? Tough shit.
-
I expected racist incidents no matter who won: whether, as now, triumphalist or in 'revenge'.
Saying that, letting bigots entertain the belief that they have been legitimised cannot be a good thing.
-
Nah, a leave vote is much much better if you're a racist - you start to believe you're in the vanguard of something. All those people would do what you do, if they had the guts. But you've got the guts, you'll say what they're thinking.
If you reckon this is barmy, well it's no barmier than thinking Boris Johnson is going to make working at Poundland tolerable. Which clearly a lot of people believed.
And once a few people are hurling racist abuse, then it empowers more.
-
Here's a lovely thing.
My better half is South Asian. She was out at Kew Gardens today with her parents where she got called a "dirty Paki". She's never received any racial abuse in London in the 12 years we've been together. Is this a co-incidence? Absolutely not - I'm hearing that since the vote this is happening to all sorts of brown and black people around the country.
So, thanks, Leave campaigns which drew the poison to the surface and made casual racism acceptable again. If you're a Leaver, this is the kind of thing you supported. Maybe not explicity, but implicitly. I'm not saying you're racists, but you supported and empowered some pretty dark forces. I'm afraid to say this is partly your responsibility.
Don't like that? Tough shit.
You are not alone. It's started here too.
My son is called Alexandru, but it will be plain Alex for a while.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Corbyn is [...] (b) unelectable as PM.
just like no one in their right mind would vote for a brexit?
-
You know that Winnie the Poo meme doing the rounds?
Friend of a friend re-wrote it:
"How did you vote?" said Pooh.
"Leave," said Piglet.
"I voted remain," said Pooh.
"Are we still friends?" said Piglet.
"Well to be honest, I'm not really sure" said Pooh, uncharacteristically thoughtfully. "It's a complex issue and not really one that can be reduced to seven lines of text for the purposes of a rather twee meme.
"On the one hand, a belief in unity, that we're stronger together, and that when we work as a team we both benefit, was one of the main reasons why I voted as I did.
"On the other hand, whilst I appreciate that, just as I did, you chose your vote based on what you thought was for the best, you have precipitated a huge financial collapse, destabilised my country, and threatened the future of my children, and it's hard for me to forget that, especially within a matter of hours.
"It's entirely possible that we're going to end up with a very much depleted Sixty Acre Wood, and while you might have no issue with the other animals who live here, you sided with those who did. As of yesterday, Kanga's had to go into hiding, Rabbit's marching to Christopher Robin's house demanding her immediate repatriation, and Tigger's had donkey shit shoved through his letterbox. While you might not have wanted that, you legitimised it, and decided that other animals' lives and security were collateral damage.
"It's true that you're still the small, massively overmarketed stuffed animal that you were before, but realistically I've seen another side of you that I hadn't before and it's going to take me some time to process that.
"And whenever I tried to discuss this with you beforehand, you either accused me of scaremongering or insisted on ignoring me and showing me pictures of cats instead.
"So rather than pressing me for assurances I'm in no position to make right now, I'd appreciate it if you could give me some space and allow me to get off my face on honey and grieve the future that I thought I had, which has been destroyed in the favour of the one that you've dragged me into.
"And if you don't, I'll post you to Cameron. All right?"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeh that's one of the best things I've ever read. So deep
-
Corbyn is [...] (b) unelectable as PM.
just like no one in their right mind would vote for a brexit?
Plenty of people who are sound of mind voted for both/either etc...
He is unelectable as PM.
One of my staunch Corbynite colleagues tweeted a couple of hours ago 'I voted for a wildcat, but we've got a stranded whale'.
-
Corbyn is [...] (b) unelectable as PM.
just like no one in their right mind would vote for a brexit?
He's deeply unelectable. Look at how Labour's core heartland voted. The party is weak and will be until they put someone in post who can unite them. It's been a fun experiment but he is not a pragmatic choice.
-
It's a sad reflection of the calibre of our postwar leaders that someone who doesn't just say whatever people want to hear and dish out glib soundbites, i.e. someone with a level of integrity, is seen as a liability. We are now accustomed to expecting a "leader" to be someone who makes bold promises that they know they can't fulfil, someone who is all bluster, someone who shouts down opponents and doesn't compromise. To that end Thatcher was a great leader, Blair was a great leader. The commons is full of cunts like that.
People always complain that all senior politicians are just shallow insincere career-minded ladder climbers who don't actually have any principles or give a shit about real people. And now we've got someone who isn't as a leader and we don't like it because he's not a bit of a twat, because we've become accustomed to leaders being twats who will let us pretend things are going to be amazing before letting us down a few years later.You've very unlikely to get someone who's got the integrity of Corbyn and also is say an inspirational speaker and figurehead, not going to happen they are one in ten million, once in a generation.
-
Wot he said
-
I'm totally fucking sick of Corbyns aggressive fan club saying every attack against him is by the Blairite agenda-ists.... I don't mind his views - agree with many of them. But he's proved himself an inept and rubbish leader. Fuck - he makes Ed Milliband look like Bill Clinton!
Tom, no need to get tetchy, I am not part of the fan club.
But the quote was was from a former ambassador, probably not a paid up member of corby's club.
With this on the horizon it will be interesting how things pan out.
You are probably right, they think corby's shit and the fall out today is because of this.
Or maybe the ambassador has a point, something needs to be done to get TB a sympathetic hearing. A bit left field but stranger things have happened.
-
Not sure what your point is dave? - you can be a great person, wonderfully principled, well respected - but still rubbish at leading. That is managing and directing one of the largest party's in the country.
Fine. Do somethings your own way Jezza, but mooching about pride eschewing the tv shows the day after the out vote - when you are supposed to be leading - figure heading the opposition? Ffs c'mon dave he's been so lame in the last few weeks.
Would you want Jezza as your boss? Or head of company/organisation you work for? He'd be a nightmare....
What's worst is that he's clinging on now... Give up man... Go out with some dignity...
-
Will article 50 ever be triggered? (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/who-will-dare-pull-trigger-article-50-eu)
-
It's a sad reflection of the calibre of our postwar leaders that someone who doesn't just say whatever people want to hear and dish out glib soundbites, i.e. someone with a level of integrity, is seen as a liability. We are now accustomed to expecting a "leader" to be someone who makes bold promises that they know they can't fulfil, someone who is all bluster, someone who shouts down opponents and doesn't compromise. To that end Thatcher was a great leader, Blair was a great leader. The commons is full of cunts like that.
People always complain that all senior politicians are just shallow insincere career-minded ladder climbers who don't actually have any principles or give a shit about real people. And now we've got someone who isn't as a leader and we don't like it because he's not a bit of a twat, because we've become accustomed to leaders being twats who will let us pretend things are going to be amazing before letting us down a few years later.You've very unlikely to get someone who's got the integrity of Corbyn and also is say an inspirational speaker and figurehead, not going to happen they are one in ten million, once in a generation.
For the record I don't disagree with anything you have written Dave.
When Corbyn was elected I fervently hoped that we had someone in the opposition who could galvanise the people who have fallen away from engaging in politics over the last two decades or so and actually get them to participate again (I am included myself in the above). Yes we need someone who can do this but Corbyn was always a long bet as opposition leader and given the current debacle we find ourselves in we don't have the time for him to get his party on side and pulling in the same direction assuming that was ever a realistic possibility in the first instance. He may well fulfil half of Roosevelt's maxim in that he speaks softly but he isn't someone who I can ever see wielding a big stick (sacking Hilary Benn last night may be construed as wielding the big stick but it isn't looking that successful at the minute).
-
Yeh that's one of the best things I've ever read. So deep
Yeah, you're right.
Try this one.
Someone called Boris wrote it:
"In his first words since accepting the result of the EU referendum on Friday, Mr Johnson wrote that "the only change" would be to free the UK from the EU's "extraordinary and opaque" law, which "will not come in any great rush".
'Rights fully protected'
His column said: "I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be.
"There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment.
"EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI - the BDI - has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."
"The only change - and it will not come in any great rush - is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU's extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal."
As the editor of the paper it was printed in said "So, all we've really done is vote ourselves out of our special circumstances and any chance to influence future direction".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So say you get rid of Corbyn... You replace him with whom?
He is at least opposition in that what he represents is opposed to the government and the establishment. I find it incredibly sad that people only view 'electability' in a certain way. So in order to achieve power you compromise your values and end up offering more of the same. More of the same is not opposition, it is resignation, to the fact that in order to be elected and have power you must be in the pocket of the establishment. Nothing changes. Didn't Thatcher say something like 'Tony Blair was my greatest achievement'..
Besides the current ructions have nothing to do with leadership or electability. The knives are out because in a fortnight the Chilcot report is released and the last thing 'they' want is Corbyn at the helm when it drops.
-
It's a sad reflection of the calibre of our postwar leaders that someone who doesn't just say whatever people want to hear and dish out glib soundbites, i.e. someone with a level of integrity, is seen as a liability. We are now accustomed to expecting a "leader" to be someone who makes bold promises that they know they can't fulfil, someone who is all bluster, someone who shouts down opponents and doesn't compromise. To that end Thatcher was a great leader, Blair was a great leader. The commons is full of cunts like that.
People always complain that all senior politicians are just shallow insincere career-minded ladder climbers who don't actually have any principles or give a shit about real people. And now we've got someone who isn't as a leader and we don't like it because he's not a bit of a twat, because we've become accustomed to leaders being twats who will let us pretend things are going to be amazing before letting us down a few years later.You've very unlikely to get someone who's got the integrity of Corbyn and also is say an inspirational speaker and figurehead, not going to happen they are one in ten million, once in a generation.
It's all true dave. But you're missing the point that a massive percentage of the electorate are drooling morons. We need a leader of the opposition that the drooling crew will vote for. And it's not Jeremy. It's sad but it's true.
-
Yeh that's one of the best things I've ever read. So deep
You've no idea what you actually voted for though have you? Or do you have a plan for Boris and Gove? They don't.
-
Yeh that's one of the best things I've ever read. So deep
You've no idea what you actually voted for though have you? Or do you have a plan for Boris and Gove? They don't.
This article from the Telegraph is worth a read. It outlines what our brave Leavers have voted for.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/the-eu-will-treat-britain-like-greece/
-
No I've no idea I'm thick as fuck, all the clever tolerant people voted for the people with the plan.
-
No I've no idea I'm thick as fuck, all the clever tolerant people voted for the people with the plan.
Irony eats itself.
-
The drooling morons;that would be the plumbers, builders and labourers, factory workers the Rock and Ice in fact.
-
Am i REALLY the only one that thinks the whole 'corbyn is unelectable' thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even before he was elected it was repeated ad-nauseam. It's actually remarkable he has done as well as he has, considering that in the 10 years or so I've been interested in politics (since I was 17 then) I've never seen a single person as villified by the media and 'establishment' as him. Has it occured to anyone that without the never-ending sniping from the right-wing of the Labour party that he would be more 'electable' ?
As for the idea that someone will replace him, I just don't think it is possible. Corbyn and his lot have legal advice saying that the incumbent does not have to be nominated by MP's to be on the ballot. Essentially, MP's can challenge all they like but he will just be re-elected by the rank-and-file, with probably an even larger mandate by the people who are becoming increasingly sick of these political games. I've never even heard of half of these rebelling shadow cabinet MP's. They are nobodies who will quickly find themselves being de-selected when Momentum decides enough is enough and sharpens the knives. I for one can't wait for a bloodbath, it's been long overdue.
-
Am i REALLY the only one that thinks the whole 'corbyn is unelectable' thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even before he was elected it was repeated ad-nauseam. It's actually remarkable he has done as well as he has, considering that in the 10 years or so I've been interested in politics (since I was 17 then) I've never seen a single person as villified by the media and 'establishment' as him. Has it occured to anyone that without the never-ending sniping from the right-wing of the Labour party that he would be more 'electable' ?
As for the idea that someone will replace him, I just don't think it is possible. Corbyn and his lot have legal advice saying that the incumbent does not have to be nominated by MP's to be on the ballot. Essentially, MP's can challenge all they like but he will just be re-elected by the rank-and-file, with probably an even larger mandate by the people who are becoming increasingly sick of these political games. I've never even heard of half of these rebelling shadow cabinet MP's. They are nobodies who will quickly find themselves being de-selected when Momentum decides enough is enough and sharpens the knives. I for one can't wait for a bloodbath, it's been long overdue.
If you are right that will be music to the Tories ears. Better get ready for a generation of Tory rule.
-
With reference to the Corbyn/Labour implosion - as soon as I saw he'd called for article 50 to be invoked immediately I thought that
1. people would be after his head
2. I would be one of those people if I were involved in Labour
It would be an absurd move, totally rash, and his calling for it smacked of the bullshit game playing that he claimed to not be about as well as just plain being a shit idea. If he's unelectable it's because people like me, who would happily swing around their votes between Labour, Lib Dem, Green or whoever on that rough side of the divide took my fancy, wouldn't be likely to vote for him except for out of fear of letting the Tories do even better.
-
Am i REALLY the only one that thinks the whole 'corbyn is unelectable' thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even before he was elected it was repeated ad-nauseam. It's actually remarkable he has done as well as he has, considering that in the 10 years or so I've been interested in politics (since I was 17 then) I've never seen a single person as villified by the media and 'establishment' as him. Has it occured to anyone that without the never-ending sniping from the right-wing of the Labour party that he would be more 'electable' ?
i agree.
the media and his own party declared him "unelectable" because he is not part of the political and social elite. someone who does not believe in war or trickle down economics. someone who might actually try to change something.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-still-prepared-to-call-for-war-crimes-investigation-into-tony-blair-a7042926.html (ftp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-still-prepared-to-call-for-war-crimes-investigation-into-tony-blair-a7042926.html)
-
Am i REALLY the only one that thinks the whole 'corbyn is unelectable' thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even before he was elected it was repeated ad-nauseam. It's actually remarkable he has done as well as he has, considering that in the 10 years or so I've been interested in politics (since I was 17 then) I've never seen a single person as villified by the media and 'establishment' as him. Has it occured to anyone that without the never-ending sniping from the right-wing of the Labour party that he would be more 'electable' ?
the media and his own party declared him "unelectable" because he is not part of the political and social elite. someone who does not believe in war or trickle down economics. someone who might actually try to change something.
But by not behaving as per a 'regular' party leader - he is not able to communicate, or manipulate the media in the ways the other leaders and/or parties can. He dislikes journalists, eschews the Sunday morning politics programs, doesnt give a 5 min soundbite for 'Today' (that then feeds into the rest of the BBC news) etc.. Now, if he was a super social media prescence person - who could disseminate his voice via viral videos that permeate good sense through twitter and facebook then great. But that doesnt happen. He's not got the charisma, chutspa, whatever you call it to make that kind of thing work. Bernie Saunders has... in the context of the US, his stance, his views are more left than Corbyns are in the UK - but he's made it work (or nearly work! - either way its certainly been effective). Sorry - but alot of leadership does come down to charisma - to personality.
Here's an oddball example - but look at Mike Ashleys performance at the parliamentary select committee.... He is a modern Fagin, Satan to his workforce, the devil encarnate. But if you watched his performance - blimey - a masterclass in how to both mea culpa, but be aggressive at the same time. By the end of the 2 hours, he had those MP's eating out of his hand (relatively..). I watched alot of that performance - and seeing it, you at first think, why is that fat nasty man so successful - then after two hours its clear, he can read a situation, work out whats going on and deliver the killer strategy to get out of that situation.
Lets turn it around a bit for Corbyn supporters. Lets wind the clock back to the Lab leadership election - Lets pretend that Chuka, or Andy Burnham had the SAME views and same background/party past as Corbyn. Would you have voted Corbyn?
JC cites he has an overwhelming mandate from Labour party members. Sadly, the only mandate that counts if you want to change this country is one from voters.
-
With reference to the Corbyn/Labour implosion - as soon as I saw he'd called for article 50 to be invoked immediately I thought that
1. people would be after his head
2. I would be one of those people if I were involved in Labour
It would be an absurd move, totally rash, and his calling for it smacked of the bullshit game playing that he claimed to not be about as well as just plain being a shit idea. If he's unelectable it's because people like me, who would happily swing around their votes between Labour, Lib Dem, Green or whoever on that rough side of the divide took my fancy, wouldn't be likely to vote for him except for out of fear of letting the Tories do even better.
+1
I wrote that, without even using my fingers!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The media as an extension of the establishment controls and manipulates politicians not the other way around.
The view that Corbyn is unelectable has been perpetuated from the off. It's classic advertising technique, repeat something enough and the majority will believe it. Clearly it is working.
If you can read between the lines it is there to see, the terms of debate and discussion are set by the establishment.
Eg. ITV news yesterday referred to the Labour Party 'tearing itself apart', the Consertives however aren't doing the same they are having 'a leadership contest'.
It's all so obvious and saddening, if the only way to get elected is to offer no alternative.
I think it is possible but the juggernaut that is the establishment will take some stopping.
Chilcot could be interesting? :popcorn:
-
The media as an extension of the establishment controls and manipulates politicians not the other way around.
The view that Corbyn is unelectable has been perpetuated from the off. It's classic advertising technique, repeat something enough and the majority will believe it. Clearly it is working.
If you can read between the lines it is there to see, the terms of debate and discussion are set by the establishment.
Eg. ITV news yesterday referred to the Labour Party 'tearing itself apart', the Consertives however aren't doing the same they are having 'a leadership contest'.
It's all so obvious and saddening, if the only way to get elected is to offer no alternative.
Labour is presently tearing itself apart - you don't need spin for that its bloody obvious with 12 resignations from his front bench yesterday and 5 more this morning (more junior roles allbeit).
Sorry Corbyn fans - I really don't get it, its like watching a socialist version of the emperors new clothes!
[edit] its been pointed out to me that this post reflects media/politics becoming a self fulfilling prophesy.. which is probably more the point of your post BtB - apologies for the above rant... heady times...
-
The media as an extension of the establishment controls and manipulates politicians not the other way around.
The view that Corbyn is unelectable has been perpetuated from the off. It's classic advertising technique, repeat something enough and the majority will believe it. Clearly it is working.
If you can read between the lines it is there to see, the terms of debate and discussion are set by the establishment.
Eg. ITV news yesterday referred to the Labour Party 'tearing itself apart', the Consertives however aren't doing the same they are having 'a leadership contest'.
It's all so obvious and saddening, if the only way to get elected is to offer no alternative.
I think it is possible but the juggernaut that is the establishment will take some stopping.
Chilcot could be interesting? :popcorn:
This was true. I think recent events have shown that social media is a little harder to manipulate.
I have not once watched TV news directly. Like many others I get a stream of different articles and clips through social media.
Because I'm not having to pay for a paper, or forced to choose which channel I watch (news broadcasts tending to overlap), I can bring in a diverse range of different opinions. For me that means everything from the Telegraph, to the Huff Post or the Canary. Even then, it's further broadened by the shares of my friends and network, which is an international mix.
I was surprised that the same was true for the young guys that work for me. They are really clued up and active.
And all, each one, angry about what has happened. I mean it, really upset.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Labour is tearing itself apart in that the divide between 'red Tories' and genuine Labour MPs is finally exposed. Of course the media will lap this up.
Does no one else get the paradox though?
Sure we need strong opposition but if the opposition is nothing but the same wolf in different clothing it's not opposition is it.. Ergo true and functional democracy doesn't exist.
You are not the only one Twig but apparently we are in a minority.
-
Seems like slot of those now leaving the Corbyn camp are very much to the left of the party...
What's with the 'red tory' thing? Should we call those to the left Blue Commies? Or Stalin-lite? ;)
-
Ftse 250 down another 2.5% in first hour of trading
-
Red Tory - a way of describing the wolf in sheep's clothing. A red Tory being a Labour MP or member of the party who clearly doesn't represent the traditions, values and beliefs commonly associated with the Labour Party. Blairites, I refer you to previous post quoting Thatcher, essentially the Labour Party is full of right wingers hence the party is now 'tearing itself apart'.
-
The media as an extension of the establishment controls and manipulates politicians not the other way around.
The view that Corbyn is unelectable has been perpetuated from the off. It's classic advertising technique, repeat something enough and the majority will believe it. Clearly it is working.
Though I agree entirely that the media has done it’s best to silence and destroy Corbyn, I don’t see that it follows that he is therefore a good communicator. It seems to me that many in Labour are just as guilty of repeating a flawed mantra until they believe it.
Listen to his post referendum response if you think he is a great orator who’s words are just not reaching our TVs and radios. Here was a time when his words were guaranteed to reach a wide audience, here was a pivotal moment in history – all he could muster was peevishly delivered dry and dreary waffle.
The fact of the matter is that, as this referendum has shown, Jeremy Corbyn is not listened to, or respected by working class voters. They see him as weak and foolish. For this reason his politics are irrelevant.
It may well be that it’s the Blairites that are out to topple him – again them being a bunch of tepid managerial warmongers does not mean JC is therefore a great and suitable leader.
The rise of JC has proved that there is an appetite for a real opposition and a political position which is actually left of centre. The policies espoused by JC by and large would benefit the working class, it should not be beyond the whit of the Labour party to find a candidate who can communicate these effectively.
Perhaps so many years of Blairism has hollowed out the party to the extent that there is nobody left with sufficient substance to rise to this. It looks that way from the outside. Whatever’s the case, the Labour party needs to get real about JC and find a non Blairite with a bit of charisma, who can speak to his/her party and to ordinary people. The whole Corbyn v Blairite clone thing is a false dichotomy.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl77sjXVYAALWVK.jpg)
-
Yes Bonjoy! Agree entirely but who is that person?
-
Search me :shrug:.
Perhaps they need to cast the net as wide as possible. Maybe they should just admit they don't have any leaders near the top and then interview a whole load of unknowns. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Nothing they do can make them look more shambolic then they already do.
-
Red Tory - a way of describing the wolf in sheep's clothing. A red Tory being a Labour MP or member of the party who clearly doesn't represent the traditions, values and beliefs commonly associated with the Labour Party. Blairites, I refer you to previous post quoting Thatcher, essentially the Labour Party is full of right wingers hence the party is now 'tearing itself apart'.
Sorry BtB - but hearing that description from you is really, really depressing.
Its divisive and very much - not inclusive.
With views like this do you not think YOU are tearing the party apart? Where are your socialist values of inclusivity and fairness? Of treating people equally?
Whatever’s the case, the Labour party needs to get real about JC and find a non Blairite with a bit of charisma, who can speak to his party and to ordinary people. The whole Corbyn v Blairite clone thing is a false dichotomy.
^^ this.
-
Agree with Bonjoy.
More on Article 50 from DAG. Apologies for FB link but that's the only place it is at the moment.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1200279093330132&id=137432829614769
Puts to bed the "but the EU will make us trigger it" rubbish and more.
-
I think this could finish Labour off if they don't get their act together quicksmart. The timing shows, like the tories, they've lost all grasp on the national reality and exist only in a westminster bubble.
Real shame about all the turncoat LibDem voters, if we still had a coalition they could have really capitalised on this like Sturgeon is doing. As we are, it's still a great opening for a progressive liberal party/ alliance.
-
Yes Bonjoy! Agree entirely but who is that person?
Dense!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes Bonjoy! Agree entirely but who is that person?
Dense!
Fraid not, Dense has just signed up as an EU trade deal negotiator..
-
3.5 %...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS31BD_KYAc
-
Agree with Bonjoy.
More on Article 50 from DAG. Apologies for FB link but that's the only place it is at the moment.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1200279093330132&id=137432829614769
Puts to bed the "but the EU will make us trigger it" rubbish and more.
Do you reckon his site is down because too many people are reading it....or is it victim of a denial of service attack?
-
The Canary (very Corbynite) has an interesting take.
The proximity of Chilcot report is mentioned and Caroline Lucas seems to be intervening.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/27/barely-weeks-murder-jo-cox-daily-mail-incites-people-kill-corbyn/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Some of this commentary is just fucking hilarious. If it wasn't so serious, or if I wasn't under the rule of these wankers; I'd be pissing myself with laughter:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/ids-goes-off-message-brexit-labour-tears-itself-apart
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
[/quote]
Sorry BtB - but hearing that description from you is really, really depressing.
Its divisive and very much - not inclusive.
With views like this do you not think YOU are tearing the party apart? Where are your socialist values of inclusivity and fairness? Of treating people equally?
Whatever’s the case, the Labour party needs to get real about JC and find a non Blairite with a bit of charisma, who can speak to his party and to ordinary people. The whole Corbyn v Blairite clone thing is a false dichotomy.
^^ this.
[/quote]
No need to be sorry. It is divisive and depressing. Socialism is also about the fair distribution of wealth, social justice, equality etc.. So sure be inclusive include others but include others that don't represent the core values of the political party in order to get elected? Here is where the problem starts for me. What is 'tearing the party apart' is the opposing core values of factions in the PLP. I am not sure that this can be resolved. Fact is that some Labour MP's core values would sit quite comfortably in with the Cons.
I am not a member of the Labour Party, I have no vested interest other than wanting a fairer more equal society. That makes me a leftward leaning individual and currently the people in charge of political parties that most represent my views are JC and NB. My wish is for a credible opposition that represents my want for fairer more equal society. How does that make an individual like me responsible for the instability of a political party?
-
Mr Watson has propped up the sword for Mr Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36638041http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36638041
:popcorn:
-
4.5%...
-
No need to be sorry. It is divisive and depressing. Socialism is also about the fair distribution of wealth, social justice, equality etc.. So sure be inclusive include others but include others that don't represent the core values of the political party in order to get elected?
So if you don't support the Sainted Dishcloth you against the core values of the Labour Party? What patronising piddle. All those people who fought for the minimum wage, tax credits, better welfare for pensioners, new school buildings, early years education, gay rights, etc etc etc are somehow against what the Labour Party stands for?
Whilst the only possibly leader who marches under the one true banner of the Labour Party is a man who never created anything, never pushed difficult measures through, who voted with the Conservatives and against his own party, and who supported - and still supports - violent Irish republican movements, clerical thugs in Iran and the gangster regime of Mr Putin?
Well, I suppose that is one reading of the situation.
-
https://next.ft.com/content/43301043-af1f-3c20-9c25-53328ec2668b
FT commentary from earlier when it was 3% down.
-
No need to be sorry. It is divisive and depressing. Socialism is also about the fair distribution of wealth, social justice, equality etc.. So sure be inclusive include others but include others that don't represent the core values of the political party in order to get elected?
So if you don't support the Sainted Dishcloth you against the core values of the Labour Party? What patronising piddle. All those people who fought for the minimum wage, tax credits, better welfare for pensioners, new school buildings, early years education, gay rights, etc etc etc are somehow against what the Labour Party stands for?
Whilst the only possibly leader who marches under the one true banner of the Labour Party is a man who never created anything, never pushed difficult measures through, who voted with the Conservatives and against his own party, and who supported - and still supports - violent Irish republican movements, clerical thugs in Iran and the gangster regime of Mr Putin?
Well, I suppose that is one reading of the situation.
And who may well have voted leave... (Chris Bryant is said to have asked Corbyn how be voted and he refused to reply)
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/747372097777827840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
-
https://next.ft.com/content/43301043-af1f-3c20-9c25-53328ec2668b
FT commentary from earlier when it was 3% down.
The FT is usually paywalled. Any chance of a cut n' paste?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you want some live figures/prices this seems to work
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/ForexCharts/gbpusd.php
-
And who may well have voted leave... (Chris Bryant is said to have asked Corbyn how be voted and he refused to reply)
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/747372097777827840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[/quote]
A mealy-mouthed response.
-
https://next.ft.com/content/43301043-af1f-3c20-9c25-53328ec2668b
FT commentary from earlier when it was 3% down.
The FT is usually paywalled. Any chance of a cut n' paste?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, not very exciting, mostly worthwhile for the explanation of why the 250 is better than 100 for an indication of UK economy.
Britain’s domestic-focused FTSE 250 index is continuing its declines on Monday, falling nearly 3 per cent and outstripping falls on the benchmark FTSE 100.
The bluechip FTSE 250 is down to 155724 – a 3.2 per cent fall at pixel time – having declined 7 per cent on Friday. Dominated by UK-based stocks, the index has been hit far harder than the FTSE 100 which closed down 3.2 per cent in the first day of trading after the UK’s EU referendum vote.
Britain’s main index, whose constituents generate a large proportion of their earnings overseas and thus benefit from the post-Brexit fall in sterling, is down 1.3 per cent at pixel time, tumbling further after opening 0.8 per cent in the red.
Challenger bank Shawbrook was among the biggest fallers on the FTSE 250, down 14.7 per cent, with housebuilder Redrow down 12 per cent. Materials company Morgan Advanced led the declines, with a 15 per cent loss this morning.
(over 5% down now, may test 15000 before close)
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/ftse-250-falls-further-dropping-3/&ved=0ahUKEwiP3q-TisjNAhXEjiwKHdvADS8QFgiIATAa&usg=AFQjCNEikze2BrMULFA6cZdBWwDf-55hrA&sig2=f3pI8iypZSv0BreLZ-4OZg
This might work? Has the 100 overlaid on the 250 chart
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/ftse-250-falls-further-dropping-3/&ved=0ahUKEwiP3q-TisjNAhXEjiwKHdvADS8QFgiIATAa&usg=AFQjCNEikze2BrMULFA6cZdBWwDf-55hrA&sig2=f3pI8iypZSv0BreLZ-4OZg
This might work? Has the 100 overlaid on the 250 chart
oof - why has the 250 fallen so much more than the 100? (may be a silly question - sorry)
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/ftse-250-falls-further-dropping-3/&ved=0ahUKEwiP3q-TisjNAhXEjiwKHdvADS8QFgiIATAa&usg=AFQjCNEikze2BrMULFA6cZdBWwDf-55hrA&sig2=f3pI8iypZSv0BreLZ-4OZg
This might work? Has the 100 overlaid on the 250 chart
oof - why has the 250 fallen so much more than the 100? (may be a silly question - sorry)
As Duma explained, it's mainly British companies whereas the 100 has companies that profit overseas in a global market who might also have benefited from the fall in the pound.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/ftse-250-falls-further-dropping-3/&ved=0ahUKEwiP3q-TisjNAhXEjiwKHdvADS8QFgiIATAa&usg=AFQjCNEikze2BrMULFA6cZdBWwDf-55hrA&sig2=f3pI8iypZSv0BreLZ-4OZg
This might work? Has the 100 overlaid on the 250 chart
oof - why has the 250 fallen so much more than the 100? (may be a silly question - sorry)
As Duma explained, it's mainly British companies whereas the 100 has companies that profit overseas in a global market who might also have benefited from the fall in the pound.
Or in other words.
Comparing the health of the UK economy to the health of international companies; is like setting Council tax rates in Sheffield, based of house prices in the Isle of White...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
this weird bit of "news" from june 13th !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/ (ftp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/labour-rebels-hope-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn-in-24-hour-blitz-afte/)
"Labour rebels believe they can topple Jeremy Corbyn after the EU referendum in a 24-hour blitz by jumping on a media storm of his own making.
Moderate MPs who believe Mr Corbyn can never win back power think his failure to close down public rows which flare up and dominate the news channels leaves him vulnerable.
By fanning the flames with front bench resignations and public criticism they think the signatures needed to trigger a leadership race can be gathered within a day."
-
Almost immediately put out of date by this update :
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/uk-centric-ftse-250-drops-5-5/&ved=0ahUKEwi57dThjsjNAhUnYpoKHc1oAS8QqG8INTAB&usg=AFQjCNESiK_Dkm6PdlCmSjRZXfcbCqPpTQ&sig2=Oo6rdkrK21a96vvwT45nHA
(let me know if the link doesn't work)
(6% now...)
-
All the FT links are paywalled.
-
All the FT links are paywalled.
No comment ;)
-
I'm no sure why, but I seem to be able to access them, despite being on the FT site a lot in the last few days.. (I don't pay!)
-
I don't pay and they work for me (chrome on Android)
Try the link in this tweet :
https://mobile.twitter.com/fastFT/status/747392403535953920?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
Foxtons', everyone's favourite twatish estate agency, shares are down 20% apparently. Every cloud....
-
All the FT links are paywalled.
Can you see this image?
(https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Ffastft%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F06%2Ffotse-twofiddy.png?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=700)
-
Yep. Not sure what was going on with the links.
-
You can guarantee short-siders are playing this almost unique opportunity. There can't be too many instances where the probability of European markets and sterling falling was a close-to 50/50 bet, and it could be predicted with such accuracy, yet on the day before the referendum the markets rallied on the bet that it would be a remain vote. This contributed to a frantic correction on Friday!
Wish I'd taken a gamble and shorted some individual stocks or ETFs.
For anyone who's interested there's plenty of info out there on 'how to short the market ahead of brexit'. The longer-term state of the markets will emerge once volatility has subsided.
-
All the FT links are paywalled.
Can you see this image?
(https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Ffastft%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F06%2Ffotse-twofiddy.png?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=700)
Yes. I can see it.
Do you know how I can unsee it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting (balanced?) article on Corbyn here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-opposition
-
In all honesty the thing that upsets me most is that the rebels of Labour are just as bad as the Brexiteers. They are staging a coup/revolution/(referendum) with absolutely no plan or any idea of what will follow, beyond they cause some chaos. The majority of the Labour Party want Corbyn, or someone who endorses his politics. They won't accept another blairite clone, so who exactly is the left? I know of nobody.
It's all well and good going on about 'the voters' but the fact is the political parties are funded/run by their members. Electibility and all of that is all well and good, as is appealing to the 'centre ground' (which inches further right every year), but all that ends up happening is you take a massive gamble by alienating the base while trying to reach out to these magical swing voters.
Like I said before, it's the media stupid. People that Corbyn is unelectable/boring/insert trope here until they are blue in the face, and then it's taken as fact. Noam Chomsky is probably crying into his cup of tea at the state of modern politics (in the UK and the US)
-
It looks more like outright mutiny than rebellion judging by the texts coming from the PLP meeting.
-
ver 5% down now, may test 15000 before close)
It smashed that, didn't it.
And today, in the Sun, form Editor turned columnist McKenzie wrote:
"put my cross against Leave I felt a surge as though for the first time in my life my vote did count. I had power. Four days later I don’t feel quite the same. I have buyer’s remorse. A sense of be careful what you wish for. To be truthful I am fearful of what lies ahead."
Which was accompanied by a list of possible woes and a "how will Brexit hit your wallet" article. Which caused a shit storm in their comments online as disgruntled Sun readers howled that they hadn't been told this before the referendum.
Ps: I'm only posting here at the moment because we've just gone 2:1 down and from the play, I think we're out of Europe for the second time in four days...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Did people think it was going to be roses at start of business the day after the referendum? That the uk would cancel its direct debit of 350m to Brussels and transfer to nhs over the wknd? Shore up our side of the Chunnel immediately? I very much doubt they did, people voted knowing there was going to be a shitstorm for the next 5-10 years since every single media outlet reported it as such. Well done for reporting that some people have said they voted hastily, they've had since 2002(?) to start to contemplate how they'd vote. I too could link to people who are pissed off with how they voted after every other election.
-
There goes our S&P triple A(https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/27/property-and-financial-shares-slide-as-referendum-fallout-hits-stock-markets).
At the moment more sleet and nettles...
-
5-10 years?
Is that all?
There was me worried and all along it was going to be fine by the time my Primary school aged children turn adult.
Not the eldest two, they'll just have to lump it but the eight year olds might have a future.
AND we are now 45 minutes in and still 2:1 down.
Job's comforter you are Dense.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Wish I'd taken a gamble and shorted some individual stocks or ETFs.
So... let me get this right. You've just voted for a course of action that is crashing the economy and caused political chaos. We're heading towards a recession, relationships with our neighbours and allies are going further south by the day, and there's been a rise in racist abuse the like of which we haven't seen for a generation.
And yet you regret not betting on the stock market.
I looked through the emoticons but none really seemed to fit.
-
Fucking hell you're miserable! Get a grip.
Seen on twitter:
''Are Iceland in the EU? Their players certainly seem to have freedom of movement in the England half.''
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MLXFXcbMy4Q/SoAOq6A5DWI/AAAAAAAACiY/CQppIOBfmLU/s1600/Moleskine_lines1.gif)
Invest in umbrellas!
-
I know, sounds like the 5th horseman doesn't he?
-
I know, sounds like the 5th horseman doesn't he?
Quite - after the apocalypse...
-
Fucking hell you're miserable! Get a grip.
There's a lot of reasons to be miserable. I'm still pissed off with it several days after and it keeps getting worse. A colleague was in tears about it earlier today - lots of reports of really vile casual racism - you suspect 'legitimised' by the result.
I'm not sure you get that it's not losing people are arsed about, it's their short, medium and long term future.
Yeah. Everything's peachy Pete.
-
Fucking hell you're miserable! Get a grip.
Did you miss the post above where I said how my partner had been called a "dirty Paki" whilst out for the day on Sunday? First racial abuse in over a decade?
Maybe it doesn't bother you. Maybe you think you're not responsible for it. Maybe it's all just a lark.
-
That the uk would cancel its direct debit of 350m to Brussels and transfer to nhs over the wknd?
No. Because the figure is a fiction. But you must know that.
Electibility and all of that is all well and good, as is appealing to the 'centre ground' (which inches further right every year), but all that ends up happening is you take a massive gamble by alienating the base while trying to reach out to these magical swing voters.
:???:
Electability is "all well and good"? It is arguably the most important thing for a political party to be. Without it you don't stand any chance of winning power or scaring the opposition, without either of which you cannot influence - i.e. you're useless.
Corbyn's support is grounded in the social media echo chamber and I don't think people grasp just how unpopular he is outside their own slim millennial demographic. Your average working or middle class man on the street isn't going to agree with Corbyn on nuclear weapons, dealing with terrorism, or economic policy. The media, which on the whole is to the right, has some blame to carry for this, but not all. The media treads a balance between shaping opinion and being dictated by it. People don't tune into and read news that is at complete odds with their opinion.
-
Of course but it now seems a lot of people are arguing with emotion and nothing pisses me off more, apart from maybe instructors at the works getting groups to warm up by doing star jumps on the comp wall matting. I won't go into yoga at the wall, it's too much
-
Did people think it was going to be roses at start of business the day after the referendum?
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will be roses at any point in the future, or at least not to the extent that it could have been.
I'm not angry because I voted for the losing side. I do that every election and I get over it because there'll be another election in a few years time. This time my whole future and sense of identity has been imperilled by a half of the population who are stupid enough to believe Nigel Farage when he tells them that we aren't sovereign (we are), don't make our own laws (we do), and are "a bit full" (we're not).
This bloody England game is on and I'm not English. I'm British and European. But quite possibly not for much longer. It's a shite state of affairs to be in.
Of course but it now seems a lot of people are arguing with emotion and nothing pisses me off more
What do you think people used to make the most important political decision of their lives? They certainly didn't use their heads.
-
Did people think it was going to be roses at start of business the day after the referendum?
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will be roses at any point in the future, or at least not to the extent that it could have been.
I'm not angry because I voted for the losing side. I do that every election and I get over it because there'll be another election in a few years time. This time my whole future and sense of identity has been imperilled by a half of the population who are stupid enough to believe Nigel Farage when he tells them that we aren't sovereign (we are), don't make our own laws (we do), and are "a bit full" (we're not).
This bloody England game is on and I'm not English. I'm British and European. But quite possibly not for much longer. It's a shite state of affairs to be in.
Of course but it now seems a lot of people are arguing with emotion and nothing pisses me off more
What do you think people used to make the most important political decision of their lives? They certainly didn't use their heads.
+1
-
I know what you mean, I'm now worrying where my next meals coming from. But seriously this is now a job for the politicians not a dense loner, will hunt or omm. We can go on until whichever point we want about this but it's them that have to try to do something about it.
Now we're gonna leave Europe thanks to a frozen supermarket group!
-
Of course but it now seems a lot of people are arguing with emotion and nothing pisses me off more, apart from maybe instructors at the works getting groups to warm up by doing star jumps on the comp wall matting. I won't go into yoga at the wall, it's too much
I
R
O
N
Y
404
Argument not found.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Of course but it now seems a lot of people are arguing with emotion and nothing pisses me off more, apart from maybe instructors at the works getting groups to warm up by doing star jumps on the comp wall matting. I won't go into yoga at the wall, it's too much
I
R
O
N
Y
404
Argument not found.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Did you like that?
-
Electibility and all of that is all well and good, as is appealing to the 'centre ground' (which inches further right every year), but all that ends up happening is you take a massive gamble by alienating the base while trying to reach out to these magical swing voters.
Look if this is all about pleasing the club members than can you all go away and argue in a corner while everyone else gets on with finding some other bunch who can unseat the torys.
I like JC and I like a lot of his policies, I also would like there to be an effective opposition and some prospect of a change of government in the next ten years.
Being the leader of a political party requires certain skills, one of which is being a salesman. There is no getting away from this. How many leaders must the Labour party get through before they remember this fact? Jeremy Corbyn is a woeful salesman. This has NOTHING to do with moving right or left on policy. There is no reason why a politician of any hue can't possess the skill to speak to people in a way that makes them believed and trusted. There is no reason why an able politician can't cut through any amount of media bile and bias. Look at Donald Trump FFS! He may be an objectionable creature but he is proof that you can succeed in the face of bitter media/establishment opposition. Like I said before, stuff like your comment above is just perpetuating a false dichotomy. The only thing which will ensure Corbyn's successor being a Blairite is the inability of everyone else to field a half decent alternative
-
Did you like that?
You rarely fail to amaze...
[emoji12]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fucking hell you're miserable! Get a grip.
Did you miss the post above where I said how my partner had been called a "dirty Paki" whilst out for the day on Sunday? First racial abuse in over a decade?
Maybe it doesn't bother you. Maybe you think you're not responsible for it. Maybe it's all just a lark.
Yes, I did miss your post about your partner being abused. I don't read every post on this thread - it isn't exactly full of vital insightful comment at the moment.
There are scumbags out there and I'm sorry your partner was insulted by one. No wonder you're upset. But to suggest that every single leave voter is an anti-immigration racist is crazy and ignorant. To imply that by voting leave voters have legitimised scumbag racist behavior is equally wrong-headed.
-
Oh and GCW what point are you trying to make with your wordless puntering? Are you speechless with indignation at the referendum not going your way, or was it something I said.
-
I know what you mean, I'm now worrying where my next meals coming from.
Dense, when you trivialise like this it just makes you sound like a fool. Nobody is expecting dear George to personally pop round to their house and take a crisp twenty out of their pocket. But increased cost of borrowing, or falling value of the pound, or rising fuel prices will be bad for businesses, which may lead to lay offs or stagnating wages, which will lead to less money in people's pockets at the end of the month, which means less to spend on getting those gutters fixed, or opting to see what's in the freezer instead of ordering a take-away, or waiting another month to buy that new coat. One by one a million little decisions totting up to a slump.
As the least economically resilient, the poorest will be hit hardest. I noticed this morning on my commute to work that a new food bank has opened up in one of the suburbs I drive through (of course I'm not saying this one has immediately sprung up as a result of the referendum). It's in a nice respectable area, and driving through it I'm struck by how run-of-the-mill average it is. I thought surely food banks were only for sink estates? This place is home to the "ordinary", "decent" people. The very same people who just opted into economic hardship, and said "Yes!" to the inevitable intolerance and strengthening of the far-right that goes with it.
-
But to suggest that every single leave voter is an anti-immigration racist is crazy and ignorant. To imply that by voting leave voters have legitimised scumbag racist behavior is equally wrong-headed.
No, I certainly don't believe every single leave voter is a racist. But you've supported a campaign which has legitimised this behaviour - you've played your (small) part. I didn't see many Leave supporters looking at the campaign saying "Oooh, this anti-expert populism and the racist undertones are a real problem". Nah, they went for it and the public lapped it up, and the leave voters have empowered the scum-bag racists in our society. It may be an unforseen or unwanted consequence of what you did, but it's a consequence nevertheless.
-
It may be. It's also a consequence of terrorist atrocities. Scumbags react like scumbags, and need to be dealt with consistently.
I didn't lap up any of the bullshit on either side. I formed my views without needing to listen to bile and bullshit, I have no regard for the likes of Farage.
-
Did you report it to the police, Sean? If not then please do, even if they can't follow up the particular incident I think it's important that it is logged in the statistics. The issue was raised several times in parliament today and the message needs to be pressed home that these incidents have spiked.
It may be. It's also a consequence of terrorist atrocities. Scumbags react like scumbags, and need to be dealt with consistently.
Dear God, Pete, I think it's you who needs to get a grip.
-
Why?
-
My colleague reports a group of her Spanish friends told to "go home" in a Sheffield pub. Sad times indeed.
Personally I can't remember feeling so aggrieved. I've been reading the mail today in an attempt to find a positive spin on it but couldn't find one!? Wtf. Anyone read a positive article about this anywhere?
-
Did you report it to the police, Sean? If not then please do, even if they can't follow up the particular incident I think it's important that it is logged in the statistics. The issue was raised several times in parliament today and the message needs to be pressed home that these incidents have spiked.
It may be. It's also a consequence of terrorist atrocities. Scumbags react like scumbags, and need to be dealt with consistently.
Dear God, Pete, I think it's you who needs to get a grip.
For various reasons, no she didn't, but plans to report it to researchers looking at the problem.
Quite why a family outing to Kew gets tarred by racist abuse is due to terrorism... well I'm not sure I see the link there.
-
Quite why a family outing to Kew gets tarred by racist abuse is due to terrorism... well I'm not sure I see the link there.
What he said. Because you're excusing, at least in part, racist abuse doled out with impunity in broad daylight.
-
Found some positives in the sun. No links as their app is shit.
Butchers are selling in pounds and ounces again.
Unemployed man in Boston is hopeful of getting a job in post brexit Britain. Less poles so more jobs init.
Small businesses around UK report being positive about the future. Andy who owns a picture framing business says he does a lot of business in Spain and Italy and he doesn't think that will change.
Let the good times roll.
-
https://youtu.be/nwK0jeJ8wxg
-
thats great
-
David Icke is happy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW6WsvZal2Y
-
Found some positives in the sun. No links as their app is shit.
Butchers are selling in pounds and ounces again.
Unemployed man in Boston is hopeful of getting a job in post brexit Britain. Less poles so more jobs init.
Small businesses around UK report being positive about the future. Andy who owns a picture framing business says he does a lot of business in Spain and Italy and he doesn't think that will change.
Let the good times roll.
Phew. was worried for a second there
-
Did you report it to the police, Sean? If not then please do, even if they can't follow up the particular incident I think it's important that it is logged in the statistics. The issue was raised several times in parliament today and the message needs to be pressed home that these incidents have spiked.
It may be. It's also a consequence of terrorist atrocities. Scumbags react like scumbags, and need to be dealt with consistently.
Dear God, Pete, I think it's you who needs to get a grip.
..
Quite why a family outing to Kew gets tarred by racist abuse is due to terrorism... well I'm not sure I see the link there.
The point is there are malicious idiotic people who react to major events (referendum result, terror attack, football tournaments...., police shootings etc.) in malicious idiotic ways. That's an unintended consequence of this referendum and while being predictable doesn't mean people should be too afraid to vote for what they believe because of a fear of giving malicious idiots encouragement. I voted leave despite, not because of, a far right-wing narrative as did a lot of others.
-
It's early days, but every day that passes without invoking article 50 is a step closer to it never happening. It is becoming clearer by the day that we're in too deep. Breaking up the UK and putting land borders up across Ireland and Britain are too much to contemplate. Our economy is not export based, the net effect will be massively negative. None of the hopes of the leave campaign have any basis in reality. I don't think there'll be a second referendum, I think this one will just be ignored.
-
Groping for positives from this sorry business...
1. Young people are more enlightened and outward looking than old farts like me, the future looks to be in good hands. The symbolism is still shit and I’ve no doubt that this has emboldened some extremely nasty people. Over the weekend the 36th British MP outed herself and this country still feels a lot more tolerant than it did 30 years ago.
2. The result will succour right-wing Tory Europhobes for decades. As they are dying off (see 1.) this will increasingly be electorial poison.
3. The wider country are starting to recognise Boris as the incompetent bullshitter that many Londoners already know.
4. Gideon and Dave are toast.
5. It’s a wake-up call for the country in general and Labour party in particular to take the concerns of Rotherham (for example) folk more seriously. They are not all drooling morons as Jasper so charmingly put it.
5. When the dust settles the Labour party may have an electable leader (see 5.).
6. It ain’t over. Frantic Brexiter back-pedalling and German pragmatism (who will buy all those beemers?) suggests there will be a fudge of some kind and the real-world changes may be less than currently anticipated. Which would be very British.
7. There is the fainter hope that enough MPs will recognise that the referendum is advisory only and it is their final decision whether or not to pull the trigger. Write to yours right now (http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/).
And finally, I'll still be a full EU citizen when I get my Scottish passport.
-
It's early days, but every day that passes without invoking article 50 is a step closer to it never happening. It is becoming clearer by the day that we're in too deep. Breaking up the UK and putting land borders up across Ireland and Britain are too much to contemplate. Our economy is not export based, the net effect will be massively negative. None of the hopes of the leave campaign have any basis in reality. I don't think there'll be a second referendum, I think this one will just be ignored.
I suspect you may be right, although there would be an uproar amongst Leave voters, what Dave's so called 'simple in/out vote' has effectively become a de facto vote on the dismantling of the UK. Scotland (and Wales?) leaving and the issues with Ireland are rather more significant that a few extra immigrants. Although a U-turn would make him rather unpopular to say the least, he's resigned already so what the worst that can happen? Today is a crunch day as he's meeting the EU bigwigs, if he doesn't tell them when Article 50 will be invoked I doubt it ever will. Whoever replaces him, invoking it will be a poisoned chalice sat on a grenade with the pin removed.
-
He's already said it's a job for his successor. Doesn't seem to be much uproar (from leave voters anyway) about the rest of the leave campaigns promises being broken, so I'm sure they'll get over this.
-
It's early days, but every day that passes without invoking article 50 is a step closer to it never happening. It is becoming clearer by the day that we're in too deep. Breaking up the UK and putting land borders up across Ireland and Britain are too much to contemplate. Our economy is not export based, the net effect will be massively negative. None of the hopes of the leave campaign have any basis in reality. I don't think there'll be a second referendum, I think this one will just be ignored.
So so on that. I think it will be invoked, but what will result is a negotiated status quo (in many respects) and a new look EU with a different name. And that would be a great outcome and almost worth the pain.
Groping for positives from this sorry business...
1. Young people are more enlightened and outward looking than old farts like me, the future looks to be in good hands. The symbolism is still shit and I’ve no doubt that this has emboldened some extremely nasty people. Over the weekend the 36th British MP outed herself and this country still feels a lot more tolerant than it did 30 years ago.
2. The result will succour right-wing Tory Europhobes for decades. As they are dying off (see 1.) this will increasingly be electorial poison.
3. The wider country are starting to recognise Boris as the incompetent bullshitter that many Londoners already know.
4. Gideon and Dave are toast.
5. It’s a wake-up call for the country in general and Labour party in particular to take the concerns of Rotherham (for example) folk more seriously. They are not all drooling morons as Jasper so charmingly put it.
5. When the dust settles the Labour party may have an electable leader (see 5.).
6. It ain’t over. Frantic Brexiter back-pedalling and German pragmatism (who will buy all those beemers?) suggests there will be a fudge of some kind and the real-world changes may be less than currently anticipated. Which would be very British.
7. There is the fainter hope that enough MPs will recognise that the referendum is advisory only and it is their final decision whether or not to pull the trigger. Write to yours right now (http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/).
And finally, I'll still be a full EU citizen when I get my Scottish passport.
My biggest desire is that freedom of movement be retained. I think the right wing argument against it is racist bullshit and the left wing "it just lets the rich have cheap labour, bleeds nations of their human assets and devalues the workers here" is equally crap.
On the latter, that kind of migration is something that occurs in the first flush after a "poor" nation is admitted to the club. Here, once, it was all (for instance) Polish labourers; now there's a lot of Doctors, Dentists, Nurses. Just as once, before that, it was Jamaican bus drivers or South Asian street sweepers; some of whom's offspring now sit in Parliament. We were never dragged down to Jamaican or Indian or any other level of third world labour rates and the rich really don't have hoards of oppressed servants (there are plenty of fawning shits, perfectly willing to hang on coat tails for dropped crumbs and coming from a poor country is not a prerequisite).
I actually concede some of Pete's faceless Eurocrat points, though I think that stems more from our (all of us) indifference and lack of participation and really, it just highlights all the negatives of democracy (where's that perfect, just, AI to rule us all with mechanical efficiency and logic?) (JK Dense, JK).
The worst aspect of all this is the total lack of plan. Even the most articulate Leavers cannot come up with anything better than "no more faceless bureaucrats!" or/and "It'll all be fine, just a little hiccup on the way!" without anything more concrete.
It's pretty clear that that most Leavers are not going to get what they thought they were voting for, because (sorry Pete, Dense) it's also pretty clear that the main objection and Out vote reasoning was immigration based.
The only clear message from the senior Leave leaders is that any future deal is going to include a very similar looking freedom of movement policy to the one we see now. And every expert of every stripe, is convinced we won't get access to the single market without adopting EU law, at least to the extent that Norway does (for example).
Looking for good points, things to hope for, if you like:
Maybe the hardline federalists and ideologues that have bullied the union into this corner, rushed the expansion and alienated the population for the sake of their "perfect world" view; have had their day.
Perhaps something can be salvaged, something better.
Not convinced that that couldn't have been better and less painfully achieved, within the existing Union; if only our politicians could have been better and the people informed and engaged.
With the "If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle" proviso.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Also, this twat is pissed off and going to do his best to fuck up any future deal out of pure shortsighted hatred.
http://news.sky.com/story/1717728/live-farage-jeered-as-he-defends-brexit
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The point is there are malicious idiotic people who react to major events (referendum result, terror attack, football tournaments...., police shootings etc.) in malicious idiotic ways. That's an unintended consequence of this referendum and while being predictable doesn't mean people should be too afraid to vote for what they believe because of a fear of giving malicious idiots encouragement. I voted leave despite, not because of, a far right-wing narrative as did a lot of others.
Last year 30 people were shot dead in Tunisia. There was the slaughter in Paris. Going back futher, we've had 7/7, attempted plane hijackings, and the small matter of the Iraq war. It's not exactly been a bed of roses but we haven't had British people with the wrong skin colour being abused in the streets like this before.
What's brought this about is a malicious campaign which hasn't just played the race card, it's held a full hand of race cards and picked up a few from the deck too.
If your actions will give idiots encouragement then you bear some of the responsibility - I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
I'm not sure what "leaving in spite of a far-right narrative" actually means, but what it seems to have led to in practice is a rise in far-right behavious. So yeah, that whole socialist better Britain leave thing, that was a bit o' the old bullshit wasn't it?
-
The point is there are malicious idiotic people who react to major events (referendum result, terror attack, football tournaments...., police shootings etc.) in malicious idiotic ways. That's an unintended consequence of this referendum and while being predictable doesn't mean people should be too afraid to vote for what they believe because of a fear of giving malicious idiots encouragement. I voted leave despite, not because of, a far right-wing narrative as did a lot of others.
Last year 30 people were shot dead in Tunisia. There was the slaughter in Paris. Going back futher, we've had 7/7, attempted plane hijackings, and the small matter of the Iraq war. It's not exactly been a bed of roses but we haven't had British people with the wrong skin colour being abused in the streets like this before.
What's brought this about is a malicious campaign which hasn't just played the race card, it's held a full hand of race cards and picked up a few from the deck too.
If your actions will give idiots encouragement then you bear some of the responsibility - I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
I'm not sure what "leaving in spite of a far-right narrative" actually means, but what it seems to have led to in practice is a rise in far-right behavious. So yeah, that whole socialist better Britain leave thing, that was a bit o' the old bullshit wasn't it?
And stoked further today by Empire building fear mongers, looking for self justification:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683826/Brexit-Britain-surge-migrant-vessels-crossing-channel-EU-vote
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Which was accompanied by a list of possible woes and a "how will Brexit hit your wallet" article. Which caused a shit storm in their comments online as disgruntled Sun readers howled that they hadn't been told this before the referendum.
[/quote]
I suspect you may be right, although there would be an uproar amongst Leave voters [if article 50 was not invoked and their vote was seemingly ignored]
After seeing a lot of 'I voted for Brexit, but now wish I hadn't', perhaps this article by the Sun is the beginning of a campaign (by the media-government) to get people (who voted for brexit) to believe that the consequences of brexit are shit, and so when westminster does not invoke article 50, and in effect ignores Brexiteer's vote, there will not be "uproar amongst Leave voters"
-
Also, this twat is pissed off and going to do his best to fuck up any future deal out of pure shortsighted hatred.
http://news.sky.com/story/1717728/live-farage-jeered-as-he-defends-brexit
At the bottom of that page;
BREAKING: German Foreign Ministry spokesman: Some of those who want Brexit in the UK do not seem to have a clear plan.
I think some is a tad optimistic.
-
OMM - just quickly because I haven't time to post on here at the mo.
Your assertion (shared by so many on here) that 'none of the leave camp can come up with anything more concrete than "no more faceless bureaucrats!" or/and "It'll all be fine, just a little hiccup on the way!" is incorrect - they can, but at the moment they aren't going to be heard by those that refuse to listen.
And I'm not complacent that anything is a forgone conclusion or something to be flippant about - i.e. I don't think it's all a lark, TomTom.
If you actually stop to listen you'll hear the message that the leave camp is composed of two major viewpoints. Firstly, a group that's (roughly) liberalist, globalist, outward looking. Secondly, UKIP supporters i.e. immigration haters. My viewpoint is partly summed up in this short blog (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/what-britain-would-look-like-after-brexit/) made last February concerning what a post brexit UK could look like. I said about 10 pages back that I'd be content with either result, but my preference is rule by a government close to and accountable to its people, rather than remote central governance.
I voted fully believing that brexit would look like lots of concessions being made to remain part of a European single market - free movement of people being one major concession. Which is what's currently looking most likely because, despite what many of Jasper's 'D.Ms.' might want and might have voted for it's just common-sense. Nothing said since the referendum by the more far right-wing 'leave' politicians (i.e. the 'back-tracking' as the narrative goes) has yet surprised me.
Picking apart figures can go on for ever on both sides - for instance 10 minutes of research by any brexit supporter would have confirmed that Farage's 350 mil claim is incorrect. It would also have shown that there would be a figure post brexit, in theory around 170 million, but clearly it couldn't all be allocated to the nhs.
Lies, yes. It's contemptible politicians using rhetoric and flaky figures to try to convince a poorly educated, distrustful, disengaged mass of people how to vote and it happened throughout this debate - on both sides. That's shameful but it's also a reflection of how our general engagement with politics has crumbled, when our politicians can't trust that their message about something so important will resonate with the general public unless the messages are fast-food sugar-coated half-truths and totally lacking in substance.
I didn't feel any need to pay any notice to most of the rubbish of the 'leave' or 'remain' camps other than to research their claims to see if there was any merit in the figures being waved around. I'm capable of forming my own opinion without the aid of politicians who were appealing to the lowest level.
Against the current wall of hysteria and righteous indignation of a huge majority of remain voters - including some of the media establishment - it's currently close to impossible for a rational, calm, positive vision of a post brexit UK to gain any traction. We are hearing in the media all about the second group - the ukip/far-right group, and very little about the first group of brexits voters. When the beeb and other media outlets are focused on the negative far-right narrative - which I'm not denying is vital to hold to account - it's no surprise really that people think the world is going to ruin.
Until heads calm down a little there's little hope for balanced, positive common-sense views to be heard above the din of moral panic.
-
The point is there are malicious idiotic people who react to major events (referendum result, terror attack, football tournaments...., police shootings etc.) in malicious idiotic ways. That's an unintended consequence of this referendum and while being predictable doesn't mean people should be too afraid to vote for what they believe because of a fear of giving malicious idiots encouragement. I voted leave despite, not because of, a far right-wing narrative as did a lot of others.
Last year 30 people were shot dead in Tunisia. There was the slaughter in Paris. Going back futher, we've had 7/7, attempted plane hijackings, and the small matter of the Iraq war. It's not exactly been a bed of roses but we haven't had British people with the wrong skin colour being abused in the streets like this before.
Yes we have. There's a long history of hate-crimes following the events you mentioned. A little research will tell you that.
-
I'm not sure what "leaving in spite of a far-right narrative" actually means, but what it seems to have led to in practice is a rise in far-right behavious. So yeah, that whole socialist better Britain leave thing, that was a bit o' the old bullshit wasn't it?
It means voting for reasons other than immigration. As a huge number of people did. You seem to find that so hard to believe?
-
That blog link isn't working for me Pete
-
Hopefully this one (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/what-britain-would-look-like-after-brexit/)works.
-
The point is there are malicious idiotic people who react to major events (referendum result, terror attack, football tournaments...., police shootings etc.) in malicious idiotic ways. That's an unintended consequence of this referendum and while being predictable doesn't mean people should be too afraid to vote for what they believe because of a fear of giving malicious idiots encouragement. I voted leave despite, not because of, a far right-wing narrative as did a lot of others.
Last year 30 people were shot dead in Tunisia. There was the slaughter in Paris. Going back futher, we've had 7/7, attempted plane hijackings, and the small matter of the Iraq war. It's not exactly been a bed of roses but we haven't had British people with the wrong skin colour being abused in the streets like this before.
Yes we have. There's a long history of hate-crimes following the events you mentioned. A little research will tell you that.
Move on folks. Nothing to see here. It's business as usual.
Don't you love it when a white guy effectively tells loads of brown and black people not to worry their fuzzy wuzzy little heads about something?
-
Those aren't my sentiments nor any other right-minded persons'. However they voted on a political union with the EU.
-
Those aren't my sentiments nor any other right-minded persons'. However they voted on a political union with the EU.
I don't know what your sentiments are except for what you write on here. I'm perfectly willing to believe you voted on political union rather than immigration, but what you've written above is basically "any reported racism after the vote, it's just like after other big events, we haven't helped empower a rabid white English nationalism - this is just business as usual".
Sorry old chap, but it's not business as usual.
-
It would also have shown that there would be a figure post brexit, in theory around 170 million, but clearly it couldn't all be allocated to the nhs.
Or none, once you account for the shrinkage of the economy, and the fact that the NFU have the tories on their pockets and will get their free money first.
It's all very well saying no one expected immediate improvement. But we did get an immediate deterioration. We've got an instant recession with no route out other than a vague hope that things will slowly improve.
Your link offers nothing I hadn't already heard before the vote - ooh we could deregulate the city. And it says nothing about the wider implications effects nationally - Scotland, NI, inequality.
-
It's not business as usual no. Racism needs tackling when it spikes as it currently is. I think those people will crawl back under their rocks before long. Attributing to me, and the group of people who voted for similar reasons not to do with immigration, sentiments we don't hold isn't very productive.
-
It's not business as usual no. Racism needs tackling when it spikes as it currently is. I think those people will crawl back under their rocks before long. Attributing to me, and the group of people who voted for similar reasons not to do with immigration, sentiments we don't hold isn't very productive.
I'm not saying you hold those sentiments. And naturally, in the first instance the responsibility for racism lies with racists themselves and the politicians who have encouraged it. But you guys who voted for this shitshow, this is one of the problems you've helped bequeath upon our society.
A little acknowledgement would be lovely.
-
He's not saying you share their sentiments! Fucking hell Pete, acknowledge that your choice means you have some responsibility for the surge in racist abuse we've seen over the last few days. Of course I accept it's not what you wanted, but that doesn't change the fact that its happening, and it's happening because of a result you voted for.
Edit: seans already said it above
-
Meanwhile, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has suggested a second referendum - or a general election - be held to approve any agreement on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU.
Mr Hunt said the withdrawal process should be delayed until shortly before the next election, scheduled for 2020 - meaning a delay in leaving the EU until 2022.
He is the first cabinet minister to go public with the idea of a second referendum.
:o Jezza hunt saying something sensible?!
-
You guys have got it all wrong, Pete and Dense were voting for good Brexit, not bad Brexit. How were they to know all the neo-nazis would vote that way too? Have a heart.
-
I can't see a second ref being likely, but am increasingly expecting whoever wins the Tory leadership to call a GE, and run on a manifesto of the likely terms of exit. Wouldn't expect it or brexit to wait till the 2020's though.
-
It's not business as usual no. Racism needs tackling when it spikes as it currently is. I think those people will crawl back under their rocks before long. Attributing to me, and the group of people who voted for similar reasons not to do with immigration, sentiments we don't hold isn't very productive.
I'm not saying you hold those sentiments. And naturally, in the first instance the responsibility for racism lies with racists themselves and the politicians who have encouraged it. But you guys who voted for this shitshow, this is one of the problems you've helped bequeath upon our society.
A little acknowledgement would be lovely.
Acknowledgement of what? - that 'I helped bequeath upon society' a spike in racism? Do you expect me to feel ashamed or guilty for voting leave for reasons that have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with political union and economics?
Isn't the referendum result, the fact that racists exist and likely always will, and the following spike in racism self-evident enough? What would you hope to achieve by this acknowledgement from people who voted for 'leave'? - No referendums that risk unearthing unsavory parts of society?
You can't ever ask difficult questions or ever change political direction in that case.
That would be analogous to UEFA acknowledging that deciding to hold a football competition, and inviting along lots of different countries, bequeathed upon the people of Marseille hundreds of violent criminal thugs. It did of course. But the answer isn't to stop holding football competitions.
I'm baffled by what benefit you think this acknowledgement achieves other than a little crumb of 'ha, told you so' comfort.
-
Pete, your views on the referendum seem to be fairly ambivalent, so you're saying that you voted for Leave based on a weak leaning towards a small change in the principles of how our country is governed. This in spite of the knowledge that a successful Leave vote would hand a mandate to the racist far-right.
My own analogy: It's like somebody voting for the BNP because they're offering voters 10% off crates of Carling.
-
Sweet Jesus. Just seen on the BBC that Boris and Gove have been having breakfast with Lynton Crosby this morning.
-
That's not very fair on Pete, we all know he voted for an end to buy-to-let mortgages
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
No Will, that isn't what I'm saying and please don't put words in my mouth. Without writing massive posts which no-one wants to read and which I haven't time to write you aren't going to get much more clarity out of a web forum post.
-
It's not business as usual no. Racism needs tackling when it spikes as it currently is. I think those people will crawl back under their rocks before long. Attributing to me, and the group of people who voted for similar reasons not to do with immigration, sentiments we don't hold isn't very productive.
I'm not saying you hold those sentiments. And naturally, in the first instance the responsibility for racism lies with racists themselves and the politicians who have encouraged it. But you guys who voted for this shitshow, this is one of the problems you've helped bequeath upon our society.
A little acknowledgement would be lovely.
Acknowledgement of what? - that 'I helped bequeath upon society' a spike in racism? Do you expect me to feel ashamed or guilty for voting leave for reasons that have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with political union and economics?
I'm just curious to see if you feel you played any part in it. Whatever your reasons, this is the outcome you wanted and helped to produce. The outcome includes not only some political and economic benefits (well, maybe, sometime, you hope) but also lashings of racism. These outcomes were all entirely predictable and indeed predicted. Still, you went ahead with your choice anyhow, and, being an adult, surely you know that choices have consequences?
Isn't the referendum result, the fact that racists exist and likely always will, and the following spike in racism self-evident enough? What would you hope to achieve by this acknowledgement from people who voted for 'leave'? - No referendums that risk unearthing unsavory parts of society?
You can't ever ask difficult questions or ever change political direction in that case.
Well, Atlee and Thatcher are both on record as firmly rejecting referenda for essentially that reason. And they were both responsible for the two biggest political shifts between 1945 and 2015. So your statement turns out to be incorrect.
As for racists always existing, you can encourage and inflame those sentiments, or you can damp down on them as much as possible. The campaign you supported took the former route.
I'm baffled by what benefit you think this acknowledgement achieves other than a little crumb of 'ha, told you so' comfort.
Yes, must be baffling, mustn't it?
I thought this article was a good backgrounder:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/jay-elwes/why-the-eu-vote-was-so-nasty
This quote seems kind of pertinent:
"The vision of an ideal Britain, the idea that if only we take the plunge then all of our problems—“our borders… huge sums of money… trade policy… our whole law-making system”—would be solved, was the worst kind of irrationalism. No catch-all cure for a nation’s political ills exists, and to suggest otherwise it to appeal to people’s delusional side."
-
Actually, I can see that Pete is somewhat in a catch 22 here.
I don't agree that this was the best course to achieve greater devolution, which seems to be what he (and a good many other Leavers) wanted; because it smacks of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I can also understand the frustration with the glacial pace and seemingly impossibility of effecting that type of change as the system stood.
This might be a good opportunity for that, however, and the right wingers (can't we just call them fascist and be done?) are doing their best to sabotage that. See Farage this am.
I cannot, at all, see that these events, this result and those campaigns; have done anything other than stoke the fires of hatred and to intimate that that was not predictable or that it was "worth it" is naive.
That racism and the rise of the right (ok, possible rise) will be of direct consequence to me as an individual and my family. This was different from the other incident Pete has mentioned, this is being taken as a mandate for blanket xenophobia and the FACT that those bigots will not get the future they thought they were voting for; will just make it worse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sweet Jesus. Just seen on the BBC that Boris and Gove have been having breakfast with Lynton Crosby this morning.
That's nice, there's someone for everyone even if they do have to share.
-
Branson:
https://embed.theguardian.com/embed/video/business/video/2016/jun/28/richard-branson-virgin-group-lost-a-third-of-value-since-brexit-vote-video
Siemens just froze investment in UK wind farms.
We were really busy until Friday, but eerily quiet since.
-
I'm just curious to see if you feel you played any part in it. Whatever your reasons, this is the outcome you wanted and helped to produce. The outcome includes not only some political and economic benefits (well, maybe, sometime, you hope) but also lashings of racism. These outcomes were all entirely predictable and indeed predicted. Still, you went ahead with your choice anyhow, and, being an adult, surely you know that choices have consequences?
Played any part in what?
The referendum result?
Yes, I played a 1-in-33551983 part in the result.
Or (I think, someone correct me) a 0.000003% part.
The outcome?
We're three days into an massive event - the consequences of which will take years and years to play out. I'm not confident in your crystal-ball skills at that range.
You can't ever ask difficult questions or ever change political direction in that case.
Well, Atlee and Thatcher are both on record as firmly rejecting referenda for essentially that reason. And they were both responsible for the two biggest political shifts between 1945 and 2015. So your statement turns out to be incorrect.
As for racists always existing, you can encourage and inflame those sentiments, or you can damp down on them as much as possible. The campaign you supported took the former route.
You're right. Change can be pushed through. And nearly all would be glad of Atlee's contribution. Less so Thatcher's of course, who pushed through change against the will of a great many people - who felt their only recourse was to strike.
In your view is Thatcher a shining example of how to enact political change then? Did Thatcher's version of political changes not have profound, some would say highly damaging, consequences to a great many people? (might want to start a whole other thread about that).
-
Sorry for the LinkedIn post but...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/has-minister-justice-incited-outbreaks-alleged-hate-crime-marlow
It's also apparent that things are tense here in the Bay, many posts on the local "Spotted" page, along with pretty foul comments about "put up with it princess, you're in our country" and "so what? We should kick the fat people out next" etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sorry for the LinkedIn post but...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/has-minister-justice-incited-outbreaks-alleged-hate-crime-marlow
It's also apparent that things are tense here in the Bay, many posts on the local "Spotted" page, along with pretty foul comments about "put up with it princess, you're in our country" and "so what? We should kick the fat people out next" etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm just curious to see if you feel you played any part in it. Whatever your reasons, this is the outcome you wanted and helped to produce. The outcome includes not only some political and economic benefits (well, maybe, sometime, you hope) but also lashings of racism. These outcomes were all entirely predictable and indeed predicted. Still, you went ahead with your choice anyhow, and, being an adult, surely you know that choices have consequences?
Played any part in what?
The referendum result?
Yes, I played a 1-in-33551983 part in the result.
Or (I think, someone correct me) a 0.000003% part.
The outcome?
We're three days into an massive event - the consequences of which will take years and years to play out. I'm not confident in your crystal-ball skills at that range.
Oh numerically of course, a tiny part. But you were part of a social movement which - for whatever reason - decided it was acceptable to ally itself with fascists. That doesn't make you a fascist or a racist of course. But it does make you a fellow traveller with the worst parts of British - or really English - society. And of course you chose to follow leaders who espoused the worst sort of anti-intellectualism and were quite happy to trash the reputations of vital institutions in order to reach their goal.
I'm saying if you believe those means justified the ends you wanted, then that's extremely dangerous.
As for crystal ball skills, I'm not claiming anything. We all know it's up in the air. But the outcome I'm talking about here - an outbreak of racism across the country - has already happened.
You can't ever ask difficult questions or ever change political direction in that case.
Well, Atlee and Thatcher are both on record as firmly rejecting referenda for essentially that reason. And they were both responsible for the two biggest political shifts between 1945 and 2015. So your statement turns out to be incorrect.
As for racists always existing, you can encourage and inflame those sentiments, or you can damp down on them as much as possible. The campaign you supported took the former route.
You're right. Change can be pushed through. And nearly all would be glad of Atlee's contribution. Less so Thatcher's of course, who pushed through change against the will of a great many people - who felt their only recourse was to strike.
In your view is Thatcher a shining example of how to enact political change then? Did Thatcher's version of political changes not have profound, some would say highly damaging, consequences to a great many people? (might want to start a whole other thread about that).
You said that without referenda we couldn't have big political changes. I'm simply saying that is incorrect. I'm not making a comment on the quality of those changes - I suspect we agree on that.
But the reason Thatcher's changes went through was because she didn't just capitalise on the political mood of the country. She also did a lot of hard tedious work, knew her brief and didn't stop pushing. That's a big lesson for all sides which seems to have been forgotten.
-
I think Bonjoy or JB's earlier point (sorry forgot who) that negatives will be felt immediately and positives will probably take several years to emerge is very salient to the present situation.
So tin hats and cash under the mattress until c.2020 then we can come out of our EuroShelters (tm) and get on with life. Wonder what series of Game of Thrones we'll be on then...
BTW - did anyone see Junkers very droll tweet last night "UK - Iceland 1-2. Winter is coming"
-
But you were part of a social movement which - for whatever reason - decided it was acceptable to ally itself with fascists. That doesn't make you a fascist or a racist of course. But it does make you a fellow traveller with the worst parts of British - or really English - society. And of course you chose to follow leaders who espoused the worst sort of anti-intellectualism and were quite happy to trash the reputations of vital institutions in order to reach their goal.
I'm saying if you believe those means justified the ends you wanted, then that's extremely dangerous.
Nice logic there Sean. Doesn't leave any room whatsoever for any worldview that differs from your own does it, conveniently. Or at least, any reasonable worldview that doesn't include fascism or racism. Great attitude. Who's being blinkered here?
Who allayed themselves with who? Lets turn it around to say a fascist element allayed themselves to what I feel I voted for - which was a vision of the UK that included the free movement of people and labour, but which wasn't in a political union run from Brussels.
I don't consider it ever acceptable to ally myself with fascists. And I'm not 'following' any leader I can make out. I'm following my own belief in local governance, free trade within certain conditions, and a global outward-looking view.
-
I'm hoping Brexit will improve the situation for everyone in Europe. I think it could. For over 20years, I've thought the EU was a deeply misguided concept. Smaller countries are just as likely to be affluent as larger countries and people in them are no more likely to be involved in wars. The EU is basically an attempt to conglomerate together a bunch of countries to make one larger country. Worse than that, it governs in a way that is profoundly impervious to democratic control. It's a way for technocrats to rule over everyone -and not neccessarily to rule benevolently or wisely either -just look at what has been done to Greece. The EU has unfair trading relationships with developing countries. I find it DEEPLY offensive when people claim voting Leave is Xenophobic.
That said, I was appalled by much of the Leave campaign and upset that people on the Leave side such as Jenny Jones and Gisela Stuart weren't able to stop the worst aspects of the campaign. A lot of the snobbery from the Remain camp also comes across as very ugly to me.
-
Here's another thought: as soon as Labour get their act together I'll be very surprised if, like the Lib Dems, they don't pledge remain/ re entry. There's already talk of a left alliance with the SNP. So this has only got legs as long as the Tories can stay in power, which is might be long enough to get through article 50 and two years, might not. Either way, why waste all that effort for something likely to be reversed as soon as the electorate swing the other way. 1.9% is not going to swing a parliament which is mostly opposed. It's not going to happen.
-
Interesting to watch this CNN report - some external perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9jubSZOJr0
BTW, the wind turbine plant they mention being built at the end - Siemens announced this afternoon they were not going ahead with further investment in Hull...
-
67%?!?!?!
Can CNN not get basic numbers correct?
Leave : 51.9%
Remain : 48.1%
Or is it poor editing and that he is referring to the number within that region?
-
Nice logic there Sean. Doesn't leave any room whatsoever for any worldview that differs from your own does it, conveniently. Or at least, any reasonable worldview that doesn't include fascism or racism. Great attitude. Who's being blinkered here?
Who allayed themselves with who? Lets turn it around to say a fascist element allayed themselves to what I feel I voted for - which was a vision of the UK that included the free movement of people and labour, but which wasn't in a political union run from Brussels.
I don't consider it ever acceptable to ally myself with fascists. And I'm not 'following' any leader I can make out. I'm following my own belief in local governance, free trade within certain conditions, and a global outward-looking view.
It's quite possible to support all those things and not have voted Leave - Warsi turned her back on the campaign for what I believe are the right reasons, even though she supported its overall aims. Had more prominent Leavers been more responsible at an early stage, then maybe it would have been possible to pull back from the shitpile and give people like you - who voted Leave for good reasons - a decent and honourable campaign.
Instead you get what you want, but at a price. Unfortunately most of that price right now is being paid by non-white Britons, or foreigners.
Alas, I'm getting the impression that you don't care that much, but I might have misread your posts.
-
Interesting to watch this CNN report - some external perspective.
BTW, the wind turbine plant they mention being built at the end - Siemens announced this afternoon they were not going ahead with further investment in Hull...
That's a mighty big hole in Hull's foot.... Although, the grauniad said that the Hull plant won't be affected? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/siemens-freezes-new-uk-wind-power-investment-following-brexit-vote
-
I'm hoping Brexit will improve the situation for everyone in Europe. I think it could. For over 20years, I've thought the EU was a deeply misguided concept. Smaller countries are just as likely to be affluent as larger countries and people in them are no more likely to be involved in wars. The EU is basically an attempt to conglomerate together a bunch of countries to make one larger country. Worse than that, it governs in a way that is profoundly impervious to democratic control. It's a way for technocrats to rule over everyone -and not neccessarily to rule benevolently or wisely either -just look at what has been done to Greece. The EU has unfair trading relationships with developing countries. I find it DEEPLY offensive when people claim voting Leave is Xenophobic.
That said, I was appalled by much of the Leave campaign and upset that people on the Leave side such as Jenny Jones and Gisela Stuart weren't able to stop the worst aspects of the campaign. A lot of the snobbery from the Remain camp also comes across as very ugly to me.
I didn't know you posted on here Stone! :wave: I do sort of think that now the decision has been made, we ought to be looking forward to making the best of things, rather than bitching about what racist cunts everyone else is.
I think there's much to be said for this approach: https://bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/wesley.jpg
-
That's a mighty big hole in Hull's foot.... Although, the grauniad said that the Hull plant won't be affected? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/siemens-freezes-new-uk-wind-power-investment-following-brexit-vote
"Juergen Maier, the firm’s UK CEO, said that an existing blueprint to export offshore wind turbine machinery from the Hull hub was now up in the air", not exactly reassuring
-
67%?!?!?!
Can CNN not get basic numbers correct?
Leave : 51.9%
Remain : 48.1%
Or is it poor editing and that he is referring to the number within that region?
Its the number in the region. 4-1 in some wards :(
That's a mighty big hole in Hull's foot.... Although, the grauniad said that the Hull plant won't be affected? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/siemens-freezes-new-uk-wind-power-investment-following-brexit-vote
"Juergen Maier, the firm’s UK CEO, said that an existing blueprint to export offshore wind turbine machinery from the Hull hub was now up in the air", not exactly reassuring
Its a fuck off big hole. We (they?) spent years courting Siemens to build there - I've seen the plans, know the Council planning dept.. Theres a big Green Port planned for the South Bank - Dong energy are due (have signed outline agreement?) to go there. Phase 3 would have seen a smelter being built on the North bank - the return of heavy prodcution back to the region. Its 300 jobs at the moment - that with the next phase would have meant 10 000 if you included the supply (and delivery) chain. Cynics in Hull say siemens were just taking whatever grants they could and were then going to piss off - but it was the most significant investment in the area in 10 or more years??
Anyway, spent 5 hours in the car today and been climbing. Not listened to any news, or spent hours banging update on the live web pages - and feel a lot better for it.
Also joined Labour so I can have some say in things (if there is still a party not a Momentum / New Labour splittage) which seemed far more positive than just whining about things (as I had been).
-
Thanks Stone for pretty much summing up my feelings and thanks Pete too. Its ironic and offensive calling people racist and fascist sympathisers because they have made a different decision to yourself on an issue like this.
-
I'm hoping Brexit will improve the situation for everyone in Europe. I think it could. For over 20years, I've thought the EU was a deeply misguided concept. Smaller countries are just as likely to be affluent as larger countries and people in them are no more likely to be involved in wars. The EU is basically an attempt to conglomerate together a bunch of countries to make one larger country. Worse than that, it governs in a way that is profoundly impervious to democratic control. It's a way for technocrats to rule over everyone -and not neccessarily to rule benevolently or wisely either -just look at what has been done to Greece. The EU has unfair trading relationships with developing countries. I find it DEEPLY offensive when people claim voting Leave is Xenophobic.
That said, I was appalled by much of the Leave campaign and upset that people on the Leave side such as Jenny Jones and Gisela Stuart weren't able to stop the worst aspects of the campaign. A lot of the snobbery from the Remain camp also comes across as very ugly to me.
Good to see you Stone.
I'm a remain, but share your sentiments about the misrepresentation of the views of many of the Brexit voters. It comes across as the sort of polarising of opinion which corrupted much of the political campaigning. I don't see that it does much to support the cause and values of the remain camp, if our response to the Brexit vote is primarily emotional and reactionary, as there will be many who voted to leave, who share much of the sentiment of those who voted to remain.
I don't share the view that to leave, is the best way to arrive at improvements in Europe, but I'd have been hard pressed to provide a full analysis of how to achieve what I was voting for, before the poll, beyond an expression - and hopefully protection - of the values I felt I supported, by voting in the way that I did.
-
Thanks Stone for pretty much summing up my feelings and thanks Pete too. Its ironic and offensive calling people racist and fascist sympathisers because they have made a different decision to yourself on an issue like this.
Racist and fascist sympathisers - no.
But what? Probably something closer to enablers.
-
I thought the referendum was quite a simple question.
Do you want to remain a member or not.
It seems pretty black and white.
Either all in (remain) or all out (exit).
Since the result all the exiters seem to want is the best of both worlds.
The independence they crave but also the economic benefits of being in the EU.
This is what is so fu*kin annoying.
If this is the case why exit?
I personally haven't been prevented from doing anything in life because/in spite of the EU.
The blame for all the mess lies at the feet of Cameron and his Con-artist party.
He did it to stop Tory infighting, thought it would be plain sailing, the rest is history.
All of it smacks of selfishness, looking out for number one, rather than the greater good.
-
For those who disliked my earlier generalisation, I would like to point out that some of my best friends are drooling morons. So suck it up princesses.
jfdm - I agree. Those non DMs, non racists, non fascists, who chose to vote Leave seem to want to have their cake and eat it without realising that they have just taken a massive shit into the cake they wanted to eat.
It makes zero sense, and any amount of attempting to intellectualise it due to dissatisfaction with the way the EU is run doesn't change that.
If Remain had won then things would actually have changed anyway as a lot of the top EU leaders were already shitting themselves about the fact that the vote was obviously going to be close. Talks had already happened about consequences of a close Remain vote and what it meant for other countries that have deep reservations about the EU. It was already a big deal.
Many of the things that the non DMs wanted would have been more likely to be achieved than they are now that we have to deal with this unholy mess.
And yes, the only reason we had a referendum was for Cameron to try to save his skin from UKIP and the nutjob faction of his party. The wanker.
-
intellectualise it
The thing is they can't intellectualise it.
They operate on such a high level that their ideas can't be verbalised.
Over the weekend remainers were told to "suck it up."
But all I have heard since is the bleating exiters saying that things will be ok in 5-10 yrs.
I'm not okay with this joined up thinking.
Everything now is a leap into the unknown, back of fag packet ideas, no freakin clue.
-
intellectualise it
The thing is they can't intellectualise it.
They operate on such a high level that their ideas can't be verbalised.
Over the weekend remainers were told to "suck it up."
But all I have heard since is the bleating exiters saying that things will be ok in 5-10 yrs.
I'm not okay with this joined up thinking.
Everything now is a leap into the unknown, back of fag packet ideas, no freakin clue.
There there dear - don't worry your pretty head, it'll all be fine soon...
After all, BoJo and Gove-dawg used to be journalists.
(I am being Very sarcastic...)
-
To more seriously answer your previous post jdfm - this is why referenda are rarely used (Cameron has used more than we had previously since WW2) because most questions are far more nuanced than yes or no.. So need a more broad answer that brings in all the knowledge.
Which is why we have governments rather than perpetual referendums about every bloody thing.
-
Its a fuck off big hole. We (they?) spent years courting Siemens to build there - I've seen the plans, know the Council planning dept.. Theres a big Green Port planned for the South Bank - Dong energy are due (have signed outline agreement?) to go there. Phase 3 would have seen a smelter being built on the North bank - the return of heavy prodcution back to the region. Its 300 jobs at the moment - that with the next phase would have meant 10 000 if you included the supply (and delivery) chain. Cynics in Hull say siemens were just taking whatever grants they could and were then going to piss off - but it was the most significant investment in the area in 10 or more years??
Looks like it might be tata TATA too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36634654
Also has anyone read the Mystic Clegg article?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
-
Thanks Stone for pretty much summing up my feelings and thanks Pete too. Its ironic and offensive calling people racist and fascist sympathisers because they have made a different decision to yourself on an issue like this.
Racist and fascist sympathisers - no.
But what? Probably something closer to enablers.
Yet you seem to admire Thatcher and under her watch. We had to form the Anti Nazi league and Rock Against Racism.
-
Sky News reporting that Cornyn has lost no confidence vote by 80%
http://news.sky.com/story/1718507/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence
-
Also has anyone read the Mystic Clegg article?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
Jesus H Christ...you're not kidding. Are you sure that hasn't been backdated? Truly prescient!
-
I can't see a second ref being likely, but am increasingly expecting whoever wins the Tory leadership to call a GE, and run on a manifesto of the likely terms of exit. Wouldn't expect it or brexit to wait till the 2020's though.
It's quite possible they'll campaign on a second referendum, rather than call a GE. Because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, without repealing it, or managing to get a vote of no confidence of 2/3rds of the house, i.e about 110 Tories voting "no confidence", it can't be called. That's not to say it won't happen though, it just requires some huge, and probably planned, political suicides.
It's not likely to happen because, no political party wants to lose power, even over such a poisoned chalice as leading their way through this. What any new leader will want to know is that they have a strong enough mandate to lead. Whilst holding a GE feels better from a democratic mandate point of view (and it's not something I'd turn down, as I wrote on my blog, especially if the following can't work), if staying in the EU is your primary goal, based purely on tactics and whilst many here won't like it, then having a new Tory leader, voted in on a second referendum ticket, who clearly defines the process of exit, explaining exactly when article 50 notification is sent (if leave wins) and who does so on a binding vote (whether at 50% of vote or at greater %), is probably the best chance of staying in the EU at this point int time.
Holding a GE has so many unknowns at this point in time, it could well backfire, especially into a UKIP backed quagmire. And with such a short time for Labour and everyone else to get houses in order before October, it's looking more and more likely that this will form part of the Tory leadership campaign. The problem is, you can't have much influence over the Tory party leadership, that's where such a hope gets very risky. But this whole situation is fraught with risk!
Anyway, all speculation, we'll know who are being put forward for leadership by Thursday evening. As it stands, there's only 2 likely 'leave' candidates and 7 'remain'.
PS No bookies favourite has ever won a Tory leadership contest (I'm told on good authority)
-
To more seriously answer your previous post jdfm - this is why referenda are rarely used (Cameron has used more than we had previously since WW2) because most questions are far more nuanced than yes or no.. So need a more broad answer that brings in all the knowledge.
Which is why we have governments rather than perpetual referendums about every bloody thing.
At work (school) had election assembley about referendum (Thursday last week)
Duputy Head said term referendum is a question that has a simple yes or no answer.
No halfway houses.
Kids had vote, voted in an almost identical fashion to ukb poll, 80% remain 20% exit.
The kids I teach between 7 and 13 years old, they can get their heads around this issue.
It says a lot that the supposed adults and government can't.
And that why MPs and PM are paid big bucks to actually lead get heads around the big questions, obviously not.
-
Sky News reporting that Cornyn has lost no confidence vote by 80%
http://news.sky.com/story/1718507/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence
Was announced at 4:30 PM. Get with the rolling media program Sharkio ;)
-
Sky News reporting that Cornyn has lost no confidence vote by 80%
http://news.sky.com/story/1718507/jeremy-corbyn-loses-vote-of-no-confidence
Was announced at 4:30 PM. Get with the rolling media program Sharkio ;)
Tomtom Give the young man a break.
He has been Oaking it up recently. :)
-
Thanks Stone for pretty much summing up my feelings and thanks Pete too. Its ironic and offensive calling people racist and fascist sympathisers because they have made a different decision to yourself on an issue like this.
Racist and fascist sympathisers - no.
But what? Probably something closer to enablers.
Yet you seem to admire Thatcher and under her watch. We had to form the Anti Nazi league and Rock Against Racism.
I admire your anti-fascist creds but suggest you read my posts a little more carefully...
-
Also has anyone read the Mystic Clegg article?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
Well that was on the money right up to the last two paragraphs.
We'll know about those in a month or two.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Also has anyone read the Mystic Clegg article?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/
Jesus H Christ...you're not kidding. Are you sure that hasn't been backdated? Truly prescient!
Apparently so. No-one has said otherwise.
-
Thanks Stone for pretty much summing up my feelings and thanks Pete too. Its ironic and offensive calling people racist and fascist sympathisers because they have made a different decision to yourself on an issue like this.
Racist and fascist sympathisers - no.
But what? Probably something closer to enablers.
Yet you seem to admire Thatcher and under her watch. We had to form the Anti Nazi league and Rock Against Racism.
I admire your anti-fascist creds but suggest you read my posts a little more carefully...
Ok.
I can't find any hint of racism in any of Pete's, Dense's or A.N.Others posts on here.
Personally I don't for one second imagine that they voted on a racial basis.
This has uncovered the extent of racist feeling in the country and that I find both disappointing and frightening.
But it was there anyway and if it hadn't been this then it would have been something else.
There's a long list of possibilities for that something.
Voting to leave the EU, because you're fed up with hardline federalists, worried about the Euro or disgusted by the treatment of Greece; does't make you a racist (I reckon you were wrong, but not evil and I might be wrong on both counts).
So lay off with calling people facists, even by association, on here. Dense is rude, not dictatorial; harsh, not bigoted.
I've felt a little of that racism, firsthand and fear it getting worse.
But it's the same idiots that were always there (there's more than I'd imagined) and they are already being slapped down (see the tram incident today) by people around them.
Emboldened is not empowered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hope my fellow whiners are all writing to your MPs to explain why you expect their support in remaining in the EU
-
Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.
And do I believe this shit was there already? Some of it, but that assumes a set level of racism in society. I'm not sure I believe that but I could be wrong. There's no doubt several PhDs worth of work unpicking those sentences.
Anyhow, we now have a soiled and grim element to our national culture but that's okay because no ones making laws on kettles.
-
After all, BoJo and Gove-dawg used to be journalists.
Which brings to mind that Stephen Collins cartoon.....
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/12/1331571750348/Stephen-Collins-17-March--001.jpg?w=940&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=49ed83844fa6a84099a085229c05f2f7)
-
Dunning-Kruger effect.
Never affected me, of course.
Ummm...
Much.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Meanwhile in the Labour party....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
-
Just been listening to smaller business leaders/owners on radio 4, talk about their hopes for less red tape. Am I the only one who hears this is less workers rights, less environmental protection, less social responsibility traded for increased profit?
-
Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.
Except Sean I don't feel uncomfortable, and I reject your suggestion that I should. Neither should anyone who voted for reasons that aren't rascist/fascist. I reject your suggestion that by voting for local governance over federal governance, which is my wish, I'm responsible for racist or fascist behaviour - racists and fascist are responsible for their own behaviour.
You seem determined to turn your justified anger at experiencing racist/fascist behaviour (and losing the vote?) into a project to blame this on everyone who thinks differently to you. You're attempting to single out people you can blame, instead of thinking about it in terms of powerful events that have their own momentum and consequences.
The referendum question could have been framed in different ways. Framing the question of our membership of the EU as just 'Leave' / 'Remain' inevitably led to each side encompassing a massive landscape of unrepresented beliefs between the two contour lines of Leave and Remain. From far-right xenophobia to left-wing socialism and globalist liberalism and everything in-between.
The referendum was an event responsible for making some people, who had underlying rascist tendencies, to subsequently feel emboldened; an even smaller number of these people actually act out their racist beliefs, which is reflected by a subsequent spike in racist abuse. Some self-belief in doing the right thing will soon stamp that back down.
Here's a question. Once people have accepted your blame narrative that they're to blame for the tiny minority of genuinely malicious people - what then? Because people responsible for wrongdoing should be punished in some way no?
You're leveling accusations of racist/fascist complicity at over 17 million people who voted differently to yourself. Taken to its logical extreme your line of thought defines 'irony' and is highly distasteful. You're in danger of acting as a fascist. A well-meaning one - but as you say good intentions sometimes have bad outcomes.
-
Just been listening to smaller business leaders/owners on radio 4, talk about their hopes for less red tape. Am I the only one who hears this is less workers rights, less environmental protection, less social responsibility traded for increased profit?
I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear that this could result in a huge step backwards for the environment, in the UK and the world. It's not as if the current tory government have shown any will to be environmental stewards. Obviously we can boot them out in 4 years, but that's not guaranteed and a lot new laws and regulation will be set by then.
If the article 50 does get instigated, we're going to have to find new and effective ways of trying to influence government policy....but how???
-
As a small business owner I find by far the most onerous legal obligation is preparing VAT and Tax returns. Those aren't going anywhere. Our business is in many ways built on 'red tape' - helping people to work safely. It's telling that whenever folk complain about red tape they can never give simple examples.
-
We were really busy until Friday, but eerily quiet since.
Does this mean you might be up for climbing this week? Big Friday? See it's not all bad...
-
Just been listening to smaller business leaders/owners on radio 4, talk about their hopes for less red tape. Am I the only one who hears this is less workers rights, less environmental protection, less social responsibility traded for increased profit?
I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear that this could result in a huge step backwards for the environment, in the UK and the world.
I think it almost a certainty. Ironically, if sea levels are set to rise it'll be the Leave voters in the eastern flatlands who get hit the worst.
As JB said, it's not "red tape", it's sensible regulation that keeps us and our environment safer and better protected from those that would look to cut corners.
-
Interesting link from John Cox on the other channel:
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/looking-behind-the-brexit-anger/
-
As a small business owner I find by far the most onerous legal obligation is preparing VAT and Tax returns. Those aren't going anywhere. Our business is in many ways built on 'red tape' - helping people to work safely. It's telling that whenever folk complain about red tape they can never give simple examples.
A'fucking'men to that one.
Compared to running shipyards or ships at sea, there is the square root of sod all in the way of regulation in running a small business in the UK.
But, the 'ealf n' saftey, "Bogged down in red tape" narrative has been sold to the masses, for decades.
Often quite falsely, as an excuse to duck out of responsibilities or avoid supplying costly services (at local Government level).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Just been listening to smaller business leaders/owners on radio 4, talk about their hopes for less red tape. Am I the only one who hears this is less workers rights, less environmental protection, less social responsibility traded for increased profit?
I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear that this could result in a huge step backwards for the environment, in the UK and the world.
I think it almost a certainty. Ironically, if sea levels are set to rise it'll be the Leave voters in the eastern flatlands who get hit the worst.
As JB said, it's not "red tape", it's sensible regulation that keeps us and our environment safer and better protected from those that would look to cut corners.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to environmental regulations post Brexit... As we've not really made any regulations over the last 20 years - what will probably happen is we will 'borrow' existing and new EU ones and/or modify as we see fit.
One positive of Brexit is the removal of the CAP - that I don't think has particularly helped our environment or farmers by creating a very false market for agriculture. My worry though, is that CAP provides some form of stability (I wont say protection - as what it does is very subjective) in the environment - and we would need to have suitable and decent regulations put in place. Though the farming lobby is strong with the Tory party (stronger than the environmental lobby) so it might end up with some sort of horrible farming free for all.
I had a chat with one of my National EA friends yesterday - and they didn't have "a fucking clue" what was going to happen..
Of course it might all work out well. Or it might provide an opportunity to re-organise/privatise a whole range of things whilst the rules are being re-written. Or am I being cynical.....
-
Except Sean I don't feel uncomfortable, and I reject your suggestion that I should. Neither should anyone who voted for reasons that aren't rascist/fascist. I reject your suggestion that by voting for local governance over federal governance, which is my wish, I'm responsible for racist or fascist behaviour - racists and fascist are responsible for their own behaviour.
As a voter who was (is) strongly in the remain camp I have to say I totally agree with you here Pete and am a little disturbed at the treatment you're getting on here from Sean.
To suggest that people can't simply vote one way or the other in a Yes/No referendum without somehow legitimising racism is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard.
The only person who is legitimising racism is that twat Farage.
Likewise it cannot be assumed that those who voted purely on immigration concerns are racists either. Whilst I personally believe that immigration is a good thing for our society, people are entitled to the opinion that immigration levels are a problem whilst still retaining the ability to treat their fellow human beings as human beings!
Many people with strong views are opportunists and will use any excuse to express their views (maybe the most polite description of racism ever!). I firmly believe we would have had the same spike had the remain camp won because those same racists were angered at the result. They are just taking advantage of the situation presented to them.
Many others will also have been taking advantage of the result, for example traders shorting the market, making money out of others losses and swooping in to prey on the weakening of the pound. The leave voters didn't legitimise this behaviour either - it's just an unfortunate consequence.
-
Does anyone think it would be possible to trade livestock or agricultural produce with the EU if we didn't sign up the CAP?
I can't imagine there wouldn't be very steep tariffs introduced.
-
Though the farming lobby is strong with the Tory party (stronger than the environmental lobby) so it might end up with some sort of horrible farming free for all.
But Tom, that nice Brexit: The Movie video told me that the lobeeists were only in the EU. I fought that voting Out would mean all the lo bees and technocats and face less beurocats would go away and leave us alone. OMG I'm confused lol :shrug: lol
-
I think its wrong to blame leave voters for the rise in racist incidents.
But this is happening due to the leave result empowering people with racist views.
Therein lies the problem -- they are linked yet not linked.
This is the issue with referendums - only yes or no choice. No chance to vote for BNP/BritainFirst or whatever if you so choose. So all the racist wankers are lumped in with people voting leave for beliefs on governance, or economics. This, I have to add, was not helped by a leave campaign that didn't shy from playing the immigration card - that went along a spectrum from "I love immigrants, but.." from Boris, to Farages poster. In other words from dog whistle to blatant racism.
-
Anyway, no one has stated the fucking obvious yet...
BUY ROCK BOOTS NOW... their price is always linked to the Eu/$$ to the ££ rate - and after the most recent shipping container of 5:10 , Scarpa and Sportiva goodies have sold out the next one will be more expensive...
-
Personally I'm thinking of investing in anti-depressant and anti-anxiety pharma.
TT - referendums don't have to be binary though. They can have more than two choices. And even with a binary referendum, the choice could have possibly been more nuanced than simple 'leave' / 'remain'.
-
Personally I'm thinking of investing in anti-depressant and anti-anxiety pharma.
TT - referendums don't have to be binary though. They can have more than two choices. And even with a binary referendum, the choice could have possibly been more nuanced than simple 'leave' / 'remain'.
Actually that is really hard. And then makes the result VERY critical on the wording of the questions (said from the perspective of having some experience of writing/teaching about writing questionnaire questions). How would you have asked the question differently? - would you have three, four, five, or six questions? Then would you have to say that there can only be a result if one question gets more than 50% of the vote? Would that be fair or not? It quickly balloons into a whole different situation... (and I'm only using a couple of example questions above). What happens if you use a complicated word in your question? Does that discriminate against people who might vote a certain way? You either have to make the question very very simple and straightforward, or use a different decision making process (e.g. a Government!!)
-
Have a read up on past referendums in various countries. It's entirely possible that with a bit more political craft this referendum could have been framed differently.
-
Have a read up on past referendums in various countries. It's entirely possible that with a bit more political craft this referendum could have been framed differently.
OK - create a better question for us.
-
Have a read up on past referendums in various countries. It's entirely possible that with a bit more political craft this referendum could have been framed differently.
OK - create a better question for us.
Why?
Ffs Why!?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
because I want to see if Pete can come up with a better question(s)!w
Anyway, have you stocked up on chalk before the prices rocket OMM? ;)
-
EU superstate please
Remain happily
Remain but complain
Don't Care
Brexit with cuddles
Full Brexit - separate beds
Throw out the n**gers.
-
One positive of Brexit is the removal of the CAP - that I don't think has particularly helped our environment or farmers by creating a very false market for agriculture. My worry though, is that CAP provides some form of stability (I wont say protection - as what it does is very subjective) in the environment - and we would need to have suitable and decent regulations put in place. Though the farming lobby is strong with the Tory party (stronger than the environmental lobby) so it might end up with some sort of horrible farming free for all.
Firstly, Will we actually get rid of the CAP or just replace it with the UKAP which is nothing but the CAP in a dashing union flag cloak? There was plenty of promises to the farmers to "maintain their subsidies". I realise quite a few of the Brexit promises have gone the way of Cinderella's coach and horses but the farmers that benefit are the big farms with a lot of land (Like the Queen and her €500k handout, 80% of the CAP payments go to 20% of the farms) and they are the ones who will be lobbying (and in bed with the Tories).
-
Have a read up on past referendums in various countries. It's entirely possible that with a bit more political craft this referendum could have been framed differently.
OK - create a better question for us.
No chance - I'm too busy, I'm not a civil servant or a politician, something like that takes time and thought. How about you try?
-
Have a read up on past referendums in various countries. It's entirely possible that with a bit more political craft this referendum could have been framed differently.
OK - create a better question for us.
No chance - I'm too busy, I'm not a civil servant or a politician, something like that takes time and thought. How about you try?
I'm not clever enough to do that. But as you'd read up about it I thought you'd have a try. Oh well.
-
Creating surveys is, as tomtom has already intimated, not as straight-forward as it might seem and simply listing the options can easily lead to bias.
Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology (http://jssam.oxfordjournals.org/) would be a starting point for researching the known problems and how to avoid them.
-
because I want to see if Pete can come up with a better question(s)!w
Anyway, have you stocked up on chalk before the prices rocket OMM? ;)
No,
I mean that's a better question...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you're not clever enough TT than neither am I.
I'm only clever enough to have spent 5 minutes reading that referendums don't have to be and aren't always binary; and that there are plenty of examples of referendums where the choices are more nuanced than the one we've just had.
Which makes your suggestion that referendums are either yes/no- ''This is the issue with referendums - only yes or no choice'' - incorrect.
-
One positive of Brexit is the removal of the CAP - that I don't think has particularly helped our environment or farmers by creating a very false market for agriculture. My worry though, is that CAP provides some form of stability (I wont say protection - as what it does is very subjective) in the environment - and we would need to have suitable and decent regulations put in place. Though the farming lobby is strong with the Tory party (stronger than the environmental lobby) so it might end up with some sort of horrible farming free for all.
Firstly, Will we actually get rid of the CAP or just replace it with the UKAP which is nothing but the CAP in a dashing union flag cloak? There was plenty of promises to the farmers to "maintain their subsidies". I realise quite a few of the Brexit promises have gone the way of Cinderella's coach and horses but the farmers that benefit are the big farms with a lot of land (Like the Queen and her €500k handout, 80% of the CAP payments go to 20% of the farms) and they are the ones who will be lobbying (and in bed with the Tories).
I would link to Monbiot's Guardian article...but I'm sure everyone can google. My, albeit limited and most likely biased take on it is - the big landowners take a major whack of the CAP, then sublet out their poorer land to tenant farmers.
So the worker still gets fucked, while the rich just keep on gettin' richer. Someone has to pay for those range rovers and public schools, I suppose.
E.G. The Honerable Robert Other Ivor Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth, last year received over £600,000.... he's already worth £30m - rob from the poor and pay to the rich.
-
If you're not clever enough TT than neither am I.
I'm only clever enough to have spent 5 minutes reading that referendums don't have to be and aren't always binary; and that there are plenty of examples of referendums where the choices are more nuanced than the one we've just had.
Which makes your suggestion that referendums are either yes/no- ''This is the issue with referendums - only yes or no choice'' - incorrect.
Given one of the major arguments of the "No" campaign in the "Alternative Vote" referendum was that such a system of voting is too complicated for the electorate it seems unlikely to me that a multi-choice referendum would be supported by those who won that referendum.
So yes possible, but it seems unlikely to happen to me.
-
Pete's quite right. I can't remember exactly how the PR/AV referendum was framed but they did their best to make the alternatives to FPTP unattractive.
What should have been thought about a bit more is how to deal with outcome. Historically such mega changes of policy are not taken on such slim majorities. When we joined, it was 67% for. This wouldn't be over if it had been 48-52 the other way, as Farage said. It isn't over now. We're in a standoff. The tories think they have got enough to push for the concessions they didn't get in February, but Europe know they haven't got the majority to push it through, and are playing as hard as possible to make an example of us. Brexit will not happen unless there's another referendum with a stronger mandate.
-
If you're not clever enough TT than neither am I.
I'm only clever enough to have spent 5 minutes reading that referendums don't have to be and aren't always binary; and that there are plenty of examples of referendums where the choices are more nuanced than the one we've just had.
I'm flattered - but you needn't xx
-
Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.
And do I believe this shit was there already? Some of it, but that assumes a set level of racism in society. I'm not sure I believe that but I could be wrong. There's no doubt several PhDs worth of work unpicking those sentences.
Anyhow, we now have a soiled and grim element to our national culture but that's okay because no ones making laws on kettles.
I don't where you live or frequent but I am staggered that you are not aware of the levels of racism in our society. I come across it at work from patients seeing an Asian doctor , you come across it in industry and in country pubs listening to the local farm workers.
I'm sure there are many more examples.
-
How about the example of the EDL or a similar moron group holding their demonstrations. Been going on for a few years now in south Yorkshire. Sean - I find your argument about as sophisticated as trumps when he says that your sympathising with or if you like 'enabling' terrorists if you vote Clinton.
-
One positive of Brexit is the removal of the CAP - that I don't think has particularly helped our environment or farmers by creating a very false market for agriculture. My worry though, is that CAP provides some form of stability (I wont say protection - as what it does is very subjective) in the environment - and we would need to have suitable and decent regulations put in place. Though the farming lobby is strong with the Tory party (stronger than the environmental lobby) so it might end up with some sort of horrible farming free for all.
Firstly, Will we actually get rid of the CAP or just replace it with the UKAP which is nothing but the CAP in a dashing union flag cloak? There was plenty of promises to the farmers to "maintain their subsidies". I realise quite a few of the Brexit promises have gone the way of Cinderella's coach and horses but the farmers that benefit are the big farms with a lot of land (Like the Queen and her €500k handout, 80% of the CAP payments go to 20% of the farms) and they are the ones who will be lobbying (and in bed with the Tories).
I would link to Monbiot's Guardian article...but I'm sure everyone can google. My, albeit limited and most likely biased take on it is - the big landowners take a major whack of the CAP, then sublet out their poorer land to tenant farmers.
So the worker still gets fucked, while the rich just keep on gettin' richer. Someone has to pay for those range rovers and public schools, I suppose.
E.G. The Honerable Robert Other Ivor Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth, last year received over £600,000.... he's already worth £30m - rob from the poor and pay to the rich.
I know the state of the funding, I just feel that although this an opportunity to reform it, the people on the receiving end of the subsidies are the kind of people who have the ear of the Tory party so are likely to continue getting them.
-
Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.
-
Some pertinent statistics (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/) for people's reactions:
Those who said they paid little or no attention to politics voted to leave the EU by 58% to 42%.
More than three quarters (77%) of those who voted to remain thought “the decision we make in the referendum could have disastrous consequences for us as a country if we get it wrong”.
More than two thirds (69%) of leavers, by contrast, thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way”.
-
Some thoughts on Pete’s, Matt’s and others reply to my slightly uncompromising stance.
I might be wrong (and I’m not going to trawl my posts to check, we’ve all got better stuff to do surely?) but I’m fairly sure I’m not accusing Leave voters of being racists, legitimising racists, being racist sympathisers or directly responsible for racist behaviour. Apologies if I did.
The problem, as I keep saying, is that the perfectly reasonable UK laws/no federalism/trade links not political links/etc arguments (like Stone's above) became wrapped up with the nationalist/nativist/racist appeals to fear and anger. Worse than that – people who supported those arguments rode to power on the back of the nativist appeals. We can be pretty sure of this because the campaign was going badly until they doubled down on the anti-immigrant message. Again, it is possible to have a reasonable debate about immigration but this wasn’t a reasonable debate, was it? It was fear whipped up (and yes, the Remain camp did this, but not to the same extent or by pressing the same dark buttons).
I think the result of this way of campaigning represented an awful poisoned chalice for people like Pete: get what you want but at the very high risk of social unrest directed at minorities. Now of course it probably would have happened if Remain had won, but I believe that’s far too sanguine a view. (See this piece by Nick Cohen: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-lies-opening-terrifying-new-opportunity-far-right-britain/ ) Maybe there would be a spike, but from where I’m sitting it feels like a juddering shift to a new world. As I’ve said before, to me a lot of decent people wanted something very badly, and they’ve got it, but they are not going to have to pay the price themselves. We are most definitely not all in this together. (Well, at least in this respect. Clearly if the economy tanks we probably all are.)
Now, blame and responsibility. This is a really difficult topic isn’t it, as a moment’s thought about say, reparations for slavery or colonialism might suggest. Pete says I should be thinking in terms of “events with their own momentum”. The thing is, those events are just the actions of many, many people in aggregate. Where do those people stand in relation to the bigger world around them of which they are a tiny part, but nevertheless involved in shaping and in turn being shaped by? Half of our culture and civilisation is an attempt to answer these questions so anything I write on an internet forum is going to be somewhat hamstrung by my own intellectual and moral shortcomings…
My view fwiw, and I’m not being dogmatic about this if you have a better way of describing the world, is that responsibility isn’t an either/or thing. It’s more like a target. Right in the bullseye those responsible for calling my girlfriend a dirty Paki are the two nasty women in Kew Gardens. In the ring just outside lay Farrage, Johnson, Gove, Dacre and Desmond, the men who helped to fan fear of outsiders and people who are different. The Leave voters who lapped it all up and repeated it and let it become normal in their circles, they get another, slightly further out ring. Not directly responsible, but part of the problem.
Where do the non-racist, politically and economically motivated Leave voters fit into this schematic? Clearly – as I said above – a long, long way out. Is it their fault? No. Did they go along with something nasty to get what they desired? In my opinion, yes. I think that sullies what they won, as does the resort to anti-intellectualism and the rubbishing of experts.
Would I like to punish 17m people in an orgy of fascistic revenge? That’s a bit of an extrapolation but hey, this is the internet. But I am of the feeling that this really should give Leave voters pause for thought. Maybe make them a little uncomfy, because getting what you want at the expense of someone else’s safety (even if you didn’t want that, which I know you didn’t) isn’t a great position to be in.
-
Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.
And do I believe this shit was there already? Some of it, but that assumes a set level of racism in society. I'm not sure I believe that but I could be wrong. There's no doubt several PhDs worth of work unpicking those sentences.
Anyhow, we now have a soiled and grim element to our national culture but that's okay because no ones making laws on kettles.
I don't where you live or frequent but I am staggered that you are not aware of the levels of racism in our society. I come across it at work from patients seeing an Asian doctor , you come across it in industry and in country pubs listening to the local farm workers.
I'm sure there are many more examples.
I don't know where you live, but I'm in London and the thought that our big companies, the government or any other large organisation could function well with that level of racism is staggering.
-
Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.
The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.
Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.
-
Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.
The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.
Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.
That was one of the things that seemed strange to me.
What cheap labour? Unless you were paying less than minimum wage, in which case you were breaking the law anyway.
I know from farmer friends, things like flower picking (where they still pay MW) were a bitch in years past. Recruiting was limited to school kids and students, who were (I'm afraid) not very productive. Now they, the ethical ones at least, employ large numbers of migrant workers, who earn more than they could at home and work hard.
Yes, I know about the abuses of that system. The flouting of law and basic human rights is a separate issue. It is still a minority of operators.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Sean - I think healthy democracy demands that people vote according to there own conscience, without fear of being held responsible for the reasons other people voted the same way. Collective responsibility is a flawed principle and a slippery slope to its corollary collective punishment.
-
Short and blunt.
But he always is.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/greenspan-calls-brexit-a-terrible-outcome-as-euro-area-tested
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
One of the arguments is that by restricting immigration, to get anyone to do the 'shit' jobs, you have to pay more and more (so people are actually incentivised to drag their lazy arses to work etc..). So lets say the effective cabbage picking wage goes up to £15 hour.. that means that Cabbages then cost twice as much. So, to protect our cabbage producers, a cabbage levy is introduced to all foreign cabbages. Cost of living goes up (assuming cabbageflation principle is applied everywhere) and so do wages...
Isn't this what happens in CH?
So, McDonalds is a good global price/cost of living comparator - and in CH a value meal costs just under £10. (£3.69 here - last time Fiend told me... ;) ). Would this be a bad thing? Or a good thing?
Its probably far more complex than that - but it doesnt make us competitive for exports does it (if it costs so much to make stuff). So what do we sell? (serious question - is it knowledge, expertise, financial services)
Anyone with any economic nous care to comment?
-
Sean - I think healthy democracy demands that people vote according to there own conscience, without fear of being held responsible for the reasons other people voted the same way. Collective responsibility is a flawed principle and a slippery slope to it's corollary collective punishment.
As I said above, I'm not sure the question of "who's responsible for this" is totally straightforward and I've no desire to see any kind of "punishment". Awareness would be nice...
Of course more broadly this is why we have political parties isn't it? To take the flak and to be held accountable. The problem with referenda isn't just their binary nature, but that no one is responsible for the decision made. (Or lack of decision made, as in our increasingly weird case).
-
One of the arguments is that by restricting immigration, to get anyone to do the 'shit' jobs, you have to pay more and more (so people are actually incentivised to drag their lazy arses to work etc..). So lets say the effective cabbage picking wage goes up to £15 hour.. that means that Cabbages then cost twice as much. So, to protect our cabbage producers, a cabbage levy is introduced to all foreign cabbages. Cost of living goes up (assuming cabbageflation principle is applied everywhere) and so do wages...
Isn't this what happens in CH?
So, McDonalds is a good global price/cost of living comparator - and in CH a value meal costs just under £10. (£3.69 here - last time Fiend told me... ;) ). Would this be a bad thing? Or a good thing?
Its probably far more complex than that - but it doesnt make us competitive for exports does it (if it costs so much to make stuff). So what do we sell? (serious question - is it knowledge, expertise, financial services)
Anyone with any economic nous care to comment?
Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.
The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.
Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.
That was one of the things that seemed strange to me.
What cheap labour? Unless you were paying less than minimum wage, in which case you were breaking the law anyway.
I know from farmer friends, things like flower picking (where they still pay MW) were a bitch in years past. Recruiting was limited to school kids and students, who were (I'm afraid) not very productive. Now they, the ethical ones at least, employ large numbers of migrant workers, who earn more than they could at home and work hard.
Yes, I know about the abuses of that system. The flouting of law and basic human rights is a separate issue. It is still a minority of operators.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I totally agree that having stringent conditions such as generous minimum wage, child care, holidays etc is the best way to ensure that all jobs are suitably attractive. If it was "a bitch" to fill flower picking jobs, then evidently those jobs were not made suitably attractive. IMO, if we can't afford the products of jobs that are attractive enough, then either we need to automate more (creating highly paid, attractive, jobs making the machines) or we should do without. I suspect that the "low productivity" of the UK economy, that there has been so much hand wringing about, is partly because we have been replacing machines with low paid workers. A "car wash" used to be a machine, now it is a bunch of people with buckets and sponges (my car isn't washed ever :) ).
I think there is a case to be made that we wouldn't have the current situation of zero-hour contracts and pseudo-apprenticeships if there was more of a labour shortage. It is all very well to say that more union power could force better working conditions, but without a labour shortage, union power has a very hard job of getting any traction.
Switzerland (Tom Tom's example) and the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers. Japan has very little migrant workers either. I actually think having all jobs being respected and attractive is vital for a decent country.
-
Thanks Stone - I don't completely agree with you, but interesting examples. I have seen the idea of paying people a flat rate minimum income regardless of working or not, as a mechanism for dealing with increased automation..
Anyway, its certainly going to be a big change in our economy and way of doing things.
Genuine question to Leave voters (not trolling for a response) - would you like to see a Norway style (or some form thereof) access to the EU, or full on independence - ie completely outside of EU with just some sort of trade deal with them?
-
I totally agree that having stringent conditions such as generous minimum wage, child care, holidays etc is the best way to ensure that all jobs are suitably attractive. If it was "a bitch" to fill flower picking jobs, then evidently those jobs were not made suitably attractive. IMO, if we can't afford the products of jobs that are attractive enough, then either we need to automate more (creating highly paid, attractive, jobs making the machines) or we should do without. I suspect that the "low productivity" of the UK economy, that there has been so much hand wringing about, is partly because we have been replacing machines with low paid workers. A "car wash" used to be a machine, now it is a bunch of people with buckets and sponges (my car isn't washed ever :) ).
I think there is a case to be made that we wouldn't have the current situation of zero-hour contracts and pseudo-apprenticeships if there was more of a labour shortage. It is all very well to say that more union power could force better working conditions, but without a labour shortage, union power has a very hard job of getting any traction.
Switzerland (Tom Tom's example) and the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers. Japan has very little migrant workers either. I actually think having all jobs being respected and attractive is vital for a decent country.
In relation to the 'labour oversupply' argument, this is one of the fundamental things I don't get about the leave argument. Essentially there is never a fixed number of jobs in any economy, just as there is not a fixed number of gp appointments/bus services or whatever people are complaining about immigrants using up. There's the obvious point that immigrants use services and consume products as well as starting businesses and employing people. Second, there's the fact that the state of overall job supply is determined by availability of investment, skills, provision of infrastructure etc. This highlights that there's a whole load of different elements that go into job creation. Labour supply is one variable and it might have some relationship to immigration, but it's not the only one, and importantly it's not the only one that the state has or should have a role in making decisions about.
This is before even considering the fact that there is a total disconnect between where voted leave and where has experienced most in-migration. Rural south wales is full?
-
the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers.
And are just as unequal as the US before redistribution by the state. This happens at a level that I don't see evidence of the UK accepting.
-
France is making a bid for London's financial trade; they will give us migration cap we get free trade but give them euro clearing etc. Cunning, plays to the little englanders perfectly - less poles, and kick the bankers. Result nationally will fuck our economy.
-
France is making a bid for London's financial trade; they will give us migration cap we get free trade but give them euro clearing etc. Cunning, plays to the little englanders perfectly - less poles, and kick the bankers. Result nationally will fuck our economy.
All the more reason to stockpile rock boots and chalk... ;)
-
Haven't read recent posts so apologies if I'm off on a tangent mid topic..
Can I ask a question to OMM, Duma and others who were glad to give rolling market updates while the indices were dropping and who seem keen to play the role of 'messenger of doom' with predictions of imminent crashes.
Why aren't you giving updates when markets are rising? Are you not as interested in success as you are possible failure? Rubberneckers at a possible financial crash?
The ftse 250 1 and 5 year.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/z3Rb45gTkutXzxmR2Z8mlfAkZlnSak5_srynB6DKWCXLKEGlt9z4AoIOhkgsOVs_hp060G7mXJn9LFa_iU58JJiIfbw7Zgw1crbCn8XlGs_wMRoDKPnlkHPcZwZ5ENmjxVa1cm_c-ljCl3wOgNECeFOI1NB160fPYCxJ9xEuClQTN3FeROfjIxj-HY3nTJpnW6ebZNVl1-Yn0F9rYgnyUexExZ7WsEIh1ymStz8ReYOqDplMeplPa9WuKUs7SEDa7_PoI9UTt-L8W629H7tYDN3Hx0EadiW1t127N-q_qym-4API1IzeIkCNLRV1iXZy-MGyclf5P3Ibo8Lm-LpP7hZwLKihea4OjATW79I0tqxwEy1NeU8ivjy1AzrKXV0QT6uawIii50Y_SrSJInpBn_lGASv-dxLI2pjaJLJJt1SHpFy8cXPIZ3oAsceybSaomErcUYMailBB5kSX-kp9MVQfTNNHPDmtQrA8PMQahFWSyag3Abv3eF07Qd82hnj8pANrESJMIV1Oao6TW97X63hKlG2BzfMABpK-LpRajy2QclISG5ZKcNlUXScIQ6NJvBptsOdrglMVhvTHcYg-pb-vZGWLUPY=w900-h525-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/L_4Dzy0iloob4Qo0xTmXwWJ0sxYYjanWm33KGlFqSePrFbIUvD9_LIH8WypIKlR4giBhmOI8ISgNZROFnlKHeUGI6AOyYfPymW4n5WzyWzMeWgwsadjrtokvG54nYb_SM3ghtHryWdvYrtARdHLrdhAv9tXrnHyhzDFIWE17_ZV-TSYc16-CLHtlm4BNsuZg2f6YP-HetGDHTzCbfv49IEl23sHkY1o7EZ5mbIwsvO8CLC-S_078Ug8EOhIcMtG6qT8OWGrPcNp7r4Tu07CR30-aoGgg-6Jb8lj9OCjsKccIKHTALYYBrEYjs56wRlSVhLPmdLWRt13iZGhMim5hxmLk8soKVfBad8ivI49Y6TQ42poPcdny2BBxiRvoURBHKqYo2quFhKwqNV1whTGRseNOHhBe0Cy5h-wrPx_PSdCW8YvLlEPVtHQ7gwDj4fRK-dfs58fraqCr7SzJ6GlRzSQpkSHQA7TxZcmCEc_qfv7LoQcMlMi-ByuTxumW4exz08BVvmBLgGxTRVLQzo-rcv40Y8gu2VJRFRLV4DkdEmdZiPs_ibhDFwQRUW1_bTCWIVueEIGsukxVjXtzgYlLZUlSKRDtooE=w900-h525-no)
The ftse 100 1 and 5 year.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/asABwJdkDlgyllylgWfHKGPFxK1NqJC63X6MZpycoNboHKjULlEiDB411fBfPt7PF52QHbIj1oz3s5u-gibdG0pQLO9Z5UknOzV99UbCpy8zg6YvxfP40p8paeyvfCHPa-LgVIyyvwBCeboE6gSX-BtsYiGQ9fP3kkWo2b-jPdCUFi324eh93dQHUe8bcZlL_l07Yk54BXOIyu0wPRqoSXFH1DPmqG-zl96n15JJwpYevFnYf6t7a71blAddx2LoP0pRSev9WaUR5kAMAFZRFck4GR8_f3E7i9O4JliZEc4I3IBk9Tx67815lNowpzOqlor9if_INfMreRpuD4v0f6o8_4D5mKF94qsmzmcVhzFLTZjs8wX7iK2yAEOqL57-k4f0rywLoxEV16SZRgpn3XZQC-JnzIrBnRebw6iI2lqHj5Sb8W9UsHrJcBpSGdAlndFQz3DX_V0PXsnHtaRs0ekKE5WGuZx5x-z-RX3Rl7l4NqnZKglBIXmE9yIe4bl4T5smNCcUE8Js5uiKP9xoVm3lKef6NkVDnoYcBp5y3EchcxXeGn3wdICkOfizdwSHc0U4E8-oGrgAoieVkFKZEpD6wfcurnc=w900-h525-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1syM5tlZOTj7w0i1UNSb5vMq-iSmi4xGzSmci26ytL1iGukcIqiHisZ3WOhqA_J5UxgcNpG8delyAkxUCMhu8MLyEVmwIf9y02LDbAOokbCbTjS4guFCgkOcEJJjHmg3gLnYTcowGVXaCpejyabl-ikDzQeazXX999cGVYgoBOjFoxo17InizggSv6jj-K3UBITONce1UK-lELEzaE0hKxnR2c2pjqLO5v_b3f-q6ti4_E_p-yuB4lsaHiUdzc-PuGa55xCaHxDqbfDC42hRPryf7hfWswYHcc5DOEVIwMxa5Q-mPQ9OUiPSx4VVvM4MFfKnmXokC5rnAJXFZuT_E0oGP_VWpTzjQPNUWoeJUrRhDDXbf1B2w0W2V1qssTTOJWGDtgEjXzFpEXhHbsca-zpTzViKyZOP_AchgtITcuEzMJeV2PMwmMOuyE5aknEH-8vffkDTc-uUumD6T4O7e2-R-RWeSctBnsAROOmHWRvgH2YDsKLii6ELXGrfMxZ55VMRi4PZj59eeKwhvI60tq0G4oL_whJuAoKutQRo6SwSwIFl-_77F5tAbp4FBjnASmWkh8EbhPY2nKMWdBkd-iLYrswtsaI=w900-h525-no)
FT suggesting markets are realising we're not all as immediately shafted as many on here were predicting.
Since the pound dropped I've gained £400 in two days on my shares on the NASDAQ without them doing anything; on top of any rises in the share price (which has also happened), minor yyfy :)
-
I see you've already clicked on 'Don't be misled by FTSE 250's post-Brexit mini revival' Pete, perhaps you can tell us? £ vs $ has stabilised at a new significantly low level, only slightly higher than the bottom of Friday's crash. Likewise £ to €.
It's a stabilisation, not a recovery.
-
I'm talking about the share indices.
You're talking about the pound v dollar. The relative relationship of pound to dollar has various permutations, none of them an indicator in itself of economic success or failure.It isn't set in stone that the pound must be 1.60 dollar and many economists have commented that it's overdue a re-balance and pointed to the benefits such as a positive for exports
-
I see you've already clicked on 'Don't be misled by FTSE 250's post-Brexit mini revival' Pete, perhaps you can tell us?
Since you asked:
''In the two trading days following Brexit, the FTSE 250 slumped by over 13% as investors became nervous regarding the prospects for the UK economy. The FTSE 250 bore the brunt of investors' fears because it is much more dependent upon the UK economy than the FTSE 100. However, since Monday, the FTSE 250 has staged a revival of sorts. It has risen by over 5%, but investors shouldn't get too excited just yet.
Considerable volatility
A key reason for this is that the effects of Brexit will take years to fully transpire. We are less than four working days in to a new era for the UK economy and it will therefore take time for the full effects of the decision to be made clear. Therefore, there is likely to be considerable volatility in the next few years, and it could be easy for investors to mistake a couple of days of share price gains for the start of a bull market. However, the reality is that such an uncertain future generally means that price movement is the result of volatility rather than a sustained trend in either direction.
As mentioned, the FTSE 250's constituents are highly reliant upon the UK economy for their earnings and this could cause a number of problems for the index. While the FTSE 100 is set to benefit from rising earnings as sterling weakens and the global economy continues to offer upbeat growth prospects, the UK may experience a recession and this would undoubtedly cause the FTSE 250 to fall.
Reduced foreign investment
Of course, there is no certainty of a recession, and the UK economy will gain a boost from a weaker currency. That's because exports will become more competitive and their contribution to GDP will rise. However, imports will simultaneously become more expensive, and this could hold back consumer spending at a time when people across the UK are already feeling nervous about their jobs and financial future.
Furthermore, the UK's exit from the EU could cause reduced investment from foreign companies. Access to the single market is favoured by multinationals and if the UK does not gain access, the job losses or job relocations could become a feature of the next few years. This would have a detrimental effect on the FTSE 250 since, as a UK-focused index, it is much more closely tied to the macroeconomic outlook for the UK than is the case for the FTSE 100.
Higher potential rewards
Despite this, in the long run the FTSE 250 is likely to prove to be an excellent investment. This may sound counter-intuitive at a time when its outlook is exceptionally uncertain. However, the UK has faced numerous challenges in its history and has always been able to recover in the long run. As the sixth biggest economy in the world, there is still significant appeal for companies and individuals to invest here. That's even more so when the UK's talent pool, political stability and ownership rights are factored in.
And of course, with the FTSE 250 having fallen since Thursday's vote, it now offers even better value for money and higher potential rewards. So, for long-term investors, buying now seems to be a sound move. But they shouldn't think that the worst is over after just a day and a half of gains.''
-
The key words in all of this being 'could', 'may', 'no certainty' etc.
Habrich - yeah I know that it's a dead cat bounce. Just attempting to counter some of the doom-mongers on here.
-
Fucks sake Pete. You often talk a lot of sense on here but you're just clutching at straws on this one. Markets are stabilising because the BoE and others are promising stimuli to save the pound etc and the growing view that whatever happens, things won't actually change that much in the end. Not because this was a good idea.
On the subject of culpability, I think this was actually the (generally unintended) genius of the Leave campaign.
The Remain team kept pointing out that there was no cohesive message and no plan, and by not denying such, Leave became an ideology which anyone could shape to fit their views.
So the rose tinted, libertarian ideas of an economy free from outside control, hard left socialist ideas of shafting the banks and "big business", neo Nazi racist ideas of "sending em all back", ordinary people's ideas that we need to spend more on the NHS plus any number of others could all be held, with the believers in each happy in the knowledge that they were voting for their Leave, not the other lots Leave. It could be a vote for/against whatever you wanted it to be.
As it turns out, whichever you were you made the wrong choice because there really was no plan, they lied about all of it and all you ended up voting for was chaos, desperate backtracking to try to keep things as they were and a side order of nasty racist incidents (which I agree could have happened with either result after the disgraceful Leave campaign).
I don't think it's right to say that everyone who voted leave is in some way complicit with the racists but I do think that it might have been an idea to ignore any form of idealism when choosing which way to vote. This choice was always going to end in a great big fucking mess.
Of course that would have meant listening to "the experts" and as Gove said, we've had enough of them and their pesky facts.
And sorry, I'm writing this on my phone so it's probably full of typos etc
-
Do you mean to say people voted for a fundamental change in the political landscape?
Without having a clear idea of what exactly that change might look like?
But that's not a positive?
What have most socialists/liberals on ukb been waffling about for about the last million days? Change per chance?
Significant change comes following major upheaval. It never comes from careful cautious following of a well-worn path. The best you can hope and work towards is making what follows an improvement.
It seems to me the politics in the UK and most of the west has reached a point where these sorts of events are inevitable.
And turn your own argument on the Remain side Jasper. Because it also covers a multitude of reasons and beliefs. So what exactly is the difference other than known versus unknown?
-
No, I'm not saying that they voted for a fundamental change in the political landscape. I'm saying that some may have but that lots of others voted to keep most things the same but with the changes they individually wanted. You can see this by looking at the demographic of who voted each way. Hardly the vanguard of those wanting reform and a new type of politics.
This is why so many directly after the vote said that they wished they'd voted differently.
If you voted for massive upheaval and uncertainty then yeah, you probably did win. But although this potentially opens the door for a progressive liberal type of politics to thrive, the problem is that it has also massively empowered the far right.
If people wanted a protest vote about the sorry state of politics in this country then why didn't they use it at the General Election instead of now?
Oh yeah, they did. By voting Ukip in their millions. This vote was a chance to diminish that type of horrible, racist, nonsensical far right attitude but the idealists have inadvertently helped promote and sustain it by making them think that 17m agree with them.
-
I didn't vote for a "Leave government", I voted to leave so that we could in future have whatever government we vote for. If I don't like the first government that gets in (ie I was presuming a Tory government as they are currently in power), then it's up to me to campaign for something better for the following election. For me the principle was that we should be governed by who we elect rather than by some remote mishmash of various countries that isn't accountable to the electorate of any of them.
It's just like how when India became independent in 1947, support wasn't dependent on what political flavour was likely to get elected in the first instance.
You just have to set up institutions with the appropriate structure and then do your best to ensure that that leads to good governance. As I see it, the EU doesn't have an appropriate structure, and so, as a result, we get shoddy governance (witness Greece, fish discards, bonkers agricultural policies etc).
-
This is why so many directly after the vote said that they wished they'd voted differently.
I presume you include the 4% of Remain voters in this or does your point only apply to the Leave vote?
If people wanted a protest vote about the sorry state of politics in this country then why didn't they use it at the General Election instead of now?
I believe people want change, not a protest. But who represents this view? Labour? ...
Stone sums up my view. I too believe that the EU in effect acts as a 'middleman' in our politics and contributes to the population thinking they can't change anything because real power resides somewhere remote and not with the people they have any influence over i.e. the government we select/deselect every 5 years. Long term I think this situation has contributed to public engagement in politics.
-
Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.
Those accusing all leave voters of being racist or xenophobic (but how many are really saying this?... or is it largely a brexiters' rhetorical strawman??) are as stupid as the xenophobes (migration is mainly positive and certainly adds to our UK wealth). Its certain that plenty of brexiters will have had thought-through honourable opinions with not a wiff of xenophobia . However, given the size of the win margin xenophobia will certainly have swung it and pretty much all the racists (and given what I've experienced in my life I'd be amazed if they don't number close to the majority) will be on the leave side. This is a big concern to me as too little was done to avoid let alone fight the UKIP dog whistles from the main leave campaign group. If I were a little more sceptic of EU democracy and considering a leave vote (I'm pretty sceptical but was always neutral in this respect as I saw UK democracy as little better), as the campaign grew the 'dog whistle' issues would have trumped any lesser democratic or economic concerns I had and would have forced me to make a remain vote. I am worried that the campaign has empowered racists and encouraged xenophobic ignorance that will take some time as a society to unpick... and its not over yet: the dogs can be re-used to ensure more political ends in this area and similar. I don't think we can afford to be relaxed about this, even if a vote won by lies and xenophobia in a campaign blighted by lies on both sides and with a depressing disdain for expert opinion, eventually unpicks.
People I know have already noticed a difference with racist comments and intimidation and over 10% of those working in my University are from the continental EU and not far behind that in addition from other international countries (high I know, but how many english people do PhDs these days?). We also have thousands of international students (incidently a massive export income for the UK).
The staus quo wasn't so great. Fumbling attempts by immigration staff to critique medical X ray evidence or suitability of language for scientific study. A student denied a visa for a one year UK top-up because someone thought as originally being a herbal doctor his two years studying computing in Malaysia at some significant expense was a ruse to obtain UK entry (and not to complete the final year of a BSc). Academics asked to police student political views ( http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/prevent/ ). My PhD student under Tier 4 immagration rules needing to find £35k from friends and family at short notice to enable an extention of his and his wife and kids' visas... the extension due to mitigation that his home city is in a war zone (where moving money is a genuine risk to life).
-
It's just like how when India became independent in 1947, support wasn't dependent on what political flavour was likely to get elected in the first instance.
Actually it kinda was. Which is why India and Pakistan becamse independent in 1947.
To broaden your point a little further, countries which fought for independence usually know exactly what political flavour they were getting afterwards. Congress, ANC, Zanu, etc. If we've just got independence, the style in which it was done is a bit of an outlier.
-
Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.
And do I believe this shit was there already? Some of it, but that assumes a set level of racism in society. I'm not sure I believe that but I could be wrong. There's no doubt several PhDs worth of work unpicking those sentences.
Anyhow, we now have a soiled and grim element to our national culture but that's okay because no ones making laws on kettles.
I don't where you live or frequent but I am staggered that you are not aware of the levels of racism in our society. I come across it at work from patients seeing an Asian doctor , you come across it in industry and in country pubs listening to the local farm workers.
I'm sure there are many more examples.
I don't know where you live, but I'm in London and the thought that our big companies, the government or any other large organisation could function well with that level of racism is staggering.
I would nip down your to your local A&E dept speak to any staff who aren't white Anglo Saxon ask them about their experiences or sit in the waiting room there or at your Gps and listen to the comments of the patients about the non white British staff and you might get idea of the levels of racism/ xenophobia.
-
It's just like how when India became independent in 1947, support wasn't dependent on what political flavour was likely to get elected in the first instance.
Actually it kinda was. Which is why India and Pakistan becamse independent in 1947.
To broaden your point a little further, countries which fought for independence usually know exactly what political flavour they were getting afterwards. Congress, ANC, Zanu, etc. If we've just got independence, the style in which it was done is a bit of an outlier.
There was a rather nasty, racist, war about that whole Indian independence thing. It's still simmering and threatening to go nuclear...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Surely independence from (often oppressive) historic colonial rule can't be compared to a modern day situation of a country wanting independence from a union of countries?
-
It's just like how when India became independent in 1947, support wasn't dependent on what political flavour was likely to get elected in the first instance.
Actually it kinda was. Which is why India and Pakistan becamse independent in 1947.
To broaden your point a little further, countries which fought for independence usually know exactly what political flavour they were getting afterwards. Congress, ANC, Zanu, etc. If we've just got independence, the style in which it was done is a bit of an outlier.
There was a rather nasty, racist, war about that whole Indian independence thing. It's still simmering and threatening to go nuclear...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If one wanted to draw any conclusions about that whole Indian independence thing, it's that the Brits aren't good leavers... ;)
-
Surely independence from (often oppressive) historic colonial rule can't be compared to a modern day situation of a country wanting independence from a union of countries?
Of course it can't. But if you did want to draw a lesson from it, you might want to aim for some degree of accuracy!
-
Hold the Phone!
We're ok, the Government's got this!
Someone hold his beer.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160629/aaad807d6d8877f1ca67e1c056736fc5.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I voted to leave so that we could in future have whatever government we vote for.
The referendum on that was five years ago (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php?topic=17185.0).
-
Pete and stone have just helped to make me think that my original point was right. Pick your own idealism vs reality.
And slackers is totally correct. The most important referendum we have had, which could have actually taken a big step to fairer, more representative politics and most people ignored it.
-
Love the talk of being ruled by unaccountable shadowy figures in Brussels, when we much prefer our unaccountable rulers to at least have the decency to own large swathes of the print and broadcast media instead. Same fucking difference.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ
-
Hold the Phone!
We're ok, the Government's got this!
Someone hold his beer.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160629/aaad807d6d8877f1ca67e1c056736fc5.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought Boris also said recently that we were exporting lots of cake to France. Which cake can we eat now when one's been sold to France and the other one's been shat in? How many cakes are there to not eat? Do we get the French export cake back or do we eat shit? Do any of the cakes actually exist or are they libertarian cakes?
The public should be told!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ
That's the best Downfall parody ever. Where did you find it?
-
And slackers is totally correct. The most important referendum we have had, which could have actually taken a big step to fairer, more representative politics and most people ignored it.
Been dipping in and out of this so excuse me if this point has been made and debated, but it seems to me that this is what a lot of Leave voters actually wanted, simply to have someone in parliament that represents them, whether that's the ukip supporters or those in the uk's remoter or less affluent areas, rather than a government elected by 24% of the electorate ooposed by a bunch of carbon copies with different colour rosettes.
And now I think of it maybe that's why Scotland voted Remain, because the SNP do have a large swathe of seats that over-represents their actual voting proportion in parliament? In fact they might have the best seats/votes ratio in the house.
-
On the point of changing politics for the better, this is actually what you get from voting leave, and this is also why so many did....
http://gu.com/p/4n5n7?
“It was taking an American-style media approach,” said Banks. “What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”
This is scary shit.
-
Hold the Phone!
We're ok, the Government's got this!
Someone hold his beer.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160629/aaad807d6d8877f1ca67e1c056736fc5.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought Boris also said recently that we were exporting lots of cake to France. Which cake can we eat now when one's been sold to France and the other one's been shat in? How many cakes are there to not eat? Do we get the French export cake back or do we eat shit? Do any of the cakes actually exist or are they libertarian cakes?
The public should be told!
For this we need a seance and a quick word with Marie Antoinette.
Of course we'd need to do that before they invoke article 50, as she might not cooperate after.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
That's the best Downfall parody ever. Where did you find it?
Mrs Starfish showed it to me
fuck me, we laughed a lot
-
That's the best Downfall parody ever. Where did you find it?
Mrs Starfish showed it to me
fuck me, we laughed a lot
In a kind of, that's really, really funny but.... far too true way. Me too.
-
Spitting Image quality
speaking of which - did people listen to Dead Ringers this weekend? cracking Brexit sketches
-
Spitting Image quality
speaking of which - did people listen to Dead Ringers this weekend? cracking Brexit sketches
There has been some quite amusing tirades knocking around, I Like this one:
"So, let me get this straight… the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they’d all done nothing to help them.
Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn’t lose, did – but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who’d always thought he’d lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash – and he was, but it did, but he’s not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can’t become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.
Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party’s view of this view is the opposite of the opposition’s. And the opposition aren’t yet opposing anything because the leader isn’t listening to his party, who aren’t listening to the country, who aren’t listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there’s not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.
Clear?"
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Pretty decent summary.
-
Christ what's happening in politics. I find myself wishing Nick Clegg was back in the frame... That's nearly as bad as wishing Glenn Hoddle was made England manager.
Oh.
-
Watched this yesterday to get away from all the doom and gloom.
This is brilliant about Wedgewood pots.
Will watch the others in the series when I get the chance.
Shows what makes Great Britain great.
But also shows the decline of industry in this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood)
-
Christ what's happening in politics. I find myself wishing Nick Clegg was back in the frame... That's nearly as bad as wishing Glenn Hoddle was made England manager.
Oh.
Hoddle won't be England manager and Clegg is the least appreciated politician of his generation.
-
Christ what's happening in politics. I find myself wishing Nick Clegg was back in the frame... That's nearly as bad as wishing Glenn Hoddle was made England manager.
Oh.
Hoddle won't be England manager and Clegg is the least appreciated politician of his generation.
It's alright, Gove's wife has everything under control and has given him his orders. As long as Bojo promises him a nice cushy job.
http://news.sky.com/story/1719331/goves-wife-raises-johnson-leadership-concerns
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker/status/748270768002310145
Pete? Anyone..... Pete?
-
For this we need a seance and a quick word with Marie Antoinette.
Of course we'd need to do that before they invoke article 50, as she might not cooperate after.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The quote was about brioche not quite cake, more half-way enhanced bread ... and she might not even have said it... bloody experts fucking with rhetoric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
-
For this we need a seance and a quick word with Marie Antoinette.
Of course we'd need to do that before they invoke article 50, as she might not cooperate after.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The quote was about brioche not quite cake, more half-way enhanced bread ... and she might not even have said it... bloody experts fucking with rhetoric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
So, what you're saying is; no-one can tell us how much cake to eat and how much to keep. Not even dead, French/Austrian, propaganda victims ?
Still, on the subject of things that are French and dead, at least we will have the Electricity to bake our cake.
Oh, hang on:
All you need to know about Hinkley Point
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35877071
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Watched this yesterday to get away from all the doom and gloom.
This is brilliant about Wedgewood pots.
Will watch the others in the series when I get the chance.
Shows what makes Great Britain great.
But also shows the decline of industry in this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood)
I just watched this and agree its fascinating and rather beautiful but am not what relation you're drawing between it and the referendum? I think there is one but it is very complex and needs drawing out.
-
Watched this yesterday to get away from all the doom and gloom.
This is brilliant about Wedgewood pots.
Will watch the others in the series when I get the chance.
Shows what makes Great Britain great.
But also shows the decline of industry in this country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07fky64/handmade-by-royal-appointment-1-wedgwood)
I just watched this and agree its fascinating and rather beautiful but am not what relation you're drawing between it and the referendum? I think there is one but it is very complex and needs drawing out.
I have read quite a bit on this thread about the eu.
Was a bit down in the mouth and wanted something that that was a bit more uplifting to think about. Not related to the ongoing Eu battle, not really that complex.
I enjoyed it so thought that it would be a welcome distraction Andy.
I also found the quality non-climbing thread and stuck it in there too.
Glad that you liked it, I really enjoyed it for the same reasons.
-
Surely independence from (often oppressive) historic colonial rule can't be compared to a modern day situation of a country wanting independence from a union of countries?
Of course it can't. But if you did want to draw a lesson from it, you might want to aim for some degree of accuracy!
What, that if we want independence from the EU it's OK to expect another Mau mau Uprising / Biafran conflict / Boer war?
-
I have yet to fact check but...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160630/d25f6a14ebacf67cbd3a48248b7c50ad.jpg)
My morning giggle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's genius. Needs a double facepalm at least.
-
And slackers is totally correct. The most important referendum we have had, which could have actually taken a big step to fairer, more representative politics and most people ignored it.
Yup and was ultimately Nick Clegg's downfall. He'd sold his soul to the devil to get one trump card, and it didn't play out for him.
-
I have yet to fact check but...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160630/d25f6a14ebacf67cbd3a48248b7c50ad.jpg)
My morning giggle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Checked.
http://gu.com/p/4n4y4/sfb
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And slackers is totally correct. The most important referendum we have had, which could have actually taken a big step to fairer, more representative politics and most people ignored it.
Yup and was ultimately Nick Clegg's downfall. He'd sold his soul to the devil to get one trump card, and it didn't play out for him.
The devil(s) turned round and kicked him in the balls with a load of patronising bullshit such as "Our electorate are too stupid to understand Alternative Voting" and the mindless herd did as they were told.
It bothers me that many intelligent people hate the Lib Dems/Clegg for taking this gamble. It was a huge risk, but one well worth taking, because had the Alternative Vote referendum resulted in "Yes" it would more than have changed the playing field, it would have put it in a whole new stadium (for want of a better analogy). Failure to recognise this and bleat on about going back on Manifesto pledges, e.g. no more tuition fees if they were elected, completely ignores this, because you can't have your cake (referendum on voting) and eat it (which would have been to through a hissy fit and not cowtail those you are in coalition with who gave you your cake in the first place).
-
...woulda, coulda, but played exceedingly badly so didn't.
The alternative voting system I blame is what got the wrong miliboy in by a whisker. The main message is best summed up by the wise words of Sir Richard Mottram
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl53_6nWgAAxM9x.jpg:large)
-
And slackers is totally correct. The most important referendum we have had, which could have actually taken a big step to fairer, more representative politics and most people ignored it.
Yup and was ultimately Nick Clegg's downfall. He'd sold his soul to the devil to get one trump card, and it didn't play out for him.
The devil(s) turned round and kicked him in the balls with a load of patronising bullshit such as "Our electorate are too stupid to understand Alternative Voting" and the mindless herd did as they were told.
Pretty much, but why would the "majority" vote for something that reduces the chances of them staying the majority.
-
Christ what's happening in politics. I find myself wishing Nick Clegg was back in the frame... That's nearly as bad as wishing Glenn Hoddle was made England manager.
Oh.
Hoddle won't be England manager and Clegg is the least appreciated politician of his generation.
It's alright, Gove's wife has everything under control and has given him his orders. As long as Bojo promises him a nice cushy job.
http://news.sky.com/story/1719331/goves-wife-raises-johnson-leadership-concerns
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Seems like Goves wife had things very much in control - Knife in Boris' back... They deserve each other..
-
No Boris!
Thank fuck...
-
Fucking hell! That paints a pretty picture doesn't it!
So he leads a campaign that we can now clearly see he didn't really believe in. The aim being to narrowly loose, undermine Dave, and then claim back power as a "people's hero" in the next leadership campaign.
But he's fucked it. So now that he's put the bullet in the gun he hasn't actually got the conviction to pull the trigger. Let some other poor sap make that mistake, eh, Boris? Since his strategy has now become so plain, he ought to resign.
Theresa May was going off at 3/1 the other day. Why didn't I put that bet on!
-
No Boris!
Thank fuck...
But Gove..........
I can't get my head around the leaked Sarah Vine e-mail. It must have been on purpose but I can't understand the reasoning?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/michael-gove-sarah-vine-leaked-email
-
Yup - Boris has got us out - and now walks away from doing the hard work afterwards...
In other news (that will probably go under the radar today) at the launch of the findings of the antisemitism Labour Party review, JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of self-styled Islamic states or organisations"...
Today is like some strange House of Cards + Thick of it mash up...
-
No Boris!
Thank fuck...
But Gove..........
I can't get my head around the leaked Sarah Vine e-mail. It must have been on purpose but I can't understand the reasoning?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/michael-gove-sarah-vine-leaked-email
To stick the knife in Boris... and promote her Husbands chances.. Boris rather tellingly started his speech with a quote from Julius Caesar I believe...
-
That's Boris's career fucked utterly and forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTeLePbB08
-
To stick the knife in Boris... and promote her Husbands chances.. Boris rather tellingly started his speech with a quote from Julius Caesar I believe...
But it makes him seem an incompetent buffoon, unable to negotiate with Boris for himself?
-
Gove should be a dead duck as well now.... he'll be lucky to survive a public expose of private emails of secret anointment by tory supporting press barons. As should be Crabb with his views on homosexuality.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/29/who-is-stephen-crabb-hairy-welshman-with-controversial-views-on-homosexuality-5973742/
-
Crabb is a scumbag, as is the disgraced Liam Fox,who let's not forget was defrauding the public massively in the expenses scandal, and had to resign as defence minister after bringing his best mate, without security clearance, to all his meetings.
-
Lady McGove!
-
A view on the campaigns influence on racism:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/jun/30/racism-brexit-eu-referendum-video
-
Lady McGove!
Lady Lucrezia McGove, surely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lady McGove!
Lady Lucrezia McGove, surely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boris out, has to be good news..
Never heard of Stephen Crabb, before. Grew up in a one parent family, didn't go to Eton, went to a comprehensive school, worked as a laborer to put himself through uni - was sounding quite promising until - worked as an intern for "Gay cure" organisation FFS what a tool.
-
He's a high-ranking Tory, what did you expect? :lol:
-
Don't usually have much time fir this lady, but concede her point here...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160630/f421f77b36968a6ed7595c7cb158cec3.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I feel for the civil servants keeping the wheels turning whilst all this madness plays out. I can't remember anything quite like it.
-
In other news (that will probably go under the radar today) at the launch of the findings of the antisemitism Labour Party review, JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of self-styled Islamic states or organisations"...
That seems a bizarre leap.
-
They forgot to mention "incompetent twat", though.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/10/michael-gove-polite-assassin
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/uk-in-breachhuman-rights/00287.html
But it was all the EU and immigrants' fault, so at least the Tories are in sole charge now... :'(
-
JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS ...
He hasn't, unless you really want to twist the meaning. I'm no fan of JC (either of them, the King of the Jews and the supposed hater of them)
-
JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS ...
He hasn't, unless you really want to twist the meaning. I'm no fan of JC (either of them, the King of the Jews and the supposed hater of them)
You are right - literally he has not compared them. But by mentioning them both in the same metaphor ~ its a bloody obvious link the press (and subsequently several prominent Jewish politicians) have made.
I winced when I heard it (and re-read it) - its a really really stupid thing to say in (a) public (b) when there are TV cameras there (c) when your job is on the line and most importantly (d) when you are launching a report into antisemitism in the Labour party. You've to admit its not the safest thing to say is it.... Possibly at a time when its not sensible to draw attention (or controversy) to himself...?
-
JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS ...
He hasn't, unless you really want to twist the meaning. I'm no fan of JC (either of them, the King of the Jews and the supposed hater of them)
You are right - literally he has not compared them. But by mentioning them both in the same metaphor ~ its a bloody obvious link the press (and subsequently several prominent Jewish politicians) have made.
I winced when I heard it (and re-read it) - its a really really stupid thing to say in (a) public (b) when there are TV cameras there (c) when your job is on the line and most importantly (d) when you are launching a report into antisemitism in the Labour party. You've to admit its not the safest thing to say is it.... Possibly at a time when its not sensible to draw attention (or controversy) to himself...?
Yes, it doesn't make him anti semitic, it's just more proof that he's crap at his job.
-
Lady McGove!
Lady Lucrezia McGove, surely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boris out, has to be good news..
Never heard of Stephen Crabb, before. Grew up in a one parent family, didn't go to Eton, went to a comprehensive school, worked as a laborer to put himself through uni - was sounding quite promising until - worked as an intern for "Gay cure" organisation FFS what a tool.
Crabb is a horrible weasly cunt. Can't stand him.
-
On the other hand the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government is widely acknowledged not to be humanity's finest hour is it? He makes a fair point, ok he could have gone down the line of "similarly you can't blame all musicians for Nickelback" but fuck it.
-
It might have been instigated by it, but the contention of political parties leadership is :offtopic: and deserves two new threads (one for each).
-
Surely "self-styled Islamic states" is dog whistle stuff. Tho apparently his aides are briefing that it did indeed mean the likes of AQ but it's all so vague and febrile at the moment no one knows.
More depressingly, it appears that a Corbyn supporter heckled a Jewish MP with an "antisemitic slur". Corbyn did nothing, she left in tears:
http://www.ruthsmeeth.org.uk/statement_on_the_launch_of_the_chakrabarti_report
-
Lady McGove!
Lady Lucrezia McGove, surely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boris out, has to be good news..
Never heard of Stephen Crabb, before. Grew up in a one parent family, didn't go to Eton, went to a comprehensive school, worked as a laborer to put himself through uni - was sounding quite promising until - worked as an intern for "Gay cure" organisation FFS what a tool.
Crabb is a horrible weasly cunt. Can't stand him.
Oh come on Jasper!
He's not as nice as that.
http://newsthump.com/2016/06/30/satirists-cant-fcking-type-quick-enough/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I have yet to fact check but...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160630/d25f6a14ebacf67cbd3a48248b7c50ad.jpg)
My morning giggle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Checked.
http://gu.com/p/4n4y4/sfb
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can't we have that guy as PM instead?
-
Regardless of a previous disagreements between us on this thread, or whether So-and-so climbed x or not; can we all enjoy and share this moment in history?
A new word is born:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=A%20Boris&defid=9948103#.V3UVxxZ1Z8w.twitter
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Surely "self-styled Islamic states" is dog whistle stuff. Tho apparently his aides are briefing that it did indeed mean the likes of AQ but it's all so vague and febrile at the moment no one knows.
More depressingly, it appears that a Corbyn supporter heckled a Jewish MP with an "antisemitic slur". Corbyn did nothing, she left in tears:
http://www.ruthsmeeth.org.uk/statement_on_the_launch_of_the_chakrabarti_report
That stinks of smearing as part of the orchestrated, failed, coup. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-manufactured-exclusive/
-
Come on Fultonius - isn't that getting into the tin hat brigade? So do you think the MP went along to be deliberately insulted to give JC some bad press?
Who on his team sanctioned that speech? It's in the thick of it stuff...
-
Come on Fultonius - isn't that getting into the tin hat brigade? So do you think the MP went along to be deliberately insulted to give JC some bad press?
Probably not, but it would hardly be surprising if she did would it?
-
Come on Fultonius - isn't that getting into the tin hat brigade? So do you think the MP went along to be deliberately insulted to give JC some bad press?
Probably not, but it would hardly be surprising if she did would it?
Thats a pretty sad assessment of what people may think of MP's. Nigel - thats not angled at you - its meant that if peoples first thoughts are that politicians (whatever party) are that Machiavellian then something is wrong.
I bet some are (looking at you Boris in particular - and Dave of course..) but of the 5 MP's I've met (which have involved 1 hour 1-1 interviews - 3 red, 2 blue, two former senior cabinet ministers) I'd say they were all pretty normal people. Doing the political equivalent of a footballer tripping themselves up and writhing around in the area to get a penalty is not the type of behaviour I would expect. Its a tough job - and a regular MP has to spend a lot of their time talking to constituents, raising their concerns, dealing with lots of little bits and bobs - grunt work I guess you could call it. This means they have to be a pretty decent/regular person in the first place otherwise they don't last long with their electorate.
So I think that would be very surprising yes.
-
Are we to believe she's so thin-skinned she runs out in tears after being accused of colluding with right wing media? It's desperate stuff.
-
Come on Fultonius - isn't that getting into the tin hat brigade? So do you think the MP went along to be deliberately insulted to give JC some bad press?
Who on his team sanctioned that speech? It's in the thick of it stuff...
I'm checking for the tin foil hat. It might be there....can't quite tell. :unsure:
I watched the video and I'm not quite sure what the anti-Semitic slur was. Apparently the guy didn't even know she was Jewish.
-
Apparently the guy didn't even know she was Jewish.
Which makes things alright?
Are we to believe she's so thin-skinned she runs out in tears after being accused of colluding with right wing media? It's desperate stuff.
Or someone who's quite upset...
I really don't buy this whole 'Blairite conspiracy' argument - a lot of the rhetoric largely coming (it would appear) from Momentum I find very aggressive, playing on paranoia and a big turn off. All of which seems to contradict the new form of politics I thought JC was trying to introduce. Its all a bit Animal Farm :(
-
Apparently the guy didn't even know she was Jewish.
Which makes things alright?
Of course not, I worded that badly.
Are we to believe she's so thin-skinned she runs out in tears after being accused of colluding with right wing media? It's desperate stuff.
Or someone who's quite upset...
I really don't buy this whole 'Blairite conspiracy' argument - a lot of the rhetoric largely coming (it would appear) from Momentum I find very aggressive, playing on paranoia and a big turn off. All of which seems to contradict the new form of politics I thought JC was trying to introduce. Its all a bit Animal Farm :(
Blair was a warmonger and is doing his best to sweep this under the carpet. I'll stop on this now, and see what happens next week.
-
Yup. Fair enough.
Fwiw - I hope Chilcot doesn't pull any punches... It probably will but we'll see...
-
I'm sure you've all heard it, but I think this is an extraordinary commentary from Hesltine. Given his reach and power, Johnson is going to be persona non grata for years or decades. He effectively snubs all the leadership candidates too and that can't be good from a king maker.
Heseltine launches scathing attack on Boris Johnson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36677623
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
saw that on BBC News channel - say it like it is Tarzan
-
It's almost funny how the old skool politicians who we used to deride seem like giants and heroes in comparison to what we have now.
Apart from Nigel Lawson obviously.
-
TomTom,
I'm amazed you don't 'buy' the Blairite conspiracy stuff. It's er, all there for everybody to see? I can't even call it the elephant in the room, it's more obvious than that. The fact that the Blairites actually announced their plot in the telegraph 10 days before the actual referendum says volumes about the whole thing. Or the fact that Angela Eagle was registering websites for her leadership contest in....2015!
Did you read the canary article on the Fabian Society? it's mind-boggling
-
Thats a pretty sad assessment of what people may think of MP's. Nigel - thats not angled at you - its meant that if peoples first thoughts are that politicians (whatever party) are that Machiavellian then something is wrong.
Mine are.
I really don't buy this whole 'Blairite conspiracy' argument - a lot of the rhetoric largely coming (it would appear) from Momentum I find very aggressive, playing on paranoia and a big turn off. All of which seems to contradict the new form of politics I thought JC was trying to introduce. Its all a bit Animal Farm :(
It reminds me of 1984. No matter what Corbyn does he's going to get fucked over by the machine, despite his best intentions (if they are to be believed...). It's all quite sad really.
-
JC has pretty much likened Israel to ISIS ...
He hasn't, unless you really want to twist the meaning. I'm no fan of JC (either of them, the King of the Jews and the supposed hater of them)
You are right - literally he has not compared them. But by mentioning them both in the same metaphor ~ its a bloody obvious link the press (and subsequently several prominent Jewish politicians) have made.
I winced when I heard it (and re-read it) - its a really really stupid thing to say in (a) public (b) when there are TV cameras there (c) when your job is on the line and most importantly (d) when you are launching a report into antisemitism in the Labour party. You've to admit its not the safest thing to say is it.... Possibly at a time when its not sensible to draw attention (or controversy) to himself...?
He should have been more savvy and realise that people with an agenda would make a big deal of it, I guess I'm surprised that intelligent people without a vested interest would be as well. Obviously there are leagues of difference between the way Israel behave and the way ISIS behave but they have behaved pretty reprehensibly and it is fair to make the comparison between people equating Israel's actions with Jewishness and those equating ISIS' actions with Muslims. By saying this is anti Semitic then you are essentially saying being anti Israel is the same as being anti Semitic.
-
TomTom,
I'm amazed you don't 'buy' the Blairite conspiracy stuff. It's er, all there for everybody to see? I can't even call it the elephant in the room, it's more obvious than that. The fact that the Blairites actually announced their plot in the telegraph 10 days before the actual referendum says volumes about the whole thing. Or the fact that Angela Eagle was registering websites for her leadership contest in....2015!
Did you read the canary article on the Fabian Society? it's mind-boggling
It's so childish though. Blair is long gone (despite his wishes). Why does everyone have to be tarred with that brush because they don't agree that Corbyn is the best leader to challenge for power?
Common sense has gone out of the window. "You're a Blairite!" therefore unacceptable as party leader. It's fucking nonsense.
People are happy to vote for a lying, Eton cunt who stuck his cock in a pig's mouth but apparently they shouldn't vote for anyone even mildly associated with the ex PM from their own party. It's one eyed rubbish akin to the "Clegg lied so don't vote Lib Dem" crap that got us to this awful place we're in.
I call bullshit on the lot of it. David Miliband should have been leader of the Labour party for the last election. Andy Burnham should have been elected leader after the election.
I don't care about their connections to Blair. It's fucking irrelevant about what happens NOW.
-
^^ this.
Get over this Blairite stuff - you raving Trot ;) (note the smiley please..)
I don't buy the Telegrapg signposting the wholesale PLP rebellion against JC. I read the Torygraph every other day (except now - it's more unbearable than usual) and articles about unseating JC are about as common as Express headlines about apocalyptic winters, or mega heatwaves coming. [edit] I've now read the Canary articles - and I agree that the Pride Corbyn grilling looked fishy (I thought it was a bit incongruous at the time). I'll also comment, that it would not surprise me that there was some organisation behind some of the resignations. But I'll also say that MP's are not daft - and whilst one or two might have been duped into following a trend - within the (now extensive - 70?) list of resignations there are several firebreaks. That is MP's/Shadow ministers who I would consider to be certainly left of centre - several who were certainly JC suppporters. Its clearly not all some big conspiracy - the sheer number means there is something fundamentally wrong with how he is leading the PLP. Did you see the film of him talking to a crowd of his supporters yesterday - or weds evening - where he was challenged from the audience "Where were you on Europe Jeremy when we needed you most?". He stopped - no answer - looked like a real rabbit in the headlights and left the stage (it was probably the end anyway).
I'll repeat what a Corbyn fan friend of mine tweeted last week "I voted for a tiger, and got a stranded whale"....
Eagle is no panacea - the lack of people willing to stick their head above the parapet (Watson included) sadly says volumes about the state of affairs.
So JC fans, how much of this is from the man himself or from McDonnell, or Seamus Momentum? - from the outside it looks more and more like he's being manipulated from behind... a rather unwilling figurehead...
-
We could possibly see female leaders in all 3 major parties though. That would cause some intense negotiations once a month.
-
:tumble:
-
We could possibly see female leaders in all 3 major parties though. That would cause some intense negotiations once a month.
Though in the houses of parliament that would mean either Alex Salmond or Tim Farron cross dressing? ;)
I would certainly (hopefully?) change the dynamic of PMQ's...
-
Although we only ever see this through the lens of the media, JC comes across as unable to galvanize support from key people, unable and or unwilling to talk effectively through the media and therefore communicate a clear easily understood message to the public. Surely all these are key elements in being a PM, especially if you are aiming to be leading the brexit talks after a general election that you hope to win.
-
+1 to what Jasper and TomTom said.
Suffice to say that if you read and believe everything that one particular heavily biased media outlet says (and that goes for the Sun or the Canary) then don't be surprised when you become convinced that the whole world is out to get you.
I think Corbyn is a decent person. I don't think he's an anti-Semite. But I think that anybody who is so naïve as to mention Netanyahu and Israel in the same breath as ISIS at the launch of their anti-Semitism investigation is cripplingly unsuited to be leader of the party. When Eagle launches her campaign I'd be surprised if the ticket didn't state that Corbyn could have a significant shadow cabinet portfolio. Surely he could do more for his country as a powerful opponent of Tory excess in the role of shadow Work and Pensions secretary than he could as a completely ineffectual leader.
Canary readers! Wake up! The man can't even fill the front bench! There are something like 80 unfilled shadow secretary vacancies as of this morning! Some of those who resigned were long time friends and allies who delivered resignation letters brimming with regret. It's not all just a "Blairite plot". I'm amazed so many young people are still supporting him when he singularly let them down on Europe - the most important single issue of our time and one that was of critical importance to those who elected him.
-
Hogwash.
-
Hogwash.
Thats for Cameron... after the act.
-
For all those who on here who support Corbyn and would like to see him remain as party leader - this is actually something you can have a say in. Join the Labour Party online for £3.95 and you get to cast your vote if it comes to a leadership election.
I'm not a natural Lab supporter but I'd like to see JC remain because he seems to have integrity and believes in his ideas - lets look at the reality (Jasper), until a strong lLabour leader emerges, which they haven't yet, Labour haven't a snowballs' chance of winning a GE anytime soon against Terresa May. No-one among the Labour MPs currently fits the bill .. I don't know that much about D.Milliband's situation and how he's viewed in Lab (I'm not a supporter) but this seems a perfect moment for him to start preparing for a leadership contest later in the year. In the meantime a politics of Corbyn and Teressa May would be welcomed by the public. Two principled leaders with substance, not showboating but debating.
Apologies to anyone if that's too boring or unrealistic. Back to the hysteria and cynicism.
-
Hogwash.
You've used that on social media already. Why not say "Poppycock". Even better, actually use an argument of substance and convince me I'm wrong!
-
I think Corbyn is a decent person. I don't think he's an anti-Semite. But I think that anybody who is so naïve as to mention Netanyahu and Israel in the same breath as ISIS at the launch of their anti-Semitism investigation is cripplingly unsuited to be leader of the party. When Eagle launches her campaign I'd be surprised if the ticket didn't state that Corbyn could have a significant shadow cabinet portfolio. Surely he could do more for his country as a powerful opponent of Tory excess in the role of shadow Work and Pensions secretary than he could as a completely ineffectual leader.
This is all sensible stuff.
I've worked at several large aid agencies whilst Israel fought wars in Gaza. Needless to say, we were critical of Israeli policies but very carefully so, and do you know how we did that: we just said what they'd done and how it broke various international laws. No need to compare them to anything except the standards they were supposed to be upholding.
As for why he's still there... it's clear that the people who wrote the current rules didn't bother putting one in because it was obvious that a leader without the support of his/her MPs had to stand down. Corbyn doesn't give a fig for those norms. In the way he's playing to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, he's not so different from the tax avoiding multi-nationals he claims to oppose.
-
Mr Corbyn's antisemitic dog whistle was certainly loud enough to be clearly heard all the way to France.
-
I find it amazing that JC is 'destroying' the party, and is 'unelectable'.
Last I saw Labour were even with the tories in the polls (the highest since JC was elected), and membership was and is booming (even before the EU ref / coup)
JC has the overwhelming support of local parties and the labour membership at large. In my mind it is the MP's that have to go, not him.
We really are living in a post-facts world
-
Back on topic...
EU Trade Commissioner: No trade talks until full Brexit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222)
Seemed wishful thinking to me, and yet more 'Have your cake and eat it' mentality, of the Leave camp that they'd be able to get negotiations before deciding whether to enact Article 50 as enacting it is meant to begin a two year period of negotiations. :slap:
At least there's some humor to be had...
The Brexit Plan (http://thebrexitplan.com/) :P
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sword_in_the_stone.png) (https://xkcd.com/1521/)
-
Yes, but the overall who would you vote for polls mean shit when it comes to a GE - because its down to winning seats in constituencies. For Labour to win a GE, they have to convince a significant proportion of those who have voted Tory and UKIP to vote for them....
Maybe its who we respectively know, but for me - all my labour voting friends and family are not JC supporters... Which interestingly includes my parents neighbours, retired - but were former Communist Party members and did the whole Socialist Worker campaigning shizzle for 20 years in London..
Winning power is about gaining the middle ground. Blair won if from the Tories, Cameron won it back from Labour (with a little help from the Lib Dems) and now owns if fully (until he resigned). You may hate Blair (I'm guessing here! :) ) but he was right about two things (1) you have to win the middle to get in power - which means to win over people who would not normally vote labour and (2) you can't change a thing unless you are in power.
Do you REALLY think JC is going to win over left/moderate/soft Tory voters?
Personally, I think the most important change required in UK politics is PR. Not AV, proper PR. This would allow UKIP/BNP whatever to have a small presence and keep 'those people' happy with their representation (1.5 million UKIP voters last time and 1 MP??) - but put the two large parties in a tricky position. It would also allow Labour (for example) to split to a Momentum style left, and a left of centre social democrat party - yet maybe come together for coalition and government etc...
I think Labour, or the Lib Dems (but probably Labour) need to grow a pair an put this on the table. Give people a REAL opportunity to change things.
-
http://thebrexitplan.com/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://thebrexitplan.com/
Beat you to that :ras:
-
Yes, but the overall who would you vote for polls mean shit when it comes to a GE - because its down to winning seats in constituencies. For Labour to win a GE, they have to convince a significant proportion of those who have voted Tory and UKIP to vote for them....
:agree: but also think that local elections cannot be representative of how people would vote in a general election where people (rightly or wrongly) are more likely to consider who might end up as PM. I'd be genuinely interested to see the opinion polls that Twig cites. I'm happy to believe that Corbyn is more popular than I think he is if there is good quality evidence to support this.
I do think that his support exists primarily in insular bubbles. Friendship groups, students etc who all think the same thing and aren't exposed to views from outside. There is still a huge proportion of the country to whom the word "socialist" is toxic. I think all this can change but it needs to happen gradually. Given the result of the referendum, does anybody really believe that Britain as a whole has an appetite for radical left wing thinking at the moment?! If anything the popular vote has just shown itself to be right-leaning!
-
None of this matters to me all I'm waiting for is omm to come back and trump seankennys aid agency work.
-
Just to ramble on a bit more, the saying "love is blind" is fairly apt here I think. Die hard Corbyn supporters have deified him to the extent that you get silly tweets like this cropping up.
https://twitter.com/ThisJayThomas/status/748485209721610240?s=09
So if you honestly believe that there are no good people left in the Labour party then why the hell would you support them? One saintly man and an empty front bench does not a government make.
-
So if you honestly believe that there are no good people left in the Labour party then why the hell would you support them? One saintly man and an empty front bench does not a government make.
Can you please name some people in the labour party that are good people?
-
Me and TomTom. Next question.
-
Me and TomTom. Next question.
Good discussion. Thanks Will.
-
None of this matters to me all I'm waiting for is omm to come back and trump seankennys aid agency work.
Giggle.
In other news, it's bad news from the markets - they aren't in turmoil.
-
I've sat in The Grove in Leeds with Richard Burgon MP. A few of us were playing Irish tunes and he is into that sort of thing (and metal I think?) and knew one of the people I was with. I think he fell asleep in the end. In what conversation we had he struck me as a decent sort.
I'll refrain from citing a list of every Labour MP and their various qualities and shortcomings, but suffice to say I agree with TomTom's thoughts that are somewhere earlier in this thread. That most MPs are there to do a good job, to represent their constituents, and are often strikingly ordinary. They will all have their good points and they will all be in some way compromised by the pragmatic necessities of operating within a parliamentary democracy. Corbyn is no different.
As to your questions posed by PM on Facebook:
1. If Corbyn, was completely wiped from the labour party, without a trace of him every being there, would you still be a labour voter?
I haven't yet voted for Labour in a GE and don't know if I will because I don't know what the political climate will look like at the next GE (Theres-stasi May says she doesn't want a snap election). If a vote was called tomorrow I would vote Labour. I think what you're driving at here is "if he wasn't there to influence that party do you still think you could vote for them". I don't think this question has any relevance because you're asking me to consider a situation that does not exist and can never exist in the future. However, even if he wasn't there it would likely be the best available option.
2. and can you give me a reason to vote Labour other than to "stop the Tory's being in power"?
They offer a centre left option with a realistic chance of being elected. Although having said that, do we really need another reason than "to unseat the Tories"?
-
Me and TomTom. Next question.
I'm one of satans minions - and I'm tall. That probably rules me out. :)
-
Spot the market carnage post-brexit result :o :o
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/n3cgudEscvJ6bNgbmHOqN1p84sl-c_ZJJkJV6obCjNnyHRFvUg9kbULs0lmYXxOC48MQ8ZTeBKKuA0rqz3lJmnhaFY_VEO9m1JyXnRW5UA7MK-VKhU65ggy6pCjw3LW6Lwpo0IVMOWji4ZUpDtIg-sn1YpKdQVs14CkCQaPnG1wfety7w-hgtXlg_--eXUsVE2sSrspP4TDrFF3FFevSH6q4yXwDyPqX1semkPKlKpZn91PJdzzmcFK6hcl54wgUFuTBm9VmK1KQ-9BM96x9iKSgY0DyKAIUAYFFiGsq48esac2S8sEQJJC6Fsf5jmhn5_c3iDsPYeeoJTKJog8euJvY0OanAvAzqZimjnG46ut2VGeK1nABiVMUTGGfvOpmLL5bRCz17xvgtCWYyI4zfqH7VIqrJEkF0iTxSY10doOjvWOUuVWDa9jLizUjPACOZquvfWm4ZE3IKp-t6riX-p3DiXMCYjENUUpJ8s-MkTVp8JPPL1bkVvo1xTirsc8gs9dzf83Ik926uGkYpzRr1vWoDi28uf3RWHzhsqqTz9orXeGM8n37BTXXblZRVgtKLpXrKSiBHqhhjx0qoxHh3mxOcR8YwtI=w1100-h700-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fxLYKSvdMLpg1M6BGLLRbSjcw2eTSsySdUofL1dhLhfYFLzAMnWiRlHSfhJwsgPzwsMRy730rdDpPETAwgj1U9enoa-R-jRMGSb_ntL-0Cuf0afIimj7bDbJehSlkdea55GAK4dqIwcRKToPh4IvE-LBvEJBHkOA-aHCnCM3-sh8fvm_MLaV_e5K5ge6C8aqKZ26_5312rgF_zqt_RyjvyZNngE4s0XhXn8Nfq4HdC9N5esmZElHaaY9fMn9wEAU6oAz2Tt7UyeKY3zufYBfEBWIw1OYgUpH0dn_P7pdTCai3Sa4NOlcdcpzfCg-fONmV44it6zvI-x8nRmWyrm3YbCWmhOafl34a_CpVPfx2FucoK7s-24O5gkAF_rForUnLdJDMOVrCVLPLhzvqeN3bcbrPXunY_wGZMqbH7uLaG0ga3fwf6rtKwYBPhK7QmCdMvn5xyaG32i-4sIWbAjR5asICF5mYQeMnHVMur3-KSlpQgcLHvyGiaQjh0Byr2K5SD4tvoIMRW6uy5G--r7_ljUlfUOJTeIfWS5f1e8fwBRFAaaYnD5Bux8ZJ61R_IbsjqvlU56BYLUvXkwm2LYDvEDtba71hAM=w1201-h923-no)
Oh.
It hasn't happened.
But don't let that stop people indulging their fears on here. Give it time - it's only been a week and there's still plenty of opportunities for things to be really bad.
-
While Pete is in raptures, here's some 'rejected' remain posters - those that never where....
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/01/rejected-remain-campaign-posters-revealed-by-ad-agencies
-
I'm not in raptures. I'm just posting the market indices.
-
I wonder, could the up-turn after the nose-dive be being influenced by positive speculation that Article 50 won't be invoked, just as speculation that the result would be to Remain saw growth? :-\
-
I'm actually shocked we managed to crawl out of the sea with most of the posts that have gone on in this thread.
Ha brilliant, there's a different slant on things every time, I wouldn't bother Pete you fucking racist idiot!
-
While Pete is disagreeing with everything I say :) here's an article on how Australia make voting a bit more tasty...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/australian-election-strewth-lets-throw-a-democracysausage-on-the/
-
That's because most of the things you say need disagreeing with! I can't read any more links today my daily points allowance has been surpassed.
-
Thanks for the global judgement Pete. Have a nice life. :D
-
None of this matters to me all I'm waiting for is omm to come back and trump seankennys aid agency work.
I'm the capitalist that flunkies for the rich. I've never voted Labour and think Corbyn is a green socks and sandals kind of guy.
Now, if they come up with a Trudeau; I might switch.
No aid work I'm afraid.
Full CV and refs on application.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now I am disappointed :(
-
While Pete is disagreeing with everything I say :) here's an article on how Australia make voting a bit more tasty...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/australian-election-strewth-lets-throw-a-democracysausage-on-the/
Given the time it will take to fill in the ballot paper, you might as well take a snack onto the polling booth with you
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-30/election-2016-preferences-explainer-voting/7556562
-
Yes it's huge isn't it! Wonder what their soiled/incorrectly filled in ballot rate is?
-
Must make counting seriously complicated - is that a 1 or a 7??
-
Tom Tom – I actually agree that a system of PR with a full spectrum of new political parties has to be the way forward. The simple fact that a hitherto relatively unknown Nationalist party (SNP) are now the 3rd largest in parliament despite ultimately not wanting to be there at all seems to make a mockery of how behind the times the current system is. It would also allow a voice to the rise of the left (ignored for 2 decades or more to the detriment of many) and the 4 million UKIP voters represented by one MP. However unpalatable that seems it is at least fair.
However that’s not where we are. RE the points raised about JC over the last page of replies:
Is he anti-semitic? No. Is this being used as stick to beat him with by his detractors? Of course it is. That much surely is obvious. Is it a problem in the Labour Party which he needs to sort? Who knows, have any of the news outlets actually reported on what the contents of Shami’s report were? All I’ve heard is a confected row about one line in his speech which does not in any way compare Israel to ISIS. All you need to do is actually read the line, or even better the whole speech. But no-one ever does that they just read the (manufactured) headlines. I first read it in The Guardian yesterday headlined as something like “JC Appears to Compare Israel and ISIS”. Clearly inflammatory, and also wrong. This was changed about an hour later to “JC Announces Launch of Anti-Semitism Report Amidst Controversy”. Hmmm I wonder why the backtracking? If you genuinely don’t think there’s a blatant element of the knives being out for him across the entire media then I’m afraid your head is in the sand.
(Off-topic but the fact that JC’s stance on Israel-Palestine is probably shared by most of the UK public post Op Protective Edge, most of the world’s countries at the UN General Assembly, and will probably be vindicated by history, seems also to be largely ignored.)
RE getting Labour into power, also called “electability”. This is where we get into post-factual politics. Electability in General Elections is only proved by performance in a General Election – and we haven’t had the benefit of this in JC’s case. Going on what we know, winning other elections – big tick for JC. For example his own constituency for 30+ years, labour leadership by a landslide, several by-elections, 4 mayors of major UK cities, good performance in local elections. The press tried desperately to spin most of the above as somehow failures or divorced from JC. This does not make it true. I’ve no idea of the state of any recent polls I’m afraid so won’t be using that argument, but if you can find any then I’ll be happy to try! Probably don’t mean jack in the current state of flux though.
So the current spectre of “electability” used to denigrate Corbyn is basically a moveable feast of whatever bullshit reason crops up that day. Not bowing low enough to the Queen, not singing the anthem, not wearing a tie, blah blah. Yes I know that GE’s are won by holding your safe seats then convincing the centre ground in a handful of middle England marginals to swing towards you. Maybe the above trivia will make a difference there, in which case I despair. Anyway, most of the press is right wing and will crucify any Labour leader similarly – see the Milliband bacon sandwich affair. We have to rise above that level and I think JC does, which brings us to the crux…
If not him, who? Look, this coup has been plotted since day 1. The lack of JC’s visibility during EU referendum is a smokescreen. You would think that post Brexit the country would be sick of politicians diving into a chaos-creating situation with both feet and no plan, but obviously most of the labour PLP think not. If there is an obvious candidate who can carry the party then where were they last year? Hmm. And where are they now? And what are their policies? I’ll tell you right now they will be a damn sight less socialist than Jeremy’s, and that’s the point – it isn’t about the man, its about his policies. It is the policies they think are unelectable. So what’s their plan? If they can’t bully JC to resign then these self-styled master tacticians with such foresight and obvious empathy with the electorate will have to stand their (yet to be decided) “unity” candidate (or candidates??!!) on a policy platform of who knows what against someone they know from repeated polling they are almost certain to lose comprehensively to for a second time in 9 months. Who by the way has the support of the unions and most of their own Constituancy Labour Parties, including Eagle’s herself. Genius. And these people are the answer are they? On the other hand if they do get what they want and JC resigns and we have a “coronation” then they will alienate a huge proportion of the membership and decimate the party. Basically they have fucked up massively and they know it. You asked earlier if I thought all politicians are Machiavellian by default? Well not on this evidence, Machiavelli would piss himself in his grave to see this particular “plan” in action.
If there is to be a split then fair do’s, it may have to happen. No time for deselections really. Might not a disaster, as I said at the start it will probably have to happen anyway in the long run, and the two parties could still have a grand coalition afterwards in the event of a GE. But on the matter of principle of whether Corbyn sticks up for himself, his policies, and his mandate instead of giving up to an increasingly bullying establishment? Well, I hope he stays. I will join and vote for him.
RE what could happen next week if he does stay – what will Angela “voted for Iraq and against the inquiry” Eagle have to say if she is in a contest with JC when Chilcot comes out?
-
(Off-topic but the fact that JC’s stance on Israel-Palestine is probably shared by most of the UK public post Op Protective Edge, most of the world’s countries at the UN General Assembly, and will probably be vindicated by history, seems also to be largely ignored.)
This seems a little dubious... If we accept for a moment that I am politically engaged and informed, the fact that I had to look up Op Protective Edge might incline you to think that most other people would too.
Part of the great challenge of the internet echo chambers is that we live in different ones. Most of what you wrote can be found in the pro-Corbyn echo chamber, but not in the echo chamber I live in. I'm not actually saying you are wrong, but if we want to live in a non-post fact world we probable have to strive to climb back out of the echo chambers.
Speaking of echo chambers there is a fair overlap of climate change denial and euro-phobia among senior figures in this country.
-
Remember what the press somehow managed to do to Brown - another decent man who has exactly the strengths that JC is being criticised for lacking - a great speaker and a certain "Gravitas". No leader of the Labour Party will get a hearing from the press.
Does this mean that Labour can't ever win an election ?
I'd say very v.possibly. In which case we may as well just ask Liz to pop her crown in the post to Murdoch, but there's only one way to know for sure.
-
Remember what the press somehow managed to do to Brown - another decent man who has exactly the strengths that JC is being criticised for lacking - a great speaker and a certain "Gravitas". No leader of the Labour Party will get a hearing from the press.
Does this mean that Labour can't ever win an election ?
I'd say very v.possibly. In which case we may as well just ask Liz to pop her crown in the post to Murdoch, but there's only one way to know for sure.
Comparing Brown and Corbyn seems a little counter factual: the party man versus the serial rebel?
-
(Off-topic but the fact that JC’s stance on Israel-Palestine is probably shared by most of the UK public post Op Protective Edge, most of the world’s countries at the UN General Assembly, and will probably be vindicated by history, seems also to be largely ignored.)
This seems a little dubious... If we accept for a moment that I am politically engaged and informed, the fact that I had to look up Op Protective Edge might incline you to think that most other people would too.
Part of the great challenge of the internet echo chambers is that we live in different ones. Most of what you wrote can be found in the pro-Corbyn echo chamber, but not in the echo chamber I live in. I'm not actually saying you are wrong, but if we want to live in a non-post fact world we probable have to strive to climb back out of the echo chambers.
Speaking of echo chambers there is a fair overlap of climate change denial and euro-phobia among senior figures in this country.
Fair one erm, though that particular one doesn't stem from an echo chamber in my case, I was stuck on the sofa for 3 weeks with a broken knee when Operation Protective Edge (or "Gaza 2014" if you prefer) was on rolling news! Appalling stuff but its burned onto my retinas sadly. I will accept that the operation's name may have passed you by but my point stands - due to that coverage of Gaza I think a lot of eyes were opened amongst the UK public.
-
Well looks like Emily Thornberry has apologised to the Israeli ambassador - and the momentum activist who upset Ruth Smeeth has been chucked out of the Labour Party. (I know it's from the Huff)
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57761b3be4b0c94608006e68
-
[
Comparing Brown and Corbyn seems a little counter factual: the party man versus the serial rebel?
That was my point. Very different figures, same result.
-
Well looks like Emily Thornberry has apologised to the Israeli ambassador - and the momentum activist who upset Ruth Smeeth has been chucked out of the Labour Party. (I know it's from the Huff)
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57761b3be4b0c94608006e68
“I saw the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP, you can see who is working hand-in-hand,” he said.
Is that actually all Marc Wadsworth said, or am I missing something completely?
-
Erm, on the wider point of echo chambers, I totally agree that we should try to get a rounded view of a situation by stepping out into the “wider world” so to speak. I do try and do so. For instance I am of the view that JC can’t lead the Labour party as it stands. Let’s face facts, he currently isn’t leading anyone except maybe Mcdonnell, Abbott, and a handful of others as the rest of the PLP have gone off the reservation.
However the question then is, in this particular case, what do you do about it? The “other” echo chamber is that he’s a decent man who can’t lead, never could, therefore for pragmatic reasons he needs to resign to unite the party. I do know that other view. The problem is that that it probably won’t work as the party will shed members like hell and will have lost the Unions. Now if they could graft Corbyn’s brains and policies into someone else’s body then everything might be OK. But that isn’t the proposal. The proposal currently is Angela Eagle who is best known for coming 4th in the Deputy Leader contest 9 months ago, and abstained on benefits cuts. Its all very well being pragmatic but that version of “pragmatism” is re-writing the dictionary I’m afraid.
My view is whatever echo chamber you’re in you’re probably not going to “win” in the sense of getting the Labour Party you want, so you might as well stand up for what you believe in and see what comes out in the wash. I believe in Corbyn and what he stands for so unless they do manage to do the grafting surgery that's what I'm sticking with.
-
Thanks for the global judgement Pete. Have a nice life. :D
TT before you flounce completely out of my ukb forum life I should add that when I typed 'most thing you say on here need disagreeing with' I actually meant 'some of the things you've said on this thread'. Not ukb in general - most of what you say in general on here is totally sound. That's forum posts for you.
Now, what are the markets doing? They were supposed to crash through the floor. Oh - the ftse100's now at an 11-month high.
Well the 250 is a closer reflection of the UK economy though. And the ftse250 is closing in fast on wiping out any losses post-brexit.
Now, where's Boris fucking Johnson? He was supposed to be running for PM and threatening our nation with his ego-centric foolishness. Oh - his career's dead and buried, probably for ever.
Now what's happening about freedom of movement of people, labour, services and goods? That's supposed to be impossible post a 'leave' result. Oh - hmm... well we'll find out... but 50% of the people that actually matter - because they'll be the ones negotiating - are talking about it in positive terms. I feel fairly confident that when/if we finally leave the EU in >2.5 years time it will continue to be much as it is now in practice. Perhaps with a fairer system for non-EU skilled workers.
No-one among the vocal doom-sayers on here predicted any of this would happen. The overarching view was/is cynicism and a 'determined that it can't work' attitude.
I disagree with that view. And it's worth pointing out that the track record of the most vocal folk on here of accurate predictions is so abysmal that if you said good morning I'd check my watch.
Oh and a lot of 'what Nigel says' about echo chambers, facebook/twiter etc. I use facebook to find climbing partners, that's it. And about 'having the self-belief to stand up for what you believe in and seeing what comes out in the wash'.
-
So if nothing's changed, Pete, what was the point of entertaining the uncertainty and souring our reputation amongst our neighbours?
-
So if nothing's changed, Pete, what was the point of entertaining the uncertainty and souring our reputation amongst our neighbours?
This.
And pretty sure the prediction was that we would be marginalised, in a position of having to abide by all/most of the rules anyway, lose any ability to influence future rule changes, risk a break up of the union and be financially worse off long term.
The argument that x,y and z countries are "queueing up" to sign trade deals with us; does not mean those trade deals will be more advantageous to us than (and heres the important bit) *the ones we already have with those countries via the EU*.
In fact, the prediction is that we will be in a weaker position than the EU as a whole was and that we would be less attractive as an investment destination than we were.
These things do appear to be happening, albeit way too soon to tell.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yep gorilla's thumb
-
I don't know anything about how the Labour Party works but if we have until 2020 before the next general election and JC wins the Labour leadership, could all the anti-JC MPs get de-selected and new candidates run for 2020? So build a new Labour Party that reflects the membership view rather than the PLP view? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-deselection-deselect-mp-rules-party-a7107556.html
The SNP produced a new set of MPs from scratch after all.
-
The argument that x,y and z countries are "queueing up" to sign trade deals with us; does not mean those trade deals will be more advantageous to us than (and heres the important bit) *the ones we already have with those countries via the EU*.
They'll be in a queue for a while...
Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave.
It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
-
I thought this was quite apt (facebook video link, so not sure it will work).
https://www.facebook.com/RTUKnews/videos/1625038167786060/
-
And this is food for thought.. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1304633102897424&id=130437690316977
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160701/285751c4bb4a5b9df4281d5205e1d01f.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Now, what are the markets doing? They were supposed to crash through the floor. Oh - the ftse100's now at an 11-month high.
Well the 250 is a closer reflection of the UK economy though. And the ftse250 is closing in fast on wiping out any losses post-brexit.
Now, where's Boris fucking Johnson? He was supposed to be running for PM and threatening our nation with his ego-centric foolishness. Oh - his career's dead and buried, probably for ever.
Now what's happening about freedom of movement of people, labour, services and goods? That's supposed to be impossible post a 'leave' result. Oh - hmm... well we'll find out... but 50% of the people that actually matter - because they'll be the ones negotiating - are talking about it in positive terms. I feel fairly confident that when/if we finally leave the EU in >2.5 years time it will continue to be much as it is now in practice. Perhaps with a fairer system for non-EU skilled workers.
No-one among the vocal doom-sayers on here predicted any of this would happen. The overarching view was/is cynicism and a 'determined that it can't work' attitude.
I disagree with that view. And it's worth pointing out that the track record of the most vocal folk on here of accurate predictions is so abysmal that if you said good morning I'd check my watch.
That looks like the type of exaggeration you are seemingly railing against (or was Osbourne secretly posting here and I missed it?). Is the FTSE index detatched from the pound? Have the markets maybe backed down a little as freeish movement of people and freeish trade seems the most likely result at present (the opposite of what brexit leaders said pre vote with their discovering Unicorn scenarios)? Isn't no brexit still a possibility? By any measure world markets have crashed following the implications of the vote (protectionist instincts) and the key issue in this is the value lost is much more than the difference we sent to the EU. We will never know the difference as viewing the parallel world where we just voted remain isnt possible but my guess would be a small market rally and slightly strengthened pound. Things look so good that Osbourne has given up on austerity and Carney is signalling an interest rate drop.
-
Exchange rates are not recovering The project I'm on in the Caribbean now has a big hole in its funding...
-
Markets crashed because of fears of economic slowdown Brexit. FTSE recovered because BoE promised summer stimulus to prop it up. FTSE 100 also disconnected from UK economy to extent because many are international companies (so not dependent on UK trade) but records results in £ (so they increase when converted). None of this means that Brexit fears were misplaced.
-
A more likely post brexit scenario. No hellfire, just the elite win more at the expense of the ordinary folk.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/brexit-britain-elites-run-amok
-
An interesting article. I suppose it's very true that inequality at the end of the 19th century made this era look like a Kibbutz and that the Great War, Great Depression , even Greater War combo; levelled the playing field somewhat.
Is this really the start of another great upheaval (or at least, are we now feeling the first major waves from the meltdown of the Middle East)?
The defence/military media (Janes etc) have been lamenting the loss of the "technological edge" by the Western militaries (or more realistically, the advancement of certain "Eastern" powers) and the advantage that had held the world in check since the end of the Cold war.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21701501-economists-who-foresaw-backlash-against-globalisation-consensus?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/theconsensuscrumbles
Which makes me think of this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
my conversation from earlier today with the mother in law.
"I bet you think that I'm racist because I voted out"
"no, I don't Maggie, why are you racist? "
"of course not"
"so why did you vote out? "
"because we're being overrun by immigrants, I don't like immigrants. just because I don't like immigrants I suppose in your eyes that makes me racist"
FFS!!!!
-
I like her, at least she's honest.
-
Immigrants != race.
Not liking immigrants is called xenophobia (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+xenophobia).
-
Immigrants != race.
Not liking immigrants is called xenophobia (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+xenophobia).
Haven't you heard?
This is ok now and won't cause any problems, as long as everyone stays in their own village and stops questioning their betters.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
*resists posting the Stewart Lee Ukip link again* What's wrong with worshipping a tree!?
-
Is this village thing like when someone from UKc posts here?
-
Is this village thing like when someone from UKc posts here?
Bloody UKc'ians, coming over here stealing our... Ummm.... Stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now if they could graft Corbyn’s brains and policies into someone else’s body then everything might be OK. But that isn’t the proposal.
His body isn't the problem. The problem is he's too electable.
He has captured the imagination of a lot of people in a very short space of time. And he’s done it using decency, honesty and fairness. No one is really attracted to his policies because the media won’t let him tell anyone what they are.
The conspiracy of silence and slurs from the mainstream media is beyond belief. Now that the BBC and Guardian (with Channel 4 currently being threatened into line) don't question the government, the ENTIRE media are all mouthpieces of a very rattled establishment, who, until Corbyn's surge in popularity, thought they were well on their way to a one party state.
It's frustrating when people, whose interests Corbyn best represents, rehash the usual cliches - he's unelectable, he can't lead, he's weak, he'll never win a general election etc etc. And it's always delivered with a tone of knowing contempt to another naive Corbyn supporter - when all that's really being done is an uncritical regurgitation of what they've read/seen in the right wing press.
If you watch the speech I’ve linked to, he suggests putting up corporation tax by 0.5% to make university education free again. It’s hardly the communist manifesto. And the renationalisation of the railways has a lot of support among the middle ground Labour need to swing towards them.
I think there's a large proportion of our population with the intelligence and education to know that the papers have a vested interest, but still believe the BBC to be fair and balanced. The BBC's integrity is so ingrained in the national psyche it makes it the most dangerous and effective vehicle for government propaganda there currently is.
Basically, if the BBC are bashing Corbyn, he must deserve it. This is how most people will form their initial opinion of Corbyn. And as I'm finding with my girlfriend's mother, you can come out with all the reason you like, but to try to change someone's gut instinct is to challenge their pride, and is not easy.
I think there's a genuine chance he could be this country's next Prime Minister. I'm not sure how feasible it would be, but a coalition of Labour and SNP on an anti-austerity ticket would not need to unseat too many tories to form a majority. And there's probably going to be four years to build on the amazing support Corbyn already has.
Cameron might have fucked up by losing the referendum, but the whole enterprise has been very successful in divvying up the working and lower middle classes between Labour and UKIP. This has been enabled by a media who give Farage way more airtime than Corbyn.
The political class, which includes the PLP, are terrified of Corbyn. And if there’s any chance at all of dislodging the Tories, traditional Labour voters have not only got to get behind him, but help spread his message too.
I'm a fan of his btw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivfDnt8bEWc&app=desktop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivfDnt8bEWc&app=desktop)
-
To get elected as PM you need to convince the political middle ground in marginal seats : labour MPs did and will continue to do this (unless deselected to fit in very leftist Momentum candidates). Corbyn can't even convince all the socialists (including the majority of his socialist, non Blairite MP's).
As a left leaning voter I believe in much of what he says as labour leader but his leadership has been much weaker and unifying for his party than it should have been. I continue to distrust some of his most fervent backers from Seumas Milne to my fellow SWP trade unionists (to whom this is just a means to a revolutionary end). This attempted coup looks dodgy and maybe is but a leadership election, which is looking increasingly likely, would mainly benefit the tories and might even split the party. You, cant run an opposition if you cant fill the key shadow posts form people on the left of a left wing party.
-
So Somebody's...
If we take what you say at face value - then you either have to change the whole media/organisation/set up of the U.K. (A revolution in many ways) so his message isn't hidden - and everyone can have the truth revealed to them.
Or - what most politicians have had to do.. Is learn to work with and manipulate the existing media. For a start you could talk to them - rather than ignore... Be friendly to them... Maybe even cosy up to them - then get your point across.
Which one do you think would work in our present society?
Let's take UKIP. Let's say they suffer more than Labour at the hands of the media. Let's face it media coverage of them ranges from depicting them as nutters - to depicting them as racist xenophobes. They (I would say) have undeniably had a FAR worse time from the uK media in the last 5 years than Labour. But because they have a charismatic (wanker) leader - who knows how to play the press... They are (in terms of percentage vote growth) the most successful political party of the last 5 years of not longer. Jesus - they were fundamental in swinging the most important vote and upset in recent history.
Anyway. When we talk about mandates and number of votes etc... Remember Len McLusky who certainly supports JC was elected by 14% of Unites membership.. And I seem to remember JC justified voting against the Blair government several (many times) as that's what he said his electorate told him. The same reason many of the PLP are using to go against him as present leader.... He's a decent speaker - and speaks from the heart. But it's always (from what I see) speeches to the converted.. Can you ever see him having a Nick Clegg (what nick said) moment where he wins over those who vote Tory, UKIP or liberal?
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160704/583d5ac21c3e655e58e2b2cc8c3308fc.jpg)(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160704/57ed5109b2383b7e6111cbacdbf73cbd.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160704/22dbd7078c0c0911303d1cd20e1e9f3f.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Let's take UKIP. Let's say they suffer more than Labour at the hands of the media. Let's face it media coverage of them ranges from depicting them as nutters - to depicting them as racist xenophobes. They (I would say) have undeniably had a FAR worse time from the uK media in the last 5 years than Labour.
UKIP get far more airtime than they deserve. Farage has appeared on Question Time more times over the last few years than any other politician, despite having failed to be elected as an MP 7 times and who barely shows up to do his paid elected job as an MEP. If anything UKIP do exceptionally well out of the media for a party with a classless proto-Hitler leader and a selection of MPs and local candidates who's pantomime-villain-like lack of basic humanity would render them ineffective as scarecrows never mind elected representatives.
-
So in the last 4 posts on 2 different subjects we've had 4 remain voters who've completely disagreed with each other. Ain't politics great
-
UKIP get far more airtime than they deserve. Farage has appeared on Question Time more times over the last few years than any other politician, despite having failed to be elected as an MP 7 times and who barely shows up to do his paid elected job as an MEP. If anything UKIP do exceptionally well out of the media for a party with a classless proto-Hitler leader and a selection of MPs and local candidates who's pantomime-villain-like lack of basic humanity would render them ineffective as scarecrows never mind elected representatives.
You could almost argue its a self-fulfilling prophecy, given the air time the message will find resonance with some of the electorate in varying amounts.
If only it were applied evenly to all parties and their policies (I've zero interest in who happens to be the figurehead of a given party at any given time, I don't vote for them, I vote for their policies, the sooner people realise this the better).
-
the PLP, are terrified of Corbyn
Why?
It is because they're all (the 80% of Lab MPs, the Corbynite strategy seems to be to deselect) are power-hungry neo-liberal Blairite warmongers who do not want to be led to a certain general election win even though they are power-hungry?
If the reason the PLP is out to get him isn't that he's not up to the job, what is it meant to be?
Alternatively he's a "man of steel" (you don't need a Russian GCSE to know MclCluskey's description is a little unfortunate?), whom we shouldn't bully by letting his deputy leader (or anyone else) speak to him privately...
(fwiw I agree with a lot of the policies and would vote for them in a PR system where some could become govt policy, but we're in FPTP system where you have to build your coalition - a political party - before the election not after. Corbyn can't do this and needs to go now.)
-
UKIP get far more airtime than they deserve. Farage has appeared on Question Time more times over the last few years than any other politician, despite having failed to be elected as an MP 7 times and who barely shows up to do his paid elected job as an MEP. If anything UKIP do exceptionally well out of the media for a party with a classless proto-Hitler leader and a selection of MPs and local candidates who's pantomime-villain-like lack of basic humanity would render them ineffective as scarecrows never mind elected representatives.
You could almost argue its a self-fulfilling prophecy, given the air time the message will find resonance with some of the electorate in varying amounts.
Yeah it is self-fulfilling, or at least semi self-perpetuating. For a similar reason it's hard to know what the Lib Dem policy on anything is at the moment, because despite having eight times as many MPs as UKIP they only get 100000th of the airtime and media coverage. I would wager the average man on the street would struggle to name the Lib Dem leader at the minute. I could name him but not pick him out of a police lineup.
-
Back on-topic...
A law firm is taking action to ensure the formal process for the UK leaving the EU is not started without an act of Parliament. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36700350)
-
I could name him but not pick him out of a police lineup.
He's the one with the ichthys on his lapel.
And in breaking news, Farage quits........
-
And in breaking news, Farage quits........
:offtopic: and already posted in Tedious political thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.0.html)
-
If the reason the PLP is out to get him isn't that he's not up to the job, what is it meant to be?
The PLP are as embedded in the political class as anyone else. The coup isn’t an attempt to oust him because he might lose, but because he might win. The untruth at its heart is why it’s been so shambolic. A progressive social democracy is as unwelcome to Labour MPs (or ex MPs) as it is to Tory MPs. They're content to be in opposition while the Tories are on the other side making them richer.
The disconnect between the PLP and their voters is wider than ever and is the reason Labour won’t win. The PLP continue to insult the intelligence of Labour voters by persevering with the narrative that Corbyn is a loser, despite him gaining ground. It wasn’t Corbyn who lost the last two general elections. Nor was it Corbyn who lost Scotland. That was down to those now calling for Corbyn’s head.
People are sick of having two Tory parties. It’s not that difficult to understand.
-
And in breaking news, Farage quits........
:offtopic: and already posted in Tedious political thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.0.html)
So one of the influential leaders of the successful campaign on the EU referendum quits just after the EU referendum, gaining more airtime for his views on the fallout from the EU referendum and makes numerous comments about what should be done about the EU referendum. But that's not, according to you, relevant to a thread on the EU referendum? I don't mind you being a pedant, but at least live up to your sig and be a correct one.
What do you mean I'm venting my anger? I am not! :chair:
-
You've sat through the coalition and first year of the current govt and think they're all the same? I'll take the tory party that doubled public spending on health.
80% of Lab MPs, his front bench and shadow cabinet want Corbyn to step down because they think he'll win a general election? Really? Really really??
I want to say there's no debating with that kind of logic but that's the trouble, people only seem to want to talk to people who agree with them, so you get jaw droppers like:
They're content to be in opposition while the Tories are on the other side making them richer.
Seriously, you think that's what 80% of Labout MPs (like Jo Cox) are content to do?
-
You've sat through the coalition and first year of the current govt and think they're all the same? I'll take the tory party that doubled public spending on health.
80% of Lab MPs, his front bench and shadow cabinet want Corbyn to step down because they think he'll win a general election? Really? Really really??
At least it's an explanation for behaviour that otherwise seems utterly irrational.. Alternatively someone's been spiking the Commons water coolers with LSD.
-
...alternative explanations are available.
-
I don't mind you being a pedant, but at least live up to your sig and be a correct one.
I am, the discussion of party leaders post-referendum is :offtopic:* and tedious.
Many people don't bother trawling through the archives to find relevant threads worthy of resurrection and instead use the convenience of the most recently, vaguely related thread thats seen some topic drift to post about a vaguely related topic, or worse still just start a new topic (viz. the profusion of finger injury threads).
* In my opinion.
-
Is Chris Evans resignation Brexit related? ;-)
-
Who?
-
Keep the discussion here - there doesn't seem to be any appetite apart from Slackers (sorry slackers) to move it elsewhere... It's teetering on the edge of the logpile chasm as it is :)
-
Keep the discussion here - there doesn't seem to be any appetite apart from Slackers (sorry slackers) to move it elsewhere... It's teetering on the edge of the logpile chasm as it is :)
So we have a lone figure making a principled stand according to the rules on the purity and direction of the thread, ruling leadership discussion out, against a larger number pursuing a pragmatic line to keep it in the thread. Can we have a vote on this?
-
No £3 votes here mate. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
Are you quoting yourself to increase the validity of your single source?
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
If I repeat it enough we'll abandon the Brexit and JC will stop pissing holy water.
-
A portrait of one but a family I know have just come back from a tour of Italy for 10 days. They said it was bizarre, they were treated like kings and having drinks bought for them for Britain leaving the eu. Saying everyone was saying we love the uk because you've had the balls to do what we haven't, we hope to do it now, we hate the eu. This happened all over Italy apparently. He said we didn't even mention what we voted for!
Feel free to pick this apart.
-
It's teetering on the edge of the logpile chasm as it is :)
The whole EU Referendum is a debacle and should be log-piled.
-
It's teetering on the edge of the logpile chasm as it is :)
The whole EU Referendum is a debacle and should be log-piled.
I believe that's the official Lib Dem line...
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
Feel free to pick this apart.
Hard for me to do - an Italian tattoo artist I know, has just moved over here and she said pretty much the same thing. Was totally confused as to why we all voted stay.
-
Feel free to pick this apart.
Hard for me to do - an Italian tattoo artist I know, has just moved over here and she said pretty much the same thing. Was totally confused as to why we all voted stay.
It might be something to do with the fact that Italy is fucked financially so defaulting on their debt/leaving the EU is clearly a pretty attractive option to a lot of people. Just a guess.
An option which would hammer us whether we were in or out btw. Bank exposure etc blah blah blah facts.
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
No £3 votes here comrade. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
No £3 votes here mate. Straightforward dictatorship :)
-
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/750081415895719936
-
Is Brexit beyond us?
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/on-state-capacity.html
-
Is Brexit beyond us?
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/on-state-capacity.html
And is this why:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095975-what-explains-brexit-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-far-right/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2016-GLOBAL-hoot
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Is Brexit beyond us?
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/on-state-capacity.html
And is this why:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095975-what-explains-brexit-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-far-right/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2016-GLOBAL-hoot
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well, this is heartening:
"As for media reports of “Bregret” – leave voters who now regret their choice – Kahneman has argued that most won’t regret their decision, because regret is rare. Instead, people find ways to explain what is happening around them that lay the blame with someone else."
-
Who are these people? I know a lot of leave voters yet I don't know one who regrets voting leave! You send a link to a trail of 500 people omm, do you need me to send you a link to a trial of 33 million?
-
do you need me to send you a link to a trial of 33 million?
Because the result of the referendum wasn't/isn't legally binding a 'trial'* is exactly what it has amounted to.
There are good reasons why you don't need to sample the whole population in order to gauge the opinions, all to do with sampling theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29), but thats probably of little interest and way :off:
* or 'very expensive opinion poll'
-
Hi, just a weekly post to say I voted leave for reasons to do with self-governance and a more global outlook, in the optimistic belief that in the long term being outside the EU will prove to be good fr the UK; rather than for reasons to do with xenophobia and cutting ourselves off.
Carry on.
-
Do all the people who vote remain really think that the government won't do what they've been told/asked to do? All I've read is I don't like the result so... "it's not legally binding" "article 50 won't get invoked" "the longer we leave it the less likely it is that we'll invoke article 50" "the chilcott enquiry's out this week" "idiot racists" "corbyns shit" "corbyns amazing" as someone peering into another world here I must say it looks very bizarre and deluded.
-
Because the elected government have a history of always doing what they say in their manifestos don't they? :lol: :lol: :lol:
There is only one instance of a country leaving the EU, Greenland, so there is no real template/example/framework on which to base expectations of how things are going to pan out. Its all incredibly uncertain, because after all we don't have crystal balls that allow us to see what happens in the future. Had the referendum been set up in such a manner that it was legally binding then there would be considerably less uncertainty.
-
Do all the people who vote remain really think that the government won't do what they've been told/asked
What have they been told/asked to do? Are we going to look more like Norway, or Albania, or I dunno, Japan? I'd obviously prefer the Norway model, but I'm worried they'll do more than they've been told...
-
Do all the people who vote remain really think that the government won't do what they've been told/asked to do?
What makes you think that a slender win of 51.9% will make a reluctant and currently non-existent PM commit career suicide and drag the UK out of the EU, given nobody has even the faintest idea about how it's going to work?
-
Do all the people who vote remain really think that the government won't do what they've been told/asked to do?
What makes you think that a slender win of 51.9% will make a reluctant and currently non-existent PM commit career suicide and drag the UK out of the EU, given nobody has even the faintest idea about how it's going to work?
Well Farage was already calling for a second referendum before the first one if he didn't get the result he wanted, so why not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
-
I don't really listen to the clawings of someone who thinks they have no option but to lose. That's what farage did there. What makes me think that Dave? A hell of a lot. Slackers there has never been a vote of this magnitude so the earlier referendums that have been overturned don't mean a lot when compared to half the population voting. John x2 theyve been instructed to leave the eu, that simple, have you been on the moon the last few wks?
-
Yes they've been instructed to leave the EU, but no, nobody is bound to obey that instruction. Basically if nobody in the top brass wants to do it or doesn't think it is in the country's best interest to do it then it won't happen. Would be incredibly naive to think otherwise - like you expect politicians to keep promises they never made. They don't even keep promises they have made.
-
Joh x2 theyve been instructed to leave the eu, that simple, have you been on the moon the last few wks?
personally I think leaving the EU will happen, but haven't a clue what that actually means. I feel I am not alone in this cluelessness...
-
Slackers there has never been a vote of this magnitude so the earlier referendums that have been overturned don't mean a lot when compared to half the population voting.
When you say 'magnitude' it seems you're referring to the number of people voting rather than the implications of the result.
The turnout for the recent EU Referendum was 72% not the 'half the population voting' you claim. Of those 72% 51.9% (just over half) voted to Leave. This equates to 27.03% of the population who are eligible to vote who voted to Leave.
When you refer to "earlier referendums" there have only been three equivalent national referendums in the UK (there have been others in individual countries England/Wales/Scotland/Norhtern Ireland)...
1975 Membership of the European Common Market - Turnout varied by nation between 47% and 66%, the result was non-binding, but not overturned (vast majority of MPs supported joining the EU).
2011 Alternative Vote Referendum - Turnout varied by region between 35-55%, the result was binding, could not be overturned.
Yes, compared to the two other national referendums turnout was higher in this one.
However I'm unaware of the "earlier referendums that have been overturned" that you refer to, could you point me to where I might find out about these please?
Lets not cloud facts by being lazy in our writing.
-
Joh x2 theyve been instructed to leave the eu, that simple, have you been on the moon the last few wks?
personally I think leaving the EU will happen, but haven't a clue what that actually means. I feel I am not alone in this cluelessness...
Parliament (whatever lies the leave side has been telling) is sovereign.
It can't be instructed - well possibly theoretically by the Queen I'm unclear on that bit.
I too however fear exit will happen simply because the EU will not be able to tolerate a member state continuing to play the hokey-kokey.
-
continuing to play the hokey-kokey.
The hokey kokey is THE game now...
That's why the Tory candidates are not guaranteeing EU citizens here can stay post Brexit... gives the UK some leverage to protect the interests of the 1.3 million Brits living in the EU... Despite the 'no negotiations pre Article 50' statements from the EU there will be loads going on in the background... both conversations between sides and formation of plans and strategies. Its further complicated for the UK as it has to deal with both the European Council, and the individual member states themselves. I think this means it can be a fucking mess trying to get 27 countries to agree - but also means the UK can play a bit of divide an conquer (get a few on side and build pressure etc..).
Anyway, I suspect this whole process will last a very long time - two years seems rather optimistic..
In the meantime I guess much can go on as before (as in we're still in the EU etc..) but, the uncertainty will affect investment in the UK (as evidenced by statements by Siemens last week..). If you are a Global company looking to build a factory in Europe, do you (a) go for France/Belgium/Spain etc.. that you know will be part of the single market until - until it ends or (b) UK - which may have many positives (in terms of skills/workforce etc..) - but you really don't know whether or not it'll be in the EU.
Its a no brainer. Sadly.
Anyway, the sky won't fall in ~ we'll probably enter recession but hopefully not a bad one ~ all clouds have a silver lining somewhere!
-
Uplifting stuff... :shrug:
I'm actually amazed how much this is getting to me - not having an EU passport, kids' (youngest in Berlin atm) choices constrained. And mine for that matter (that little place near Biarritz seems more remote, yeah I know your heart bleeds...) and what it says about us. Labour take over by extra-parliamentary forces is just bloody icing...
-
theyve been instructed to leave the eu, that simple
The collision of fantasy and reality is going to make a lot of English people very angry.
-
I voted leave for reasons to do with self-governance and a more global outlook...
And who is responsible for the UK's self-governance and global outlook? Would that be MPs, business leaders, the City, universities, etc? Are those who will be responsible for this shift away from parochialism into globalism be living in Rotherham or Barnsley, or will they be the residents of London, Oxford, Cambridge?
-
Sorry slackers I read your "government always do what they promised in their manifestos" as "referendums" that's why I replied like that. On the other point, over 33million people voted, the country has 70million people in it including non eu non British citizens, that's half the people voted. You can wrap it up in flowers but that's that.
I.munro all I'm doing is repeating what nearly every politician has said, that they've been instructed by the British people to leave the eu.
Thirdly, do you have a point Sean?
-
Slackers there has never been a vote of this magnitude so the earlier referendums that have been overturned don't mean a lot when compared to half the population voting.
When you say 'magnitude' it seems you're referring to the number of people voting rather than the implications of the result.
The turnout for the recent EU Referendum was 72% not the 'half the population voting' you claim. Of those 72% 51.9% (just over half) voted to Leave. This equates to 27.03% of the population who are eligible to vote who voted to Leave.
....
Lets not cloud facts by being lazy in our writing.
Slackers since you put in the effort to be able to tell us what percentage of eligible voters voted for 'leave', it would be in the interests of context to also tell us what percentage of eligible voters voted for 'remain'. Otherwise your stats only tell one side of the tale. A bit like this whole thread.
-
Sorry slackers I read your "government always do what they promised in their manifestos" as "referendums" that's why I replied like that.
You started by asking "Do all the people who vote remain really think that the government won't do what they've been told/asked to do?"
Given only two national referendums, only one of which was non-binding, its not a useful sample on which to base predictions of how governments will act. I therefore repsonded that governments have a poor history of enacting their manifesto pledges after having been elected, and I therefore don't expect them to do as they've been told/asked to do with regards to this referendum.
You conflated this reference to general elections with referendums and went on to suggest that "earlier referendums that have been overturned don't mean a lot ".
There have not been any such overturned referendums though as there have only been two national referendums prior to the recent EU one and neither of them were overturned. Where do you get the idea that this happened?
You seem to be making the case that because a non-binding referendum was held that the result of that should be binding. Thats not the case, if that was what should happen the referendum would have been made binding before it happened but it wasn't. The result isn't binding and it is therefore not a foregone conclusion that Article 50 will be enacted. I would suggest reading some of the previously linked articles on the legal aspects but from your other posts in this thread but get the impression you don't really care otherwise you would have already done so.
On the other point, over 33million people voted, the country has 70million people in it including non eu non British citizens, that's half the people voted. You can wrap it up in flowers but that's that.
Except its not, firstly any simpleton knows that 33million doubled is 66 million so 33 million can not and never will be 50% of 70million.
46501241 people voted in the referendum, this is 72% of the eligible population registered to vote (you can't count the unknowns), meaning the eligible population is 64406151. These numbers are within a few seconds of your reach, just as they are mine.
So there are less eligible to vote than you are proposing but a larger number of them turned out to vote than you are suggesting.
If you're going to use numbers and percentages as a basis for supporting a point of view or making a case for one side of an argument then you should, in my opinion, be accurate with them, especially when they are a few seconds away using a search engine. But then as per above, you probably don't really care.
On this point...
all I'm doing is repeating what nearly every politician has said, that they've been instructed by the British people to leave the eu.
Firstly it wasn't an instruction because....the referendum was non-binding! This is not difficult to understand.
Secondly, the one person in a position to trigger Article 50 and "enact the will of the people" as you are suggesting, decided right after the results came in not to and instead resigned, which says a lot about the will to bring this about, and if you look at the stance of other politicians (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946) most are for Remain (458 v 158), and the person who everyone expected to step up to the oche because they led the Leave campaign has stepped out of running for the position that would allow him to do what he's been campaigning for. That too says a lot to me about the political will to Leave.
-
Thirdly, do you have a point Sean?
That those who voted leave voted against the EU (even I get that), but voted for a load of different things. Including, barely believably, some avid citizen of the world globalists voting for their pan-national vision... Either way they're unlikely all to get what they voted for. Whatever the fuck it was they voted for...
-
I voted leave for reasons to do with self-governance and a more global outlook...
And who is responsible for the UK's self-governance and global outlook? Would that be MPs, business leaders, the City, universities, etc? Are those who will be responsible for this shift away from parochialism into globalism be living in Rotherham or Barnsley, or will they be the residents of London, Oxford, Cambridge?
The answer to that I imagine is that it all depends on what life chances are available to people in Rotherham and Barnsley over the coming twenty years. We know who the movers and shakers are who will shape events in the coming 5-10 years. I don't understand what point you're trying to make? That it's some sort of an immutable law that people from Barnsley or Rotherham must be -what? Racist? Stupid? You're more cynical than I thought! After all people born in Rotherham are in no way inherently inferior human-beings to people born in London or Oxford. Deprivation breeds some toxic views.
-
Interesting to note that most legal experts seem to think that Parliament are the only institution with the authority to trigger article 50 (not the PM), and MP's are something like 70% in favour of staying in the EU. Judging by how little respect politicians seem to have for their constituents these days I would be amazed if article 50 was ever triggered.
The whole thing is a clusterfuck for both 'sides'! :popcorn:
-
Slackers I think your whole post in reply to me is based on your confusion within the realms of numbers. I said the uk has 70 million people in, this included non eu or non British citizens, this means there's less than 70 who can vote, if 33 voted that's pretty much gonna be there or thereabouts half the people voting.
I didn't start going on about referendums, I've already said it was a simple mistake of me inserting the word where you wrote elections. Every point you made after me already admitting this mistake has just been you going on with yourself and nothing to do with what I was saying.
Interesting to note none of these "experts" said anything before the referendum about it not being legal or binding or add any other word along those lines here. I seem to remember people saying it's the most important thing we'll vote on in our lifetime, every vote counts etc ad nauseam. I don't remember one expert saying why you gonna bother voting you tit it doesn't mean anything if we don't like the vote we'll just change it.
-
Slackers since you put in the effort to be able to tell us what percentage of eligible voters voted for 'leave', it would be in the interests of context to also tell us what percentage of eligible voters voted for 'remain'. Otherwise your stats only tell one side of the tale. A bit like this whole thread.
As I wrote, these numbers are within a few seconds reach of all of us, so you can work it out for yourself (it doesn't take long).
-
You've lost it slackers, why've you quoted me with something I've not wrote? :boxing: :clap2:
-
Things get worse by the day:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/what-tory-grandees-ken-clarke-and-malcolm-rifkind-really-think-about-leadership
I don't want to be a doom sayer, but you'd have to have a seriously heavy rose tint on your specs to see any of this as anything other than a cluster fuck.
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4NewsDemocracy/videos/1005017416242868/
And pretty sure all the "advisory" and "requires an act of Parliament" points were made on this thread (let alone in the public domain) before the referendum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Blimey Dense - I've just tried to read four of your posts and given up half way through each ;) it must be catching...
:D
-
Things get worse by the day:
Matt things get worse for you every day. What's your problem exactly in that article you linked? That two politicians are shit-talking their colleagues?
I don't want to be a doom sayer, but.....
:lol: :lol: :lol:
This thread is like chinese whispers by internet link.
-
why've you quoted me with something I've not wrote? :boxing: :clap2:
Sorry I cocked up editing the multiple quotes and mistakenly left the BBCode for your quote which was embeded within that of petejh's post which I was responding to.
-
Judging by how little respect politicians seem to have for their constituents these days I would be amazed if article 50 was ever triggered.
To be fair to them not voting for article 50 would, in most cases, be respecting their costituents. After all iin most cases those constituents elected them very recently on the basis that they favoured remaining in the EU.
Unfortunately the Tories will orobably have to balance "respect for their constituents" against enraging their new leader. Onlly needs a few to actually behave decently & or sulk though.
-
Things get worse by the day:
Matt things get worse for you every day. What's your problem exactly in that article you linked? That two politicians are shit-talking their colleagues?
I don't want to be a doom sayer, but.....
:lol: :lol: :lol:
This thread is like chinese whispers by internet link.
Because it is Pete.
Did you not read the Bank of England statement today? Do you not get the implication of it?
There was no plan Pete.
Everyone, including the Leave leaders, knew it was a bad idea; this is why they have all disappeared.
It is a bad idea, it will cost us dearly. There is no miracle trade deal with the Chinese/US/ A.N.Other Super nation. This is because we have nothing significant to offer. Even the Chinese comment (whilst laughing) was "I hope they have 500 negotiators and ten years to spare for a trade deal with us" (or something very similar).
Every single expert, every single world leader (Except Putin and some other oddballs), every central bank, and on and on said "it's a bad idea".
Everyone except Farage, Gove and Boris and the loony right/left.
So, yeah, I think I'll listen to the people who are supposed to know. If it were just politicians or businessmen or bankers, I'd have pause; but even the Academics and the Lawyers are in agreement.
You, just have rose tinted specs and a misplaced faith in some golden era, pre globalisation. It ain't coming back. Being small means being trodden under. There's no room for another Swiss, the best we can hope for is a Norway and it's pretty hard to see how that would work for a population our size (already mentioned and that just regurgitating "expert" opinion, not something I've made up).
Neither you, nor Dense have been able to point to anything that stands up to close examination. Although you both complain when people point out why it's not a good argument. Even though many people posting here have a good deal of specialised knowledge and I don't mean me. Seriously, you guys want to argue stats with Slackers?
And, while Rome burns, our political masters are self destructing.
Wonderful.
I'd like a pint of whatever you are drinking. Make it two.
No, I'm not all depressed or mopping around, but it's fucking hard to see an up side to this débâcle.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You, just have rose tinted specs and a misplaced faith in some golden era, pre globalisation. It ain't coming back.
No I don't. Where did you read that? You're mixing me up with those that possibly do - easy to confuse all those idiots though isn't it, so fair enough. I've already explained my view and it didn't include any harking back to any past era.
I'm very open-minded and I'll gladly listen to opinions that differ from my own. But this thread's becoming insufferable. It's disaster masturbation/self-flagellation. Sort of a daily mail if it were written by the whatever's the opposite archetype. Bye.
-
Was the Bank of England statement different than it was last Tuesday when he said all possible scenarios had been planned for? Is he lying now?
Why do you keep reverting back to this golden era? No one who's voted leave on here have mentioned it. I haven't pointed to anything at all. I don't have a plan. I don't need one, that's why others are elected, to make these plans. What are they gonna say tomos interest rates are at 20%, no food is to come into the uk you can only eat what you can kill, houses will devalue 50%, your first born will have to be sacrificed? No none of these things will be said. Men and women much more intelligent than me will sit round a table or many tables and decide over a period of time what they think is the best course of action for Britain as a nation to go forward when we have left the eu.
Who are the people on here that have specialised knowledge about the workings of the eu? I can't think of anyone, just people with different opinions to me.
Don't forget the biggest democratic referendum of all time was won by racist idiots with no plan, what does that say about your fair democracy? Not fair now is it?
-
What are they gonna say tomos interest rates are at 20%, no food is to come into the uk you can only eat what you can kill, houses will devalue 50%, your first born will have to be sacrificed?
Blimey. If that's the criteria that have to be met before you worry about the economic impact, no wonder you were happy to vote to leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That's the whole point nobody knows what the economic impact will be. Obviously apart from everyone who voted remain that is.
-
I haven't read any of this thread. What did we decide, and can we offer our poll as an alternative to the nationwide result in parliament?
-
Was it 90 or 91 when interest rates hit 15% or so?
I remember I was paying a mortgage at the time and having to skimp on food to cover it. Both my neighbours had their houses repossessed.
It can happen.
To be honest, as I said, I'm not moping (I'm mildly amused, it just doesn't translate well in posts).
I'm also not a huge fan of democracy (said that somewhere else on this thread).
I'm not nearly as left wing as I appear sometimes.
I think this is just one amazing clusterfuck. I love the way the leave campaign leaders, lead the way to their own ignominious career ends. I love the fact that no one has a clue what to do and the fact that the only people that want the pm's job are a bunch of power hungry shits, who wouldn't have a chance in any other circumstance. I figure they are thinking far more about the consultancies and speaking tours after their term than doing anything worthwhile in office.
Hopefully, something good will come out of it all. Even if it's just the demise of this stupid hubris, that lead to the anti-expert, "I know better" crap that got us here.
Dense, a lot of people who are supposed to have studied this, are pretty sure nothing good is going to come of it. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of experts. "They" seem pretty confident of what it will mean.
So, no, I'm not a huge fan of democracy. I'd rather see a technocracy and leave it to those who think about it a little more than those who ran the leave campaign and then ran away.
I mentioned my real position to Shark and Gaz on facebook, a couple of weeks ago. Secretly looking forward to the chaos.
There is the chance that some beautiful Phoenix will rise from these ashes, after all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
They tipped around 18% in the late eighties. I remember my Dad looking very pale and stressed at the time and will always remember those days. Not that I have a mortgage at the moment but if I do have one again I'll certainly bear this in mind.
-
I don't have a mortgage either and luckily don't pay rent. I earn a little from the climbing wall and some as a personal trainer.
So not too bad a position financially, should the shit hit the fan.
The racism side worries me far more, on a personal level, for obvious reasons. But I'm fairly confident that Freedom of Movement will be preserved in any future deal.
I think the "nothing to see here", "whoop whoop we won!" thing by the Leavers (more on Facebook etc than here) is amusing (just look at the exchange rates today).
If you ask "Won what? What have we actually achieved here?" No one has a clue. The only people with any confidence in their predictions are extremely negative and supposedly rather knowledgeable, hardly a heartening moral boost.
I'm certainly not keen on proving myself right, although I will either have the pleasure of being wrong and living in the new Eden or having the minor consolation of knowing I listened to people who were right (again, what I've said or linked to here are the views of others, that make sense to me).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think the "what do you think you voted for?" question is very interesting
-
I voted leave for reasons to do with self-governance and a more global outlook, in the optimistic belief that in the long term being outside the EU will prove to be good fr the UK; rather than for reasons to do with xenophobia and cutting ourselves off.
Those exiters - self-governance and more global outlook.
Anybody would think that we are living in 1066 or the Vikings era.o
Self-governance, what has the EU actually prevented the uk gov/ or you from doing.
Global outlook, I thought we were livin in the tinternet era of interconnectedness.
Things couldn't be more global.
As for Dense, I just voted to leave and let others sort things out, sums things up.
I was expecting a bit more substance and backbone.
Yes Pete/Dense things might get better but I am pretty sure one way or another they are going to get a lot worse first.
Starting with the exiters plan "a" where is it.
-
Yes it is going to get worse first, of course it is. How could it not? To change things for what you think will be better something from before has to give. Expected more backbone from me? I don't really know what to say, I don't make any decision on policies neither do you or anyone else here dispite what we may think. Everything wrote on here is either just posturing, hearsay, a.n.other experts opinion, or people's best intentions with what they'd do, nothing more. Plus what you wrote isn't quite what I said jfdm, we can all take bits of sentences and apply them out of context, some people on here are rather gifted at it.
-
I don't have a plan. I don't need one, that's why others are elected, to make these plans.
Sorry I didn't quote you Dense.
You voted to leave but don't need a plan, right erm....
Most of the leaders of the leave brigade have abandoned ship.
I wonder why, maybe they are thinking along similar lines...
-
But none of the remain are staying put? We can do this all night I'm sure
-
Only one leave campaigner hasn't stayed put?
-
A point I should have picked up on Chris but I've been too busy on the referendum sites telling everybody how to train on a board, my bad
-
You carry on mate, I'm sure they are loving your deadhanging antics.
-
While driving down to Blyth on Monday I was listening to a phone in on the radio - radio Scotland I believe! There was a far mix of leave and remain voters who called in. The presenter, clearly getting a bit fed up of empty rhetoric, asked the leavers the same question posed above - "what have we gained" or to some, "what was the EU stopping us doing" not one had a clear answer... Just "um... Erm.... vacuum cleaner regulations " it was painfully embarrassing. The worst was an elderly lady "doing it to protect her grand children" from what ffs! Head to dashboard... No idea.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
While driving down to Blyth on Monday I was listening to a phone in on the radio - radio Scotland I believe! There was a far mix of leave and remain voters who called in. The presenter, clearly getting a bit fed up of empty rhetoric, asked the leavers the same question posed above - "what have we gained" or to some, "what was the EU stopping us doing" not one had a clear answer... Just "um... Erm.... vacuum cleaner regulations " it was painfully embarrassing. The worst was an elderly lady "doing it to protect her grand children" from what ffs! Head to dashboard... No idea.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
I had this exact same thing happen to me. I must admit it is probably THE most infuriating thing for me, and I'm super guilty of getting emotional about this and slagging virtually everyone off who voted leave. All this talk of unity/whatever upsets me nearly as much as the fact. I feel like I've had my country taken hostage and my future damaged, how the hell am I not supposed to take it personally?
I felt really bad because I gave my half-brother an earful for voting leave. He is highly autistic and voted leave because he read on a blog somewhere that the EU is the secret project of the new world order, controlled by the Catholic Church / Jesuits. I mean wtf :'(
Most of the so called 'reasons' that more mentally able people have come up with are nearly as bad. I still haven't been pointed to a webpage with a list of the rules (with context) that cause us so much damage and misery >:(
In other news, the Labour party madness seems to be reaching its peak. I'm now a fully paid up member + member of momentum. Woop woop, someone give me shit, go on! :great:
-
At the risk of repeating myself, there is a school of thought believing that the EU is doomed to failure through internal conflict. Witness the rise of the Right in e.g. Austria, France and Italy and the clear nonsense of a `one size fits all` monetary policy across the Eurozone. We do well to be out of it before things get very messy.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, there are several schools (and a couple of universities) of thought that it won't fail.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, there is a school of thought believing that the EU is doomed to failure through internal conflict. Witness the rise of the Right in e.g. Austria, France and Italy and the clear nonsense of a `one size fits all` monetary policy across the Eurozone. We do well to be out of it before things get very messy.
A conveniently self-fulfilling prophecy!
-
But none of the remain are staying put? We can do this all night I'm sure
I am sure we could, but you guys won, shouldn't the "exit leaders" you know be actually taking some leadership.
If remain had won, Cambo would still be there, actually leading, business as usual.
The only person on the "remain" staying put seems to be Jezzer.
(Well for the the time being)...
-
Andrea Leadsom is willing and able to lead given the chance.
-
Buzzwords of the last few weeks "self fulfilling prophecy" i tell you what, fuck off.
I also don't agree with the schools & universities of thought that the eu won't fail Chris. I think it will fail very badly and quite soon.
-
Petrol price will be where the Leavers' force of denial comes crashing up against immovable reality. (https://twitter.com/CloveHitched/status/750365429806272512)
Graphs and warnings from economists will be disregarded. When it costs £100 to fill their car, then they'll pay attention. (https://twitter.com/CloveHitched/status/750365790390583296)
-
Men and women much more intelligent than me will sit round a table or many tables and decide over a period of time what they think is the best course of action for Britain as a nation to go forward when we have left the eu
Dense, apologies for selectively quoting you but this statement struck me. You are happy to let these "Men and women much more intelligent than me" make all the decisions after we have left the EU, but wouldn't listen to them on whether we stay in the EU or not? Is that correct?
It just seems a bit of a contradiction?
-
Andrea Leadsom is willing and able to lead given the chance.
Have you seen some of the Bat-shit crazy policies she's promoted in the past? Hard to swallow (for me) but May is probably the safest hands out of the likely suspects. Too "Survival of the fittest, Neo-Liberal" to remotely fit my ideal, but resolute and pragmatic. Less given to oddball, swivel-eyed-lunacy than the others. I hope.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Andrea Leadsom is willing and able to lead given the chance.
Hard to swallow (for me) but May is probably the safest hands out of the likely suspects. Too "Survival of the fittest, Neo-Liberal" to remotely fit my ideal, but resolute and pragmatic. Less given to oddball, swivel-eyed-lunacy than the others. I hope.
It says a lot about the current field of Tory leadership hopefuls that when you drop that particular bucketfull of turds down the bog it's May that seems to be the one that floats to the top.
-
It says a lot about the current field of Tory leadership hopefuls that when you drop that particular bucketfull of turds down the bog it's May that seems to be the one that floats to the top.
To quote Frankie Boyle, "And so we have a Conservative leadership election, a sort of X Factor for choosing the antichrist"
-
Don't apologise galpinos, I will leave the big plans going forward to the people that I helped elect for this very purpose. I didn't listen to a "selection of experts that fit the remain camp this week" that it was better to remain. The two things are not mutual.
-
Don't apologise galpinos, I will leave the big plans going forward to the people that I helped elect for this very purpose. I didn't listen to a "selection of experts that fit the remain camp this week" that it was better to remain. The two things are not mutual.
How do you decide between experts?
-
I will leave the big plans going forward to the people that I helped elect for this very purpose.
Who's that then? The Conservative leader and Prime Minister, who you presumably voted for as you say you helped elect them, has resigned as he is unwilling to sort out the mess. The "selection of experts that fit the remain leave camp this week" who convinced you it was better to leave don't seem to be doing much, the most vociferous of whom (Johnson) has stepped out of the running for the job that would allow him to sort out these big plans.
On the actual practicalities of negotiating an exit, Whitehall is severely lacking in civil servants with training and experience of negotiating international trade deals (there are 55 with such training!) to the extent that it is being suggested that foreign workers will be recruited to do such a job (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade-idUKKCN0ZK0L6) in the eventuality that Article 50 is enacted (which provides a wonderful dose of irony for the subset of 'Leave' voters whose motivation was to reduce immigration).
Something of an omnishambles.
And whilst you mistook my reference yesterday to general elections to mean referendums (I do clearly understand that you made this mistake), you still went on to write earlier referendums that have been overturned don't mean a lot . So which of the two other national referendums have been overturned? The answer is none.
-
Irvine Welsh:
"let’s remember that no democrat can defend the commission-led EU, and nobody in the remain camp had a serious reforming vision of Europe, any more than those in leave offer much of clue as to what they’ll do with their increasingly hollow-looking victory."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/beauty-beneath-brexit-bedwetting-leave-vote-diversity-genuine-change
-
Don't apologise galpinos, I will leave the big plans going forward to the people that I helped elect for this very purpose. I didn't listen to a "selection of experts that fit the remain camp this week" that it was better to remain. The two things are not mutual.
My worry is who are these people, “that I helped elect for this very purpose”? Johnson, Farage and Leadsom? There’s only one left standing and it looks like we’ll get May. Most of Parliament are (apparently) in the Remain camp so they might not represent your views?
I voted Remain but concede there could be positives to come out of this. The fact the Labour are in self-destruct and the Tories are totally focussed on getting a new leader and cracking out the karaoke means we don’t actually get any debate on what the plan is post EU, not just on immigration and the free market but how all this money is going to be distributed. Are there going to be reforms of the CAP handouts or will the farmers still get paid the same subsidies, from a different pot etc?
-
Irvine Welsh:
"let’s remember that no democrat can defend the commission-led EU, and nobody in the remain camp had a serious reforming vision of Europe, any more than those in leave offer much of clue as to what they’ll do with their increasingly hollow-looking victory."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/beauty-beneath-brexit-bedwetting-leave-vote-diversity-genuine-change
This statement demonstrates that he doesn't understand how the EU works.
-
I voted leave for reasons to do with self-governance and a more global outlook...
And who is responsible for the UK's self-governance and global outlook? Would that be MPs, business leaders, the City, universities, etc? Are those who will be responsible for this shift away from parochialism into globalism be living in Rotherham or Barnsley, or will they be the residents of London, Oxford, Cambridge?
The answer to that I imagine is that it all depends on what life chances are available to people in Rotherham and Barnsley over the coming twenty years. We know who the movers and shakers are who will shape events in the coming 5-10 years. I don't understand what point you're trying to make? That it's some sort of an immutable law that people from Barnsley or Rotherham must be -what? Racist? Stupid? You're more cynical than I thought! After all people born in Rotherham are in no way inherently inferior human-beings to people born in London or Oxford. Deprivation breeds some toxic views.
Well I'm from a shitty small town in East Yorkshire so I know that not everyone in those places is racist or stupid, but I also know that the people who fundamentally do most to orientate the UK to the outside world aren't there. That's just a function of how our economy works (it certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century, for example) rather than being a mass character judgement.
My point is the Britain is already quite a globally-orientated country (yes, I wrote about our parochialism rather tongue in cheek). The people who want that, facilitate it and do well out of it overwhelmingly warned us against leaving the EU. That's both individuals and institutions. They'll now be so busy dealing with the shit storm that there will be little energy or time left over for looking outwards, and anyhow a big part of our appeal to the outside world is due to our membership of the EU. Oh, that, and our political and economic stability, which is trashed for at least a couple of years. And no, I don't buy the "it's just a transition period" line, because whilst we're transitioning we stand to lose ground which will be very hard to catch up.
As for your point on self-governance, it is indeed the best argument you've got. This is worth reading:
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/06/the-inescapable.html
-
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
So...what, hire all those other suitably experienced civil service trade deal negotiators who are just waiting for this opportunity? How is going to train them? Do you really think there's any chance of that going quickly and smoothly?
Is this really such an impossible a thing to comprehend?
I love the idea that we can just hire in experts around the world to help us in our hour of need.
Wait.
A.
Fuckin.
Minute.
So, New Zealand have offered their services to help us negotiate a deal with.....New Zealand. I wonder who's going to do well out of that!!
If it wasn't so ironic it would be funny. You couldn't make it up.
pointless link (http://fortune.com/2016/07/04/britain-uk-hire-trade-negotiators/)
-
Are people seriously expecting the rule of law to be maintained when another 15 years of economic misery gets piled on top of the 6 years people have aleady sufffered and when the democratic systems, by which we are goverened, have plainly stopped working. If so I wish I could share your optimism.
-
Don't apologise galpinos, I will leave the big plans going forward to the people that I helped elect for this very purpose. I didn't listen to a "selection of experts that fit the remain camp this week" that it was better to remain. The two things are not mutual.
How do you decide between experts?
Confirmation bias.
-
Irvine Welsh:
"let’s remember that no democrat can defend the commission-led EU, and nobody in the remain camp had a serious reforming vision of Europe, any more than those in leave offer much of clue as to what they’ll do with their increasingly hollow-looking victory."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/beauty-beneath-brexit-bedwetting-leave-vote-diversity-genuine-change
Ha, I was going to add the same link a quote the same text, especially the "and nobody in the remain camp had a serious reforming vision of Europe, any more than those in leave offer much of clue as to what they’ll do with their increasingly hollow-looking victory".
As erm said, the "no democrat can defend the commission-led EU" hints at a (willfull?) lack of understanding of how the EU is run but therev are plenty of good points in there.
-
Does anyone out there KNOW whether Westminster can, as I have seen suggested, overturn the referendum result?
-
No. A few highly paid lawyers seem to think so though.
-
Does anyone out there KNOW whether Westminster can, as I have seen suggested, overturn the referendum result?
I'd suggest reading David Allen Green (/Jack of Kent) blog posts (http://jackofkent.com/) from the 24th June onwards to get up to speed on this.
-
No, of course not. The referendum result cannot be changed.
However, it wasn't a legally binding referendum, so, conversely, the government doesn't have any legal obligation to act on the result.
What slackers said^^^
-
To come to Dense’s defence for a second, what does it achieve to harangue him for a good answer as to why he voted to leave? He doesn’t need one does he? Nor do the other millions who voted to leave. Not ideal but that’s voting for you. Rather than wish away the result or look for loopholes I feel that energy would be better spent trying to make leaving work in the best way possible.
I voted to remain and wanted remain to win, but I think the arguments that the result should be questioned because it was non-binding, only so many of eligible voters voted, the leave campaign was based on lies etc. surely ignores the political reality? The whole point of the referendum was to get the people to answer the question “In / Out of the EU”. They’ve answered it. And they expect it to be delivered. I’m not judging the rights and wrongs of that by the way (I’d rather stay in), but if you’re a politician that is surely how it is – you’ve just been given what is in effect a massive protest vote from people who feel ignored by the establishment. The response to that cannot be to ignore it. That would be political suicide.
Hence why I think there will be no second referendum.
The article 50 thing will drag on for a bit as it allows a bit of delaying tactics while Westminster gets it shit together, but unless events in the rest of the EU change dramatically then it will get surely get triggered this parliament, probably sooner rather than later.
As someone said earlier, I think leaving may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As in, once we have gone then maybe other countries (Italy for example) will try to leave and the EU will break up; or on the flipside France and Germany will push for ever closer union now that the reluctant Brits aren’t holding them back. All caused by us of course, but either outcome will self-justify the decision to leave and make the duplicitous and lying politicians smell of roses if they can solve the economic issues. The other option is a massive fudge based around a shitter version of our current EU deal. None of these outcomes pleases me one iota.
-
To come to Dense’s defence for a second, what does it achieve to harangue him for a good answer as to why he voted to leave? He doesn’t need one does he? Nor do the other millions who voted to leave. Not ideal but that’s voting for you. Rather than wish away the result or look for loopholes I feel that energy would be better spent trying to make leaving work in the best way possible.
I voted to remain and wanted remain to win, but I think the arguments that the result should be questioned because it was non-binding, only so many of eligible voters voted, the leave campaign was based on lies etc. surely ignores the political reality? The whole point of the referendum was to get the people to answer the question “In / Out of the EU”. They’ve answered it. And they expect it to be delivered. I’m not judging the rights and wrongs of that by the way (I’d rather stay in), but if you’re a politician that is surely how it is – you’ve just been given what is in effect a massive protest vote from people who feel ignored by the establishment. The response to that cannot be to ignore it. That would be political suicide.
Hence why I think there will be no second referendum.
The article 50 thing will drag on for a bit as it allows a bit of delaying tactics while Westminster gets it shit together, but unless events in the rest of the EU change dramatically then it will get surely get triggered this parliament, probably sooner rather than later.
As someone said earlier, I think leaving may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As in, once we have gone then maybe other countries (Italy for example) will try to leave and the EU will break up; or on the flipside France and Germany will push for ever closer union now that the reluctant Brits aren’t holding them back. All caused by us of course, but either outcome will self-justify the decision to leave and make the duplicitous and lying politicians smell of roses if they can solve the economic issues. The other option is a massive fudge based around a shitter version of our current EU deal. None of these outcomes pleases me one iota.
Dense pokes with a stick, people can poke back. How was anyone going to get him to say why if he didn't want to?
The post brexit journey has only just begun and things are looking if anything worse than the average of the serious organisations negative predictions (£ below $1.30, FTSE250 down 10% as measured in £s, stocks heavily down worldwide, BoE intervening to steady the ship, extra austerity cancelled to boost debt led growth, several commercial investment vehicles suspended, major investments stalled or cancelled, banks and building stocks taking a hammering and we are still far from confirming we are even leaving yet and if we do 'may' even go with a free movement Norway model. When this starts to hit pockets, if it becomes obvious that enough of the British people feel they made a mistake, based on what they now regard as lies (easy enough to tell through polls), I'd sincerely hope the politicians in our representative democracy follow their instincts and try to block leaving. Political suicide in a theoretical sense should be solved for the tories by calling an election based on brexit but the fact they won't should be a pretty clear message they know a good bit of the sentiment for the vote was about protest. With such a slim majority the economic sense line will have to be towed : imagine the prospects of a hard line on brexit triggering no confidence from tory europhiles and an election producing a Corbyn government.
-
To come to Dense’s defence for a second, what does it achieve to harangue him for a good answer as to why he voted to leave? He doesn’t need one does he? Nor do the other millions who voted to leave. Not ideal but that’s voting for you. Rather than wish away the result or look for loopholes I feel that energy would be better spent trying to make leaving work in the best way possible.
I voted to remain and wanted remain to win, but I think the arguments that the result should be questioned because it was non-binding, only so many of eligible voters voted, the leave campaign was based on lies etc. surely ignores the political reality? The whole point of the referendum was to get the people to answer the question “In / Out of the EU”. They’ve answered it. And they expect it to be delivered. I’m not judging the rights and wrongs of that by the way (I’d rather stay in), but if you’re a politician that is surely how it is – you’ve just been given what is in effect a massive protest vote from people who feel ignored by the establishment. The response to that cannot be to ignore it. That would be political suicide.
Hence why I think there will be no second referendum.
The article 50 thing will drag on for a bit as it allows a bit of delaying tactics while Westminster gets it shit together, but unless events in the rest of the EU change dramatically then it will get surely get triggered this parliament, probably sooner rather than later.
As someone said earlier, I think leaving may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As in, once we have gone then maybe other countries (Italy for example) will try to leave and the EU will break up; or on the flipside France and Germany will push for ever closer union now that the reluctant Brits aren’t holding them back. All caused by us of course, but either outcome will self-justify the decision to leave and make the duplicitous and lying politicians smell of roses if they can solve the economic issues. The other option is a massive fudge based around a shitter version of our current EU deal. None of these outcomes pleases me one iota.
Do people really want us to leave though? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wales-has-changed-its-mind-over-brexit-and-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-poll-finds-a7120246.html
"An ITV Wales/Cardiff University YouGov poll found Welsh voters would vote Remain by 53 per cent and Leave by 47 per cent if there was a second EU referendum."
Wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar result in other parts of the country, though probably much less pronounced. The average joe in Cornwall just doesn't seem to care...
In another train of thought, here's quite an entertaining (and relevant!) video https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/936993456423548/
I'm doing my best to not jump back on the 'lets take shots at Dense' bandwagon, it's hard, oh so hard :'( Just think of it as another form of training
-
: imagine the prospects of a hard line on brexit triggering no confidence from tory europhiles and an election producing a Corbyn government.
Fortunately for the Tory party - but disastrously for the rest of use H.Benn etc have pretty much rendered that a non-starter.
-
[/quote]
Do people really want us to leave though? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wales-has-changed-its-mind-over-brexit-and-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-poll-finds-a7120246.html
"An ITV Wales/Cardiff University YouGov poll found Welsh voters would vote Remain by 53 per cent and Leave by 47 per cent if there was a second EU referendum."
[/quote]
But didn't the polls have remain ahead for much of the time before the referendum, don't think after this referendum result and the general election that polls (possibly with the exception of exit polls) are much use.
-
Jump on twig it's fine.
Offwidth did you really just say "it's easy enough to tell through polls"? Which poll said we'd vote to leave the eu? Not one of them that I can recall.
An itv Wales/Cardiff uni poll had the Welsh vote remain? Listen to yourselves.
-
Sorry I posted at same time as rich d. Obviously it says 2minutes later and I'm a lifetime out, forgive me slackers.
-
Twig, much as I would love to since I wanted to remain I just can’t equate a Yougov poll, no matter how well carried out, against a plebiscite of the entire country. Neither can the politicians, otherwise they’d have just got Yougov to do a sample referendum and saved a lot of silly bother.
People may well have changed their minds based on what has happened since but if there’s one argument no-one can use its that they weren’t warned! Personally I can’t see that the swing would be too big this near to the event, and anyway there is simply no way a second ref can be held anytime too soon after the last. In that case then the only hope anyone has of getting a second ref is that over the next few months a) the economy totally tanks (which I would hope anyone in charge would be trying to avoid regardless. But may happen anyway) and b) people see rejoining the EU as the answer. Debatable seeing as they couldn’t see it the first time, despite the evidence. Oh and for good measure c) the rest of the EU will let us back in with all our previous opt-outs after our collective hissy fit. Very unlikely – they would make us negotiate. But that’s what we’re doing now so what’s the advantage to Britain? I just can’t see a 2nd ref happening now that the cat is out of the bag.
I agree with Offwidth that the only “escape” from Brexit is for parliament to reject it. But the democratic implication of that for the politicians who voted overwhelmingly to hold it in the first place makes it very unlikely. As does the advice mooted today that it may be done on a royal perogative, rather than a vote. Presumably to avoid the unpalatable outcome of a vote in parliament (it’ll be unpalatable for politicians whatever the result, and I’m sure they’re happy to wash their hands of as much responsibility as possible as recent events demonstrate). A general election which installed a government on an explicit manifesto of not leaving the EU appears to be the only way I can see. The Lib Dems are offering that. SNP I suspect but they def need a coaltition with someone unless they stand in England and Wales (!!). No-one else (yet). Plus the conservative candidates for PM aren’t offering a GE anyway as things stand. And god knows what the EU would make of that sort of thing. I think we are bound to leave, albeit in some way shape or form yet to be decided.
-
+1
Though I am and was one of the leavers.
-
According to this FT article - salient image in the tweet linked,
700000 that's Seven Hundred Thousand fewer jobs advertised online in the week post Brexit compared to the same week last year... (Normal Total would be 1.5 million)
Eek.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/750618809703292928
-
Twig, much as I would love to since I wanted to remain I just can’t equate a Yougov poll, no matter how well carried out, against a plebiscite of the entire country. Neither can the politicians, otherwise they’d have just got Yougov to do a sample referendum and saved a lot of silly bother.
People may well have changed their minds based on what has happened since but if there’s one argument no-one can use its that they weren’t warned! Personally I can’t see that the swing would be too big this near to the event, and anyway there is simply no way a second ref can be held anytime too soon after the last. In that case then the only hope anyone has of getting a second ref is that over the next few months a) the economy totally tanks (which I would hope anyone in charge would be trying to avoid regardless. But may happen anyway) and b) people see rejoining the EU as the answer. Debatable seeing as they couldn’t see it the first time, despite the evidence. Oh and for good measure c) the rest of the EU will let us back in with all our previous opt-outs after our collective hissy fit. Very unlikely – they would make us negotiate. But that’s what we’re doing now so what’s the advantage to Britain? I just can’t see a 2nd ref happening now that the cat is out of the bag.
I agree with Offwidth that the only “escape” from Brexit is for parliament to reject it. But the democratic implication of that for the politicians who voted overwhelmingly to hold it in the first place makes it very unlikely. As does the advice mooted today that it may be done on a royal perogative, rather than a vote. Presumably to avoid the unpalatable outcome of a vote in parliament (it’ll be unpalatable for politicians whatever the result, and I’m sure they’re happy to wash their hands of as much responsibility as possible as recent events demonstrate). A general election which installed a government on an explicit manifesto of not leaving the EU appears to be the only way I can see. The Lib Dems are offering that. SNP I suspect but they def need a coaltition with someone unless they stand in England and Wales (!!). No-one else (yet). Plus the conservative candidates for PM aren’t offering a GE anyway as things stand. And god knows what the EU would make of that sort of thing. I think we are bound to leave, albeit in some way shape or form yet to be decided.
Wise words in general Nige. Only things I'd pick up on being that 1."as things stand" re what the Tory leadership candidates are saying presently is very pertinent.
They (and let's be clear, it's only relevant what May says really) have to say what they know the people who will elect them want to hear. So once the two candidates are decided it all comes down to people most of us have zero to do with to decide the next Prime Minister. A lot of them being hard right, Euro sceptic nut jobs (democracy, "taking control" and not having unelected people in charge hasn't worked very well here but that point's already been made).
Once they win, they can actually start saying/doing what they think rather than what the swivel eyed loon element of their party need to hear. Which is why I wouldn't read too much into what May etc are saying now.
And 2. We haven't left yet so the idea that the EU won't "let us back in" is irrelevant.
I agree that a second referendum is extremely unlikely and also unnecessary. I disagree that the UK leaving the EU is in any way inevitable.
Although I also agree with what others have said in that, should it happen, the actual deal that is finally done will mean that so many compromises are made that voting "Leave" will have basically been a very costly irrelevance.
-
Jump on twig it's fine.
Offwidth did you really just say "it's easy enough to tell through polls"? Which poll said we'd vote to leave the eu? Not one of them that I can recall.
An itv Wales/Cardiff uni poll had the Welsh vote remain? Listen to yourselves.
I'm talking about big poll movements, 10 points or more, well above the error bars. We haven't even pressed the button to leave yet and won't be doing anything fast.
Politicians need to get re-elected and always move to the big message; this government has changed its mind more than any I've seen so with a split in the party and a small majority, why will it stop now? May et al will talk up dealing with miigration to try and win the leadership and then do as little as they have to so they stand a chance in 2020. This leave campaign with democracy on its shoulder will be complict in an unelected prime minister, ongoing migration, and new trade rules that, unlike the EU omes, bypass any democratic checks.
-
For dense:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/brexit-britain-property-bubble
-
The nice man in the link says the EU`s position is precarious. Think Toni Kurz.
-
Dorling, D. (2016) Brexit: the decision of a divided country BMJ 2016; 354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3697 (http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i3697.full?ijkey=Qzh0MvExCSL1BkA&keytype=ref)
PDF Preprint (http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id5564.pdf)
-
The nice man in the link says the EU`s position is precarious. Think Toni Kurz.
Hope he has a blinder against France as I want Germany to win it.
-
:google:
A portrait of one but a family I know have just come back from a tour of Italy for 10 days. They said it was bizarre, they were treated like kings and having drinks bought for them for Britain leaving the eu. Saying everyone was saying we love the uk because you've had the balls to do what we haven't, we hope to do it now, we hate the eu. This happened all over Italy apparently. He said we didn't even mention what we voted for!
Feel free to pick this apart.
I have just come back from 8 days in Italy and Croatia. Not a mention of the EU other than sympathy when I mentioned that the price of meals had gone up by 20%.
Mind you, you ain't your mate so your anecdotal evidence is 2nd hand. Mine is first hand.
I am off to Chamonix and then Villers (in Swiss) for the Lead and Speed WC's on Saturday and already every message I have had from European work colleagues is WTF has Britain done, not a single one has said well done.
-
:google:A portrait of one but a family I know have just come back from a tour of Italy for 10 days. They said it was bizarre, they were treated like kings and having drinks bought for them for Britain leaving the eu. Saying everyone was saying we love the uk because you've had the balls to do what we haven't, we hope to do it now, we hate the eu. This happened all over Italy apparently. He said we didn't even mention what we voted for!
Feel free to pick this apart.
I have just come back from 8 days in Italy and Croatia. Not a mention of the EU other than sympathy when I mentioned that the price of meals had gone up by 20%.
Mind you, you ain't your mate so your anecdotal evidence is 2nd hand. Mine is first hand.
I am off to Chamonix and then Villers (in Swiss) for the Lead and Speed WC's on Saturday and already every message I have had from European work colleagues is WTF has Britain done, not a single one has said well done.
I have some Romanian friends (notably all living in Dubai) who think it's great and want Romania out too.
I have Romanian friends and relatives, in Romania, Italy and here; who think we're plain barking mad.
French friends, universally sympathetic and bemused.
Italian Friends split 50/50.
My one and only Kraut mate, is absolutely beside himself with mirth and sure we're doomed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
That's sound graham I did ask for it to be picked apart.
-
That's sound graham I did ask for it to be picked apart.
In the interests of raising this thread to a more British "take the piss out of every thing serious"...
http://www.citymetric.com/politics/gove-story-final-outing-london-s-comedy-mayor-boris-johnson-2234
After all, which ever way you voted, it is/was the wankers in charge who deserve the greatest ridicule and blame for all the negative fallout and the problems that lead to the the public dissatisfaction with the EU in the first place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now Gove is out of the race for PM, I can't seem to stop myself imagining him, Boris, and Dave all together in a smoke filled, wood panelled London gent's club laughing about all this, necking brandy and slapping each other on the back at how these good ol' school friends and rivals tried to trip each other up, fucked the country in the process, and got away scot free.
My nightmare is that Boris joined Leave to become PM, but neither Boris nor Gove expected to win, knowing it would fuck the country. Did you see their faces on the 24th? Shit scared. When Dave stepped aside and didn't trigger article 50 (both of which directly contradicted everything he'd said previously) basically handing Boris the crown there and then, they soon confected a way for them to both get themselves as far from the scene of the crime as possible. I mean, Boris rolled over a bit easily from his lifelong ambition didn't he? Suspicious. Polar opposite of Gove who swore blind being PM was literally the last thing on earth that he ever would or could do. Suspicious. And do professional journalists like Gove's wife really accidentally copy in members of the public when they're sending messages which would make someone about to stand for election distinctly unpopular? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Can we agree now that if Brexit does go tits up and these lot pop up again in a couple of years to "ride to the rescue" we'll have a UKB whip round to get them blasted into outer space? They can't ever be trusted.
-
Iiiiiin - I share that vision.
The Tory party are about to appoint a PM with a dodgy CV whose USP is that doesn't really want to get into the detail but everything will probably be fine if everyone just bucks up.
If we want to break free of international capitalism then that would be exciting. Otherwise, what is happening now is unanticipated - the people in charge have no idea what to do. it's not great so far is it?
-
The BDO's monthly High Street Sales Tracker showed a strong start to June, with sales growing 3.8% year on year. That decreased throughout the month and by the end of June, after the referendum, sales had fallen by 8.1% compared with last year.
Reflected in my sector, with an almost immediate post referendum slump, could be the start of a new recession, hopefully not.
-
Worth a read if you're not stopped by the paywall:
https://next.ft.com/content/7f326126-4422-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d#axzz4Dl1tt2Ar
-
I'm sure it'll all be fine, just as the financiers who f'd up the economy last time were rightly prosecuted and made to pay their dues, I'm sure the politicians who have used the future of the country as a pawn in their career lead power games, I'm confident they will all be made to pay the price. :wall: :wall: :chair: :spank: :wavecry:
-
Just when you thought it impossible to dislike Gove anymore than you already do:
http://cheeseford.net/blog/?p=725
-
I'm sure it'll all be fine, just as the financiers who f'd up the economy last time were rightly prosecuted and made to pay their dues, I'm sure the politicians who have used the future of the country as a pawn in their career lead power games, I'm confident they will all be made to pay the price. :wall: :wall: :chair: :spank: :wavecry:
At least the bank of England forced the banks to maintain higher levels of reserves to prevent another 2007/8 style........oh wait a minute.......what's that Mark Carney.......? Ah yes, let's reduce the capital requirements for the banks.....nice.
The only positive I've heard so from from brexit was from Simon Jenkins - "A stale leadership class is on the way out and the property bubble will burst. I can’t see the bad news"
-
The only positive I've heard so from from brexit was from Simon Jenkins - "A stale leadership class is on the way out and the property bubble will burst. I can’t see the bad news"
So "stale" being replaced with batshit-crazy and a bubble that the govt have spent bilions of our money re-inflating is going to burst -struggling to see the positive.
-
The only positive I've heard so from from brexit was from Simon Jenkins - "A stale leadership class is on the way out and the property bubble will burst. I can’t see the bad news"
So "stale" being replaced with batshit-crazy and a bubble that the govt have spent bilions of our money re-inflating is going to burst -struggling to see the positive.
Oh yeah, it's fully shit in the short term....clutching at straws...
-
Best I can come up with is: without the malign onfluence of the most extreme r-wing govt of any European country since the war, the EU will inevitably now move slightly to the left.
-
Hmmm - reading more into the countercyclical capital buffer it's maybe not what I thought. It's pretty unclear to me, but it's possible that reducing it is the preferred response to reduce the chance of another banking crisis...so I might have jumped the gun there.
Anyone know more?
-
Now Gove is out of the race for PM, I can't seem to stop myself imagining him, Boris, and Dave all together in a smoke filled, wood panelled London gent's club laughing about all this, necking brandy and slapping each other on the back at how these good ol' school friends and rivals tried to trip each other up, fucked the country in the process, and got away scot free.
My nightmare is that Boris joined Leave to become PM, but neither Boris nor Gove expected to win, knowing it would fuck the country. Did you see their faces on the 24th? Shit scared. When Dave stepped aside and didn't trigger article 50 (both of which directly contradicted everything he'd said previously) basically handing Boris the crown there and then, they soon confected a way for them to both get themselves as far from the scene of the crime as possible. I mean, Boris rolled over a bit easily from his lifelong ambition didn't he? Suspicious. Polar opposite of Gove who swore blind being PM was literally the last thing on earth that he ever would or could do. Suspicious. And do professional journalists like Gove's wife really accidentally copy in members of the public when they're sending messages which would make someone about to stand for election distinctly unpopular? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Can we agree now that if Brexit does go tits up and these lot pop up again in a couple of years to "ride to the rescue" we'll have a UKB whip round to get them blasted into outer space? They can't ever be trusted.
Exactly what I was thinking just pre/post the result.
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php?topic=26815.msg526931.msg#526931
Everything that's happened since has pretty much confirmed it. What a shower of cunts.
-
my theory is that Boris shat himself when it dawned on him what becoming PM meant at this time so Gove has effectively fallen on his sword to put Boris back in the cupboard for when he can become PM when the country basically isn't/hasn't gone to utter shit
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160708/c6b0f4a9a74457f7d0280fa3eb17f5da.jpg)
She's reeeeeaaallly popular with the Emergency services...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Out of curiousity, anybody any idea why she's willing to commit career suicide by becoming PM?
-
probably because one of her friends suggested it and her ego did the rest?
-
probably because one of her friends suggested it and her ego did the rest?
At a guess this, and that she stood no chance at any other time. The other witch has only been an MP for six years and has been described by officials from her only (short) ministerial department as "The worst minister we've ever had".
What we really need, right now, is a Dorothy and a Farmhouse or two dropping from the sky; 'coz we ain't in Kansas no more Toto.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
This made me chuckle:
"How about we don't leave the EU but tell Leave voters we have?
They believed all the other lies, after all"
-
This made me chuckle:
"How about we don't leave the EU but tell Leave voters we have?
They believed all the other lies, after all"
:lol: :lol: :lol: Brilliant!
-
Interesting article in the Grauniad today about how new oppinion polls in Germany and Netherlands show an increase in support for pro EU parties and a decrease for nationalist/leave groups.
Initially it would seem that Brexit has shown some across Europe what a mistake it may be to leave... Counter to some thinking that it would spur on nationalist groups to follow in brexits footsteps. Early days of course and when we're Europe's Singapore - they'll all be wanting to follow us out...
[sarcasm emoticon]
-
https://twitter.com/taxbod/status/751085360847872001
-
"Stop being so negative......" :chair: :wall:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/in-a-world-of-post-truth-politics-andrea-leadsom-will-make-the-p/
-
(https://i.imgur.com/90FOe78.jpg)
-
I like the Irish perspective...
http://youtu.be/daB7np-RtOM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Rather enjoyed Murray's (not so) veiled insults to the outgoing PM (and the booing/jeering from the crowd) in his victory address.
Shame the ground didn't open and swallow the Camercunt, really.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Was that a dig? He seemed to just acknowledge that he was in the audience and say that being Prime Minister is a tough job. The crowd did the booing.
:shrug:
-
Was that a dig? He seemed to just acknowledge that he was in the audience and say that being Prime Minister is a tough job. The crowd did the booing.
:shrug:
Possibly just me, projecting my own sentiments. However, a few of the satirical sites have made similar connections this morning...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hmm, my wife was moaning about him brown-nosing Cameron. Wouldn't be the first time she'd missed sarcasm though.
-
Was that booing? I couldn't tell.
-
I thought it was Murrays normal very dry sense of humour.
-
A legal opinion from a real, no shit, lawyer.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/triggering-article-50-could-be-illegal-despite-eu-referendum-result
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm quite sure another big lawyer will sniff the money in the air and point out that signing the European communities act was wrong because it was conducted on a Wednesday pm with a full moon that evening and we have in fact not actually ever been part of Europe and for this pretence they owe us 5 billion pounds.
-
Our new lady says "Brexit means Brexit" she could have some insight/influence.
-
Well, in terms of potential new Tory PM's (something id rather not have at all..) I think it's a good result.
-
I'm quite sure another big lawyer will sniff the money in the air and point out that signing the European communities act was wrong because it was conducted on a Wednesday pm with a full moon that evening and we have in fact not actually ever been part of Europe and for this pretence they owe us 5 billion pounds.
Ah the 'Gove Defence' : "people in this country have had enough of experts (https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c)"
Not at all sure how you make the mental leap from writing an opinion piece in a magazine to "sniffing the money in the air" and "[charging] 5 billion pounds".
I hope for you that there is a continued need for the expertise of rope access workers, because you'd be out of work if people applied your cynical logic to your profession.
-
Why anyone believes all that red tape surrounding climbing equipment I don't know. Those experts - what do they know - that old tow rope has been doing me fine for years. I always make sure its stored in bright sunlight too - looks nice on the window sill. I mean - why do people pay all that money for that fancy ironmongery they tap into the rock. I've always found self tappers from B&Q (or even better Lidl) do the job just fine.
(A strong dig at the 'Gove Defence' and a playful tickle in Dense' direction.. :) )
-
Well, in terms of potential new Tory PM's (something id rather not have at all..) I think it's a good result.
This is true, given the field.
However:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160712/549cb680a5d9463d4361116c7a1f5c79.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
or from fatboy's faceache:
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13619820_10153739403020980_5404556167369006677_n.jpg?oh=1ee48a84c2c01648970d551ef67e0024&oe=57EAF5E3)
-
There "May" be hours of mirth to be had in these dark hours...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160712/cca880bb79cbcd8813606aa090da4457.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Actually, I'm being facetious. Time for a more mature approach.
So...
I'm have decided, in the new spirit of Patriotism that has swept the country; to hang a portrait of our new Prime minister behind the desk at work.
After much deliberation, I have decided this is my favourite and it captures my true depth of feeling for this glorious and noble leader.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160712/5eaa7bd572d68fc534c1eedf214593cf.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think its rather low-brow and uncivilised to take digs at people based on their appearances. Politics is not a beauty pageant.
There are plenty of more valid reasons to criticise people based on their track record in politics. For example...
When you cross-reference Theresa May's speech with her voting record, it's as if she didn't mean anything she said (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-prime-minister-andrea-leadsom-policies-voting-record-human-rights-what-did-she-mean-a7130961.html)
-
I think its rather low-brow and uncivilised to take digs at people based on their appearances. Politics is not a beauty pageant.
Isn't it a bit early in the morning for the fun police to be on patrol?
-
Maybe, but I've been in work for three hours today and there is the shit, isn't that (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,2309.0.html) thread for such fun (just as there is the Tedious politics thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.0.html) which is exactly what the discussion of party leadership amounts to).
-
Eh? Was that all aimed at me? The Gove approach? Fuck off. I'm pointing out that for most people's tedious views and arguments on here there's always another point of view.
-
*Post may contain some data that conflicts with the views of UKB's serial neurotics (and some that supports them).*
(from guardian business live (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jul/11/george-osborne-us-britain-brexit-stock-markets-sterling-business-live))
''Although still off 23/6 close, difficult to currently use FTSE250 as stick to beat on Brexit. Back in pre-poll range'' (@JonesTheMarkets)''
''@JonesTheMarkets But that's just because traders expect loose monetary policy to offset #brexit effects, not due to sound fundamentals''
''@gweirydd don't disagree with you. I just feel some of the FTSE250 doom and gloom overdone on here recently. Let's see what £ does on Thurs.''
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EGI8MhSIH142ByhygMP2m06t_MRk54HCgUmfZLbEvREfeKT_9cRk38dMh-v0n5UekHqdIxh6depujUXdXZ3fTG5lvlfgznLpKTAP2_xh50O7n6F3UU4VmZHQM9Fj08AjHVFGuneXVCb8kqArrpMRjWiXrVIkYR57OUL5XxrnIC_-UOULmkAkONtYba5PREICO6LvQrHw7Fnf0ooREzl08jM1GeLRj_efvDLU7x1NldNZiYRi_6KFfSDe3LP_4Terdu74QQD_Z_MOkedcnzteCmOFk0xSzbf1IiEBsW4LRZ7_chw6apTj7ZUApvaKZzpIzN3FksQa8DRhAkn3kw8eCkoxSvRcfzNi5Evres3S0RbMgoVAC9gydf_1qRHAQP_rlx7xQTmX5MfS1KHbO-M3nTD7DEaSQG34iRrdlx4x1Wt1ziIXt6ZCJfh_2aIFVhUiTG7Aq9sUyaALlkEnY2ZjTycsduCwWuH0zVCGWjgxgXCxDPSpquk_Z8AWoNjNEeeN93vCJqRMvfgCnx4gmJE5m4HyIaXRcnQ-cWdIOocR6kh51scmicolGq1-SSRd_Ofwm604W3cmMyr6oDUm7yb1ENSsmMKKT4s=w900-h600-no)
US stock market hits new record high
And finally tonight.... America’s stock market has hit a new alltime high, as global markets continue their relief rally.
The S&P 500 index closed 7 points higher, or 0.33%, at 2,136.95 points. That narrowly breaches the previous high set in May 2015.
Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management, reckons that traders are feeling more optimistic about the global economy (after last Friday’s decent US employment report).
Paulsen says:
“You have Brexit and global stagnation, but underneath that we keep getting really good economic numbers and that is forcing the (stock) market to new highs.”
The tantalising scent of fresh stimulus packages in Britain and Japan soon also worked its usual magic, of course.
So, record highs on Wall Street. The London stock market back in bull market territory (thanks to the weak pound) and even Europe shaking off its Brexit fears.
Not a bad day, but also not a reason to think the Brexit crisis is over. :o :'(
-
I'll be a bit more interested in the markets once the exchange rates show signs of recovery.
-
Maybe, but I've been in work for three hours today and there is the shit, isn't that (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,2309.0.html) thread for such fun (just as there is the Tedious politics thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.0.html) which is exactly what the discussion of party leadership amounts to).
Is this what ails ye?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears?CMP=share_btn_fb
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So, not a huge hit....but wait....was that not with huge stimulus packages?
Where, exactly, does that money come from?
£120 bn of stimulus....or equivalent to 6.6 years of the fictitious 350m per week we waste on the EU. Imagine the country just decided to inject that money in, oh, say, schools, NHS, much needed infrastructure?
Except, QE really mainly goes directly into the stock market, where investors (i.e. the wealthy ) reap all the gains.
-
Is this what ails ye?
No, I just don't think there is any value to cheap shots about peoples appearances.
Eh? Was that all aimed at me? The Gove approach? Fuck off. I'm pointing out that for most people's tedious views and arguments on here there's always another point of view.
Except what you wrote was out that 'another big lawyer' would come up with very similar points of view.
Try ditching the tedious sarcasm and use a little eloquence to actually express an alternative point of view. Others might then understand whatever point you are trying to make.
-
Except, QE really mainly goes directly into the stock market, where investors (i.e. the wealthy ) reap all the gains.
This is classic ukb thread material.
When the stock market is dropping due to the 'bad thing du jour' the narrative on here is all about the hit to everyday people's hard-earned pensions and savings. :ang: You can find these sorts of remarks all over UKB's shooting the shit threads.
When the stock market is bullish it mysteriously morphs into the exclusive domain of 'the wealthy' :devil-smiley: - much easier to attack that straw man isn't it.
My investments in the UK markets are up 13% since brexit. I'm not 'the wealthy'. I don't even own my own car or house.
My investments in US/Canadian markets are sky-rocketing.
I hear your point about QE however; but don't know enough about the big picture to put this in proper context, as I doubt you do.
-
The EU science / research funding will hit my occupation quite hard. Grant proposals are HIGHLY risk adverse - so any potential weaknesses (now it appears those from the UK) are weeded out. I completely understand as if it were the other way around id be the same... But still stinks!
-
My investments in US/Canadian markets are sky-rocketing.
Due to the massive losses in the pounds value? Lucky you. I hope the country as a whole will benefit likewise, but I doubt it.
-
Except, QE really mainly goes directly into the stock market, where investors (i.e. the wealthy ) reap all the gains.
My investments in US/Canadian markets are sky-rocketing.
Your investments, are arguably 'worth' the same... the increase is because the pound has dropped (sky plummeted to use your terminology).
-
My investments in US/Canadian markets are sky-rocketing.
Due to the massive losses in the pounds value? Lucky you. I hope the country as a whole will benefit likewise, but I doubt it.
No. Due to the US market doing very well independent of the value of sterling - although that also helped.
Offwidth - Hehe, oh really? You seem to know more about my investments than I do. Care to name them?
-
Come on pete, you quoted the % increase and the % devaluation of the pound vs the dollar is public.
-
Try reading my post again without the blinkers on.
I quoted the percentage increase of my UK investments (13%), not my foreign investments - they've done very well ('skyrocketed') independently of the exchange rate 'boost' since 23rd June (currently a 10%ish benefit from 4pm 23rd June to today).
Could it be there's still value out there in the real world?
-
Who anywhere denied a post brexit future? The 'doommongers' were predicting a drop in growth, particular share types and sterling; and the size of any drop being dependant in the type of brexit we select. Much of the UK stockmarket is based on assets abroad so most area growth since the vote is almost certainly just factoring in that change in value. You can show us in your case its not but that would be you being lucky rather than any indication of general trends. FTSE 250 is said to be the best indicator of UK based stocks is still down (even as valued in pounds). FTSE 100 is up but only about half as much as the drop in the pound.
-
£120billion being pumped into the Economy by BoE
Most economists still saying Brexit will be a drag on growth
£ down 10% against major currencies
FTSE 250 down
I'm failing to see where the upside of Brexit it is and if you say it's early days I'd agree but the signs are all pointing one way.
-
I'm failing to see where the upside of Brexit it is and if you say it's early days I'd agree but the signs are all pointing one way.
That's possibly because you don't have shares overseas.
-
It's interesting that drops in the markets are described as "blips" and "only to be expected" and yet rises are greeted with "see, this proves it was a good idea".
Or, to be clear, these things work both ways; but the upshot is that the markets are volatile and could go either way at any given moment. None of which relates to long term prospects, which is where the bulk of doom was prophesied.
And, isn't saying "Whoopie! Central bank Stimulus! That'll be great!" A bit like a cardiac arrest victim saying "Whoopie! A Defibrillator! I'll be much livelier after that!"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Of course the accuracy of your analogy depends on whether or not you believe the UK economy to be suffering a heart attack Matt. Panicky hyperbolic comparisons with cardiac arrests seems a bit short-sighted and slightly neurotic, which continues your form so far on this thread.
I'm more of a view that it's just a(nother) passing virus, and so far not a particularly nasty one. Of course I could be proved totally wrong.
Slackers - bit of a blinkered negative viewpoint, unusual from you. My UK investment in the ftse all-share tracker has never been higher than of today. It isn't just foreign shares that are up, UK market trackers are too.
Teaboy - it's just plain incorrect and misleading to say 'the ftse250 is down'. Down on what timescale? It's up on the day, it's up on the week, it's higher than a month ago to the day (pre-brexit), it's barely lower than 3 months ago to the day (pre-brexit), it's lower than 1 year ago to the day, and it's much higher than 5 years ago to the day. Which part of that 5 year chart (if you care to google it) suggests 'the signs are all pointing one way', unless you meant upwards? :)
But in the spirit of this thread the economy and the whole country is fucked :'(
-
depends on whether or not you believe the UK economy to be suffering a heart attack
Well I'll take the governor of the Bank of England's opinion over yours Pete. Clearly he doesn't take the kind of recent action over blips.
-
Honestly Pete, I feel compelled to counter your relentless optimism, rather than hold deep feelings of gloom myself.
Your prognostications rely heavily on "It'll be alright in the end, chin up" and little on expert opinion, which is far more "well, it's not great is it" in nature.
I had a friend tell me that Siemens had reversed their decision to scale back investment and that that "was all back on track".
Then I read their announcement. They assured production for the UK domestic market would continue, but also stated that they were reviewing their long term export production and location would depend on trade deals reached.
You reckon they'll hang around 5-10 years on that? On the off chance that the UK will have a better US/China et al deal than the EU does now?
Why would any major manufacturer (read employer) do that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"My UK investment in the ftse all-share tracker has never been higher than of today. It isn't just foreign shares that are up, UK market trackers are too. "
Teaboy - it's just plain incorrect and misleading to say 'the ftse250 is down'. Down on what timescale?
According to wikipedia: "FTSE 100 companies represent about 81% of the entire market capitalisation of the London Stock Exchange.......A large slice of these are international companies, however, so the index's movements are a fairly weak indicator of how the UK economy is faring."... all LSE stocks are quoted in pounds.
On the second point it was pretty obvious he meant post vote.
On the subject of hyperbole, your skyrockets must be really shit if they don't qualify.
-
It's the ftse all-share Offwidth. Not the 100. FFS?! I typed it clearly enough. A.l.l.-s.h.a.r.e.
See what narrative you can think up that would explain how the positive performance of the all-share - and the 250 overall - isn't indicative of the UK economy. I'm sure you can, you're smart enough to justify any position you wish.
If he meant 'post-vote' then you are seriously trying to tell me that that large spike up on the day of the 23rd leading up to the vote is meant to represent anything meaningful other than trader's buying ahead of a presumed 'yes'? The ftse 250 today is at the same level it was on the Monday of the week of the vote, and higher than one month ago today. Just look at the chart. The consensus prognosis on here of short-term market collapse in the event of a 'leave' vote was simply incorrect panicky bed-wetting. Long-term, who knows. I'm optimistic you're not.
-
I had a friend tell me that Siemens had reversed their decision to scale back investment and that that "was all back on track".
Then I read their announcement. They assured production for the UK domestic market would continue, but also stated that they were reviewing their long term export production and location would depend on trade deals reached.
You reckon they'll hang around 5-10 years on that? On the off chance that the UK will have a better US/China et al deal than the EU does now?
Why would any major manufacturer (read employer) do that?
Just off the top of my head:
Because it may be cheaper here due to weakness of sterling
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer tax inducements
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer financial inducements
Our employment laws are less vigorous / more lax (depending on your bias)
Because we have stable govertnment and legal system
There is negligible corruption
We have reasonably educated workforce
We have a track record of successful long term inward investment (Toyota, Nissan etc)
We speak the world business language
Im sure I could add a few more if I put my mind to it
-
I'm failing to see where the upside of Brexit it is and if you say it's early days I'd agree but the signs are all pointing one way.
Is it possible you subconsciously want things to fail to fully justify your in vote :jab:
-
I don't have to be eloquent slackers, couldn't spell it if I wanted to. If someone has no idea what I mean because I don't put "gadzooks" or "Linux" at the beginning of a sentence then I have no interest if they understand my post or not. It was quite obvious.
-
It's the ftse all-share Offwidth. Not the 100. FFS?! I typed it clearly enough. A.l.l.-s.h.a.r.e.
See what narrative you can think up that would explain how the positive performance of the all-share - and the 250 overall - isn't indicative of the UK economy. I'm sure you can, you're smart enough to justify any position you wish.
If he meant 'post-vote' then you are seriously trying to tell me that that large spike up on the day of the 23rd leading up to the vote is meant to represent anything meaningful other than trader's buying ahead of a presumed 'yes'? The ftse 250 today is at the same level it was on the Monday of the week of the vote, and higher than one month ago today. Just look at the chart. The consensus prognosis on here of short-term market collapse in the event of a 'leave' vote was simply incorrect panicky bed-wetting. Long-term, who knows. I'm optimistic you're not.
OK, ignoring my previous jibe at the QE money going to the wealthy. I agree that the FTSE 250 isn't looking so bad; however, the QE is what's shored it up. Imagine where it would be:
a) without QE
or
b) with QE and no brexit!
QE , from my limited understanding (i.e. recent googling) seems to have quite a correlation with boosting share price. Generally, improving share prices benefit those with capital to invest and, maybe, GDP.... They really don't affect the average worker very much though, unlike consumer prices which are predicted to go up with the weak pound.
-
I had a friend tell me that Siemens had reversed their decision to scale back investment and that that "was all back on track".
Then I read their announcement. They assured production for the UK domestic market would continue, but also stated that they were reviewing their long term export production and location would depend on trade deals reached.
You reckon they'll hang around 5-10 years on that? On the off chance that the UK will have a better US/China et al deal than the EU does now?
Why would any major manufacturer (read employer) do that?
Just off the top of my head:
Because it may be cheaper here due to weakness of sterling
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer tax inducements
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer financial inducements
Our employment laws are less vigorous / more lax (depending on your bias)
Because we have stable govertnment and legal system
There is negligible corruption
We have reasonably educated workforce
We have a track record of successful long term inward investment (Toyota, Nissan etc)
We speak the world business language
Im sure I could add a few more if I put my mind to it
All true.
However (sorry[emoji3]), we are looking at some extended period of uncertainty and that is the biggest hurdle. We, even with substantial erosion of work rights; are unlikely to be able to compete with (say) China in any meaningful manufacturing industry and their education/skill level is rapidly advancing. So there the question is who will be where in 5-10 years. If you are looking to invest in something that might take 2+ years to build/establish, why risk an uncertain environment?
Corruption comes in many forms and is usually manageable in an established manufacturing base.
Languages can be learned and are. The Eastern and African markets look to be more expansionist, long term, than the West.
In fact that argument, which I hope is true and persuasive, sounds a lot like the ones I heard British Expats expound in the early 00's across the middle east; shortly before they were replaced by Poles/Chinese/Well educated Indians etc etc...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Come on Shark....really....
Just off the top of my head:
Because it may be cheaper here due to weakness of sterling What about most of the component parts, which need purchased from overseas - I don't see many iron ore mines in the UK Long term, it is arguable whether a weak currency really does much for exports.
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer tax inducements Great UK Tax Haven .PLC that'll help pay for public services
Because the government will be at greater liberty to offer financial inducements
Our employment laws are less vigorous / more lax (depending on your bias) Grind that workforce down...I'm sure they can work harder, long and for less than the Chinese...
Because we have stable govertnment and legal system
There is negligible corruption Guffaw!
We have reasonably educated workforce
We have a track record of successful long term inward investment (Toyota, Nissan etc)
We speak the world business language
Im sure I could add a few more if I put my mind to it
-
ffs
-
Come on Shark....really....
Answering your two more sensible points that you put in bold type - yes raw material costs have an effect but can be less direct than you seem to assume - inter company transfer pricing with big manufacturing companies can do strange and wonderful to purchase costs especially if you send "semi-finished" components rather than raw materials and secondly Corporation Tax is only one tax - the benefits of having the company office ior factory is that it adds to the economy generating other tax receipts from employees and local suppliers and of course mitigating unemployment and other welfare costs to the State.
-
depends on whether or not you believe the UK economy to be suffering a heart attack
Well I'll take the governor of the Bank of England's opinion over yours Pete. Clearly he doesn't take the kind of recent action over blips.
Quite right, you should. And in this spirit will you also take heed of the words of the previous governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, regarding the potential fall-out from brexit? I think all the naysayers on here should read his recent interviews from 2016 if you're going to use 'the Bank of England' as such a cornerstone of your opinions surrounding brexit. Or is it only confirmation bias you were after?
-
My impression of them both is that King is a long time euro sceptic, whilst Carney appears fairly independent. Carney was credited as piloting Canada through the 2008 financial crisis to a better position than either the US or Europe by as early as 2009, making him 'most trusted Canadian 2011'. Whereas King was actually implicated as part of the root causes of the crash. But yeah Pete, let's listen to King.
-
Whereas King was actually implicated as part of the root causes of the crash. But yeah Pete, let's listen to King.
:lol: Yep, because that's exactly what I meant isn't it. I mean I distinctly remember saying 'let's listen to King and not to Carney'.
When you used 'The Governor of The Bank of England' as an institution that has unquestionable authority to help prove whatever your point was, you of course didn't really mean 'The Governor of the Bank of England is an institution with unquestionable authority on this issue' - you just meant 'the current governor, who said something that chimes with my view of the situation, is unquestionable on this issue. Previous Governors who said things that don't align with my view, nah they don't count'. Hilarious.
-
You're saying King's incompetency means we shouldn't trust Carney now? But King agrees with you remember. And Carney didn't 'say something that chimes with my view', he said he would pump £250 billion into the economy (which rallied the markets but dropped the pound further, keep ignoring the currency issue though in your upbeat reading please). I'd really rather he agreed with you that this was all short term volatility.
-
Whereas King was actually implicated as part of the root causes of the crash. But yeah Pete, let's listen to King.
:lol: Yep, because that's exactly what I meant isn't it. I mean I distinctly remember saying 'let's listen to King and not to Carney'.
When you used 'The Governor of The Bank of England' as an institution that has unquestionable authority to help prove whatever your point was, you of course didn't really mean 'The Governor of the Bank of England is an institution with unquestionable authority on this issue' - you just meant 'the current governor, who said something that chimes with my view of the situation, is unquestionable on this issue. Previous Governors who said things that don't align with my view, nah they don't count'. Hilarious.
Mervyn King's forecasting ability was a question the FT looked into a few months ago.
Link is here:
https://next.ft.com/content/70d2c34a-ded9-11e5-b7fd-0dfe89910bd6
But if you can't get past the paywall, the body of the article is below:
1. 2004: the “not-so-bad” decade ahead
Having coined the phrase in 2003 that the previous decade had been “nice” — standing for non-inflationary, consistently expansionary — Lord King said in 2004 that the coming decade would be “not-so-bad”, which he defined as not of the same order but also desirable. Britain’s economy had a terrible decade with volatile inflation and the largest recession for 80 years. Miss
2. Financial stability risk
The May 2007 BoE annual report, endorsed by Lord King, then the Bank’s governor, said financial stability risks “appeared to be low”. It was almost the eve of the financial crisis. Miss
3. Inflation control prevents crises
In August 2007, after the European Central Bank had already intervened to stabilise financial markets, Lord King espoused the view that controlling inflation would prevent a crisis in the UK. “The best contribution that central banks can make to ensuring the lack of disruption in international financial markets is to pursue domestic monetary stability in a predictable and sensible way,” he said, days before the financial markets blew up. Miss
4. Central banks can “sow the seeds” of financial crises
At the height of secret negotiations with the failing Northern Rock in 2007, Lord King wrote a public letter saying that the central banks’ effort to paper over the cracks in the financial system “encourages excessive risk-taking, and sows the seeds of a future financial crisis”. He was right about that, although previous complacency also played a part. Hit
5. Liquidity support would end the financial crisis
In April 2008, Lord King claimed ownership of the government’s “special liquidity scheme” for banks. “Now is the time to take the liquidity issue off the table in a decisive way,” Lord King said — only a few months before British banks failed, partly as a result of a lack of liquidity. Miss
6. Productivity predictions
Right from the start of the financial crisis, Lord King believed there was no reason for Britain's productivity to have been damaged. It would recover to the previous trend, he repeatedly and wrongly predicted.
In 2011, for example, he said: “I don’t see any reason in principle why this crisis should actually destroy the productive potential of which the economy is capable of operating.” Feeble productivity growth has been the Achilles heel of the UK economy since 2008 and shows no sign of recovering the potential lost in the crisis. Miss
7. Eurozone cohesion
Lord King had part of his conversations with Louis Susman, the US ambassador to the UK, revealed in the WikiLeaks revelations. In February 2010 he told the ambassador that the eurozone crisis would force “greater political cohesion” in continental Europe and this would compel Britain “to demonstrate that it has something meaningful to say and to be constructively engaged in the EU”. Britain is today debating whether to leave the EU. Miss
8. Predicting exchange rates 1
In 2004, Lord King said he had “no idea” where sterling was headed. “I have no intention of ever starting to forecast exchange rates. That’s a mug's game.” Although his sentiment was a hit, only three years later Lord King was predicting that sterling would stay strong. Miss
9. Predicting exchange rates 2
In November 2007, he lauded the stability and strength of sterling, saying the UK currency “has been remarkably stable. So whoever it is, people who won’t get out of bed to earn dollars, sterling’s a pretty good currency to look at”. This came a few days before sterling began its 25 per cent slide, proving his earlier comments that predicting currencies was a mug’s game. Miss
10. Pride comes before a fall.
In the same “not-so-bad” speech of 2004, Lord King warned of the dangers of hubris. He said that “starting from the Garden of Eden, there can be only a fall from grace”. He was entirely right about his own reputation as a forecaster. Hit
-
Are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now? This is liquid gold! I actually liked him when he played darts.
-
Are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now? This is liquid gold! I actually liked him when he played darts.
Can't work out whether he's Dense's or Lager's brother
(http://www.pdc.tv/di/library/pdc/4c/10/mervyn-king-2011-ladbrokescom-world-darts-championship-second-round-lawrence-lustig-pdc_0,,10180~9295430,00.jpg?t=92643764&w=775&h=436&quality=100&cropto=top)
-
Are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now? This is liquid gold! I actually liked him when he played darts.
Of course Dense.
Don't you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No I don't I'm not a moron who's just stepped off the moon! All the banks were fucked, the markets were fucked, Lehman brothers fucked completely, states fucked, Asia fucked. To blame all that on the governor of the Bank of England is something that a knob jockey would do but only with the benefit of hindsight and a fantastic imagination!
Do you?
-
No one has 'blamed all that' on him. I just said he was implicated as part of the problem. Which he was. A PART. Not the sole root cause, but played a part.
-
I said are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now. Omm said of course dense don't you? That's not really got any grey areas in there, in whole or in part.
-
I took that as a response to your gag about the darts player. So do you think he played a part or was just a victim of circumstance?
-
You're saying King's incompetency means we shouldn't trust Carney now?
No! This is torturous.
I'm simply making the subtle point, so subtle that it seems to fly over your head, that your use of 'The Governor of the Bank of England' as if the title in itself makes your argument totally sound, is bullshit. You should have said 'I'd take Mark Carney's opinion over yours' or 'I'd take financial expert Y's opinion over yours'.
Just saying G of the BoE (as in the institution) isn't nailing your argument, because as I've just pointed out the previous Governor of the BoE holds views completely at odds with your own, and the next one may also. So whatever views a GofBoE holds, they are clearly open to question - not by me, but evidently by other 'experts'TM.
Edit - and JB, what do you actually know about, in your words, 'the currency issues' beyond the £ being at a lower level than it has been for a long time (some people give this in itself as 'a terrible thing' and I get the impression they see it as a league table which if you go down it's not good). I mean, what do you actually know a weaker pound will mean for you going forward? - more expensive hols, more expensive imports, sure, but you're talking about the UK economy here. For e.g. are you aware of another widely held view among financial types that the £ has been too high for too long and a re-balancing is probably a healthy thing in the long term? I don't claim to know much myself about how currency Xchange-rates will effect things , but I've read around different views on it somewhat.
-
I'm simply making the subtle point, so subtle that it seems to fly over your head, that your use of 'The Governor of the Bank of England' as if the title in itself makes your argument totally sound, is bullshit. You should have said 'I'd take Mark Carney's opinion over yours' or 'I'd take financial expert Y's opinion over yours'.
This is of course completely true.
It also rather misses the point.
-
It's the ftse all-share Offwidth. Not the 100. FFS?! I typed it clearly enough. A.l.l.-s.h.a.r.e.
See what narrative you can think up that would explain how the positive performance of the all-share - and the 250 overall - isn't indicative of the UK economy. I'm sure you can, you're smart enough to justify any position you wish.
If he meant 'post-vote' then you are seriously trying to tell me that that large spike up on the day of the 23rd leading up to the vote is meant to represent anything meaningful other than trader's buying ahead of a presumed 'yes'? The ftse 250 today is at the same level it was on the Monday of the week of the vote, and higher than one month ago today. Just look at the chart. The consensus prognosis on here of short-term market collapse in the event of a 'leave' vote was simply incorrect panicky bed-wetting. Long-term, who knows. I'm optimistic you're not.
-
I'm simply making the subtle point, so subtle that it seems to fly over your head, that your use of 'The Governor of the Bank of England' as if the title in itself makes your argument totally sound, is bullshit. You should have said 'I'd take Mark Carney's opinion over yours' or 'I'd take financial expert Y's opinion over yours'.
Well, it's 'tortuous' and 'flying over my head' because that implication is in your head not mine.
I said Governor not Mark Carney because it is as Governor that he will be the one deciding whether to pump billions into the economy. Past governors, other 'experts' and other Mark Carneys will not.
And the original point was I'd take his opinion over yours. Even if Mervyn was still in that'd remain true. I'm not after confirmation bias, I'm after opinion from people who are directly involved. So in my book Carney>King>Harrison, based mainly on directness of involvement, but also on what I can garner about their economic reputations. Whereas, were the subject north wales limestone, you'd be top dog. Ok?
On the £, I run a business partly based on imports from France. I'm also involved with a big environmental scheme which has just has a massive sum wiped off the budget. I enjoy going abroad. I'm aware we export less than we import. And, yes, I'm aware some experts (your caveats on economic experts' opinions above notwithstanding) think it was over valued. But it did need something to trigger that devaluing, whether latent or not. It does seem to be a broader monitor of the value of brand Uk than the stock markets.
-
Are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now? This is liquid gold! I actually liked him when he played darts.
I thought it was common knowledge that it was Flash Gordon and labour that caused the global financial meltdown.
Not the dart player.
-
It's the ftse all-share Offwidth. Not the 100. FFS?! I typed it clearly enough. A.l.l.-s.h.a.r.e.
See what narrative you can think up that would explain how the positive performance of the all-share - and the 250 overall - isn't indicative of the UK economy. I'm sure you can, you're smart enough to justify any position you wish.
If he meant 'post-vote' then you are seriously trying to tell me that that large spike up on the day of the 23rd leading up to the vote is meant to represent anything meaningful other than trader's buying ahead of a presumed 'yes'? The ftse 250 today is at the same level it was on the Monday of the week of the vote, and higher than one month ago today. Just look at the chart. The consensus prognosis on here of short-term market collapse in the event of a 'leave' vote was simply incorrect panicky bed-wetting. Long-term, who knows.
I'm optimistic you're not.
The 100 dominates the all share index hence the % from my wikipedia quote... nothing clever just simple research. The narrative is also simple and research based: the pound has devalued and those indices are quoted in pounds and they are dominated by assets outside the UK.
I agree the choice of start point is very debatable but it was a reasonable attempt to measure an effect and more so than your skyrocket growth (as an example the FTSE all share has been depressed or pretty static since 2008, not even taking inflation into account, so most growth has to be dividend based; assuming your fund includes this).
I'm actually still optimistic (just a bit less than before), I'm just not basing this on bollocks. My optimism is based on research led growth that was un(der)predicted time and time again... the transistor, the chip, the internet etc
-
Not really OK JB :) Because this is UKB not the BofE or Westminister and if your view is that no-one's opinions on here count much compared to the opinions of your chosen head of a national institution - a pretty tough act to follow - then until Shark persuades Carney to join it leaves the forum a little thin on content. You may as well leave this thread now and just watch the news.
It also leaves your argument open to this very obvious conclusion - using your own line of reasoning you yourself would rather take King's opinion over your own: because he's a financial expert and you're not - which is the logic you just used on me.
But that isn't very useful except for point-scoring.
-
I'm actually still optimistic (just a bit less than before), I'm just not basing this on bollocks. My optimism is based on research led growth that was un(der)predicted time and time again... the transistor, the chip, the internet etc
Hmm.. what makes you conclude that I'm not optimistic for similar reasons - just that I haven't said those specific things?
-
I said are people blaming Mervyn King for the financial crisis now. Omm said of course dense don't you? That's not really got any grey areas in there, in whole or in part.
Sorry.
Sarcasm missed target there.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I took that as a response to your gag about the darts player. So do you think he played a part or was just a victim of circumstance?
It was.
I think he forgot he made the joke.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
On the £, I run a business partly based on imports from France. I'm also involved with a big environmental scheme which has just has a massive sum wiped off the budget. I enjoy going abroad. I'm aware we export less than we import. And, yes, I'm aware some experts (your caveats on economic experts' opinions above notwithstanding) think it was over valued. But it did need something to trigger that devaluing, whether latent or not. It does seem to be a broader monitor of the value of brand Uk than the stock markets.
Right, as you know I'm aware of your French imports. End of the day for you as a distributor you'll end up distributing what companies want to purchase. So hear me out - a lower pound is very good news for UK companies who compete against foreign companies in our line of business. That's healthy for the ISCs, HeightTecs, DMMs etc. etc. All of a sudden if ISC D4's become cheaper to purchase than Petzl IDs then - as a person responsible for a large budget and deciding which items of equipment to purchase - I know whose descender we'll be ordering from you. Caernarfon-based ISC at the expense of Grenoble-based Petzl. More growth for Welsh ISC. More local jobs. (and the D4 is good, typical that a UK company struggles against cheaper foreign imports, not better quality foreign imports).
Same goes for other lines of business where small innovative UK companies operate. And the export market opens up for these small companies too - the US and beyond. The market for equipment manufacturers in the US is massive (and note: somehow UK companies such as ISC manage to successfully produce equipment rated for the NFPA regs without us being a party to them).
And you're trying to make a case that a lower pound is a bad thing - it might be, but it isn't necessarily. I don't think you've thought it through enough in our specific industry.
-
Pete - I've noticed your posts seem to focus on scoring points/trying to prove remainders wrong. Would it be possible to focus more on the positives you see coming down the road from Brexit?
I found sharks Siemens post interesting on that front (whether or not it's true it's a different perspective. Plus I've managed to put shark and siemen next to each other and not make a gag... Or gag reflex..)
-
I have thought it through Pete, I'm just looking at the whole picture rather than picking up the odd positive scrap. Construction looks like it will slow down. We might pick up a few more trainees from overseas due to the weak £, but it's not likely to compensate form any general effect on the uk economy. When the oil price bottomed out in Feb it had a surprisingly direct effect on business.
On kit, yes we supply uk made as well. Ropes and bags here sell well, hardware less so. ASAPs/ Harnesses not at all. There are already cheaper uk-made harnesses available, but you aren't ordering them are you? Because they're shit. I'd love to think leaving Europe will suddenly make us great at making harnesses again, but it's not likely in the short term. And I still think losing input to the EN standards is a big negative. I don't hear much good about NFPA standards from those involved in them. Sure, manufacturers will make gear to meet them, it doesn't make it preferable. To choose to lose influence is retarded IMO.
-
Johnny when i asked you at your centre a while ago face to face if the massive downturn in the North Sea and beyond had any effect on your numbers, you said no you don't get that much custom from oil and gas anyway. So how has this affected you massively?
Omm you've had to explain a few times on here recently when you was being sarcastic. Surely this shows you something? I wasn't being sarcastic.
-
Johnny when i asked you at your centre a while ago face to face if the massive downturn in the North Sea and beyond had any effect on your numbers, you said no you don't get that much custom from oil and gas anyway. So how has this affected you massively?
Omm you've had to explain a few times on here recently when you was being sarcastic. Surely this shows you something? I wasn't being sarcastic.
Only to you Dense old boy, only to you.
Edit.
Damn forgot emoji again! [emoji13]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm actually still optimistic (just a bit less than before), I'm just not basing this on bollocks. My optimism is based on research led growth that was un(der)predicted time and time again... the transistor, the chip, the internet etc
Hmm.. what makes you conclude that I'm not optimistic for similar reasons - just that I haven't said those specific things?
Why would I have tried to guess your other sources of optimism?
Research led growth will happen slower if research support drops and researcher movement slows. It is an area where we are massive net gainers from the EU. I'd be delighted if a conservative government suddenly became serious about much more state control of investment for growth but it doesn't fit their history nor ideals.
-
Johnny when i asked you at your centre a while ago face to face if the massive downturn in the North Sea and beyond had any effect on your numbers, you said no you don't get that much custom from oil and gas anyway. So how has this affected you massively?
It hadn't affected us when I last saw you. Then it did, much more than we'd expected, very quiet for a few months. It was picking up again, but since brexit that seems to be slowing. Early days though.
-
I'm actually still optimistic (just a bit less than before), I'm just not basing this on bollocks. My optimism is based on research led growth that was un(der)predicted time and time again... the transistor, the chip, the internet etc
Hmm.. what makes you conclude that I'm not optimistic for similar reasons - just that I haven't said those specific things?
Why would I have tried to guess your other sources of optimism?
Research led growth will happen slower if research support drops and researcher movement slows. It is an area where we are massive net gainers from the EU. I'd be delighted if a conservative government suddenly became serious about much more state control of investment for growth but it doesn't fit their history nor ideals.
Still waiting for Systemaian to chime in, since this is his field. Uniting researchers with industry and EU money. We had a beer the week before the referendum and there was already a draw back in funding/collaboration then. In our conversations since, he's been a tad negative (it's possible he's avoiding this conversation because he might find it hard to be diplomatic, he often does).
When I was working with CMC on the low energy electric propulsion/stabilisers/thrusters; it was an EU brokered collaboration between CMC, Mitsubishi and the Uni's in Genova and Milano. Much of my consulting fees cane out of the EU pot...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Timely piece on the value of sterling, for those of us who haven't heard enough from experts:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sterlings-slide-is-not-good-news-despite-what-some-will-tell-you-qqhz3bjzm?shareToken=85037b35d8d690a99edf10e7ddeecf26 (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sterlings-slide-is-not-good-news-despite-what-some-will-tell-you-qqhz3bjzm?shareToken=85037b35d8d690a99edf10e7ddeecf26)
In summary:
You don’t make British people better off by getting them to work hard to make stuff for others to enjoy on the cheap, while themselves paying more for things produced overseas. You do it by ensuring, through effective policies on education and skills and competition and infrastructure and trade, that British workers produce more in each hour they work so that the actual value of what they produce is higher, so they can earn more and consume more
-
Interesting latest take by (the euro-sceptic) Mobiot
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/billionaires-bought-brexit-controlling-britains-political-system.
And the start of problems on EU collaborative research:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears
-
Timely piece on the value of sterling, for those of us who haven't heard enough from experts:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sterlings-slide-is-not-good-news-despite-what-some-will-tell-you-qqhz3bjzm?shareToken=85037b35d8d690a99edf10e7ddeecf26 (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sterlings-slide-is-not-good-news-despite-what-some-will-tell-you-qqhz3bjzm?shareToken=85037b35d8d690a99edf10e7ddeecf26)
In summary:
You don’t make British people better off by getting them to work hard to make stuff for others to enjoy on the cheap, while themselves paying more for things produced overseas. You do it by ensuring, through effective policies on education and skills and competition and infrastructure and trade, that British workers produce more in each hour they work so that the actual value of what they produce is higher, so they can earn more and consume more
That sounds great, so why hasn't the UK done it? How does high productivity relate to our membership or not of the EU, and how does Brexit damage it? Because I'm struggling to relate the above with the UKs relatively shite productivity during its decades of membership of the EU, going by the official ONS statistics:
Source (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/uk-productivity-gap-widens-to-worst-level-since-records-began)
Britain’s poor productivity record has been highlighted by government figures showing the biggest gap with other leading western economies since modern records began in the early 1990s.
Output per hour worked in the UK was 18 percentage points below the average for the remaining six members of the G7 group of industrial nations in 2014, the Office for National Statistics said.
The gap – up one percentage point on the previous year – was the widest since 1991 and showed a particularly marked deterioration since the onset of the financial crisis and deep recession of 2007-09. The shortfall was slightly smaller than the 20-point gap reported in the ONS’s preliminary estimates released in September 2015.
In the first half of the 2000s, the UK narrowed its productivity gap with the rest of the G7 to just 4 percentage points but the period since has seen that trend go into reverse.
The ONS’s final international estimates of productivity in 2014 found that output per hour in the UK was now 36 percentage points behind that in Germany - the biggest gap ever recorded with a fellow G7 country and up two points on 2013.
You seem doing what a lot of people against brexit do - Grass 'was' greener. In this case claiming leaving he EU will be bad for productivity, when in actual fact productivity is nothing to be proud about at the moment, while members of the EU.
-
So, what your saying is, we're not ready for Brexit?
[emoji16][emoji12]JK.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
-
The ONS’s final international estimates of productivity in 2014 found that output per hour in the UK was now 36 percentage points behind that in Germany - the biggest gap ever recorded with a fellow G7 country and up two points on 2013.
You do know Germany are in the EU too Pete? As were we in the first half of the 2000s where we narrowed the gap. So what's the argument for leaving again? It's just worth a try, bit of a change? Surely it might make more sense to look at Germany and try to work out where we're going wrong?
You seem doing what a lot of people against brexit do - Grass 'was' greener.
Oh the irony! A huge part of the Brexit vote support was due to harking back to a 'better' past and 'making Britain great again'. I don't see that, nor do I think we were doing great until the 23rd. I think we've been failing to invest in the future of Britain for much of my lifetime, and the chickens are coming home to roost. The EU has been a responsible for significant investment in infrastructure outside London which I doubt would have happened otherwise. I expect productivity will decline even further if we leave the EU.
-
This is too easy.
Become like Germany? You mean, become one of the world's largest exporters?
In 2014 Germany exported $1.41T, making it the 3rd largest exporter in the world. Imports. In 2014 Germany imported $1.13T, making it the 3rd largest importer in the world. Trade Balance. As of 2014 Germany had a positive trade balance of $271B in net exports.
Well yes that would be a very positive development in my view.
The UK hasn't been that sort of export economy for decades and before the 23rd there wasn't anything to suggest any change from the status quo. Now for the first time in a long time an opportunity has arisen for UK exporters to thrive due to sterling's drop. That the UK today isn't full of manufacturing exporters able to take immediate advantage is a shame, but not set in stone for evermore - the economy is dynamic and people will adapt to make the most of the circumstances.
-
There are innovative start-ups on Industrial Estates all over everywhere.
-
Germany has benefited massively as an exporter from effectively trading with an artificially depressed currency. If there was no Euro the Deutschmark would be a very highly valued currency and its exporters currency advantage would disappear. It irks me that as it gains economically it also gains political weight to throw around as the de facto leader of Europe.
-
I'd love to think all we need to become a big exporter is a little advantage like a weak currency, but I don't see it. Did you even read the link? Unlike Germany, we largely failed to transition our heavy industry to a modern high tech version that could compete globally. Where we did (Airbus) it was often part of a European project, or an international investor wanting to be in the common market. Think another Nissan Sunderland is likely outside Europe? Bearing in mind as we are not a primary producer most of our raw materials and sub-assemblies will have to be imported first, negating a good proportion of the advantage of a weak pound. Relying entirely on value added when with an unskilled workforce we don't have a great deal of value to add.
I think a big part of the difference with Germany is the long hard look at themselves they were forced to take after the war. Whereas we are still slapping ourselves on the back about how great we are, whilst steadily running the country down. Leaving Europe is hubris.
-
Germany is efficient but not entrepreneurial as far as winning sales and capturing new and changing markets goes. This is the view provided by a former Sales Director of Sheffield Forgemasters. And guess what? He is a German so is uniquely qualified to have that opinion. They have advantages but so do we. Bring it on
:boxing:
-
Germany is efficient but not entrepreneurial as far as winning sales and capturing new and changing markets goes. This is the view provided by a former Sales Director of Sheffield Forgemasters. And guess what? He is a German so is uniquely qualified to have that opinion. They have advantages but so do we. Bring it on
:boxing:
On the other hand, MTU and ThyssenKrupp, both of whom I've done development work with (MTU on the Reem high speed 16v's and Thyssen on Fire rated bulkheads) are extremely forward looking and omnipresent in global Engineering.
I'd hardly call their auto industry parochial or lacking in gusto, either.
I think we have a tendency to think of Germans as ridged and staid, but they have always been inventive and entrepreneurial, just in a more thorough and cautious manner than us Brits.
We're more prone to gambling big.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Germany is efficient but not entrepreneurial as far as winning sales and capturing new and changing markets goes. This is the view provided by a former Sales Director of Sheffield Forgemasters. And guess what? He is a German so is uniquely qualified to have that opinion. They have advantages but so do we. Bring it on
:boxing:
On the other hand, MTU and ThyssenKrupp, both of whom I've done development work with (MTU on the Reem high speed 16v's and Thyssen on Fire rated bulkheads) are extremely forward looking and omnipresent in global Engineering.
I'd hardly call their auto industry parochial or lacking in gusto, either.
I think we have a tendency to think of Germans as ridged and staid, but they have always been inventive and entrepreneurial, just in a more thorough and cautious manner than us Brits.
We're more prone to gambling big.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
+1. The success of German 'Mittlestand' manufacturing is built world, not domestic, markets.
-
I'd love to think all we need to become a big exporter is a little advantage like a weak currency, but I don't see it. Did you even read the link? Unlike Germany, we largely failed to transition our heavy industry to a modern high tech version that could compete globally.
This. ↓
Germany has benefited massively as an exporter from effectively trading with an artificially depressed currency. If there was no Euro the Deutschmark would be a very highly valued currency and its exporters currency advantage would disappear. It irks me that as it gains economically it also gains political weight to throw around as the de facto leader of Europe.
Unlike Germany, we largely failed to transition our heavy industry to a modern high tech version that could compete globally. Where we did (Airbus) it was often part of a European project, or an international investor wanting to be in the common market. Think another Nissan Sunderland is likely outside Europe? Bearing in mind as we are not a primary producer most of our raw materials and sub-assemblies will have to be imported first, negating a good proportion of the advantage of a weak pound
That depends on what kind of deal with the EU we end up with. I don't imagine the world's car-makers will completely turn their back on the UK no. We used to have a steel industry but it was killed by cheaper imports, a result in part of sterling's strength. Same with other heavy industries. Slate (killed by Spanish and Argentinian imports) springs to mind.
ARM Holdings anyone? One of the most successful UK tech companies you've never heard of, whose products are in the majority of the world's phones and computers.
One change coming down the road will be fracking in the NW within the next 5 years. We all know what that did to the US economy and energy prices. I'm not saying I think we should, but we will - the groundwork is being prepped for storage on sites I visit.
Relying entirely on value added when with an unskilled workforce we don't have a great deal of value to add.
I don't understand how you can write-off the UK workforce as unskilled. It simply isn't. And even it were, are you immune to the idea that events create change? We're not a third-world country we're the 5th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest in europe - if it becomes apparent that the changed circumstances resulting from leaving the EU have created a high demand for a certain skill-set then we have the resources and institutions to upskill.
I think a big part of the difference with Germany is the long hard look at themselves they were forced to take after the war. Whereas we are still slapping ourselves on the back about how great we are, whilst steadily running the country down.
Which is exactly what this event (brexit) presents the country with - a hard look at ourselves (even if the more insular inward-looking brexiteers don't realise this). The country is going to have to adapt its economy and grasp opportunities or die.
-
We're not a third-world country we're the 5th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest in europe.
6th and 3rd post referendum.
-
We used to have a steel industry but it was killed by cheaper imports, a result in part of sterling's strength. Same with other heavy industries. Slate (killed by Spanish and Argentinian imports) springs to mind.
In part due to sterling's strength, I'd say a very small part, but mainly due to the fact that:
We're not a third-world country
We can't compete on primary production because are one of the most developed countries in the world. That isn't going to change even if we slash those pesky european workers rights.
I don't understand how you can write-off the UK workforce as unskilled. It simply isn't.
Compared to Germany, as regards to manufacturing. Too much theoretical education and not enough practical.
The country is going to have to adapt its economy and grasp opportunities or die.
Hmm, I doubt it. As you say we are the :
5th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest in europe
Despite this likely to change to 6th and 3rd due to Brexit - its already wobbling - I don't think the economy is fucked or in need of drastic change to avoid death. Its just needs some longer term thinking. What I still fail to see, and I don't get from your points, is how leaving the EU will benefit us. Shark's point seems to suggest the opposite; perhaps we should join the Euro and exploit the market like the Germans.
-
A glimmer of hope...
Hammond appears to be keen to relax austerity and is quite pro-renewable energy/carbon reduction, in free market unregulated kind of way. How this pans out time will tell, but it's not the worst news I've heard all week...
-
A glimmer of hope...
Amidst the dark...
Wall Street Journal:
"Corporate spending plans in the UK have “deteriorated out of all recognition” following the country’s vote to leave the European Union, data from Credit Suisse released on Wednesday shows."
https://city.wsj.com/stories/42fb06e0-4e0d-4b05-acb5-4f01696a4d56.html
Whoops!
-
We used to have a steel industry but it was killed by cheaper imports, a result in part of sterling's strength.
On the subject of Steel, our current government consistently voted against the legislation increasing the tariffs imposed on imported Chinese steel that the EU was attempting to pass.
-
A glimmer of hope...
Amidst the dark...
Wall Street Journal:
"Corporate spending plans in the UK have “deteriorated out of all recognition” following the country’s vote to leave the European Union, data from Credit Suisse released on Wednesday shows."
https://city.wsj.com/stories/42fb06e0-4e0d-4b05-acb5-4f01696a4d56.html
Whoops!
Oh dear... I jumped the gun I think!
Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills, Department for Energy and Climate Change and Department for Transport are set to be closed. (https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/753552701368172544)
-
We used to have a steel industry but it was killed by cheaper imports, a result in part of sterling's strength.
On the subject of Steel, our current government consistently voted against the legislation increasing the tariffs imposed on imported Chinese steel that the EU was attempting to pass.
Indeed. Given that the main reason we were opposing those measures in the EU was to avoid annoying China, I reckon we're in a much weaker position now than we were to do anything about the dumping of cheap steel into our market. If we couldn't afford to stand up to China as part of the EU block, we certainly won't manage it on our own.
-
Oh dear... I jumped the gun I think!
Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills, Department for Energy and Climate Change and Department for Transport are set to be closed. (https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/753552701368172544)
Was just about to post than. To be replaced by another department apparently so lets just hope.......
-
What, you mean they're not getting rid of them at all they're just changing the name? Fancy that.
-
Germany is efficient but not entrepreneurial as far as winning sales and capturing new and changing markets goes. This is the view provided by a former Sales Director of Sheffield Forgemasters. And guess what? He is a German so is uniquely qualified to have that opinion. They have advantages but so do we. Bring it on
:boxing:
...I think we have a tendency to think of Germans as ridged and staid, but they have always been inventive and entrepreneurial, just in a more thorough and cautious manner than us Brits.
Bah! Get lost with your "facts". We all know that the German people are goose-stepping efficienoids incapable of innovation, while us plucky Brits are buccaneering venturephiles.
All of our country's problems can be solved with a rousing round of Rule Brittania, and anyone who says otherwise is Doing Britain DownTM.
-
Handy cut out and keep Brexit guide:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Lots on trade, tariffs, and why we're screwed which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a UKBer's much-vaunted investment portfolio.
-
Handy cut out and keep Brexit guide:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Lots on trade, tariffs, and why we're screwed which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a UKBer's much-vaunted investment portfolio.
Damn, Pete and Dense had cheered me up no end and I was almost sold on the idea;until you went and posted that (which reiterates everything most people here have said or quoted).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Handy cut out and keep Brexit guide:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Lots on trade, tariffs, and why we're screwed which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a UKBer's much-vaunted investment portfolio.
Damn, Pete and Dense had cheered me up no end and I was almost sold on the idea;until you went and posted that (which reiterates everything most people here have said or quoted).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:sorry:
-
Nothing we say on here matters. That's the most amusing thing.
-
Nothing we say on here matters. That's the most amusing thing.
Bugger. Updated the signature on my iPad but forgot to do it on my phone.
Please refer below.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
-
What do you mean 'on here' Dense? Nothing matters. Nothing.
-
Bugger. Updated the signature on my iPad but forgot to do it on my phone.
Since thats also your forum signature you could just ditch the Tapatalk signatures altogether.
-
Handy cut out and keep Brexit guide:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Lots on trade, tariffs, and why we're screwed which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a UKBer's much-vaunted investment portfolio.
Funnily I was just reading Investment Week's various 'expertsTM' views on the financial passport systems -far more informative on likely outcomes than this piece.
This is laughable and sums up the article:
So what happens if we don't make any of these deals? After the two year countdown we just fall out the EU with no trade deals in place?
'It's so much worse than that'.
and
We're like a man being thrown out of a plane into the sea with no lifejacket. Seriously. I'm not making this up. It's scary.
:lol: Quality journalism! Be afraid folks, like.. really afraid!
What a load of fucking garbage.
Try this for opinion from the financial world (http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/opinion/2464864/hugh-hendry-why-we-can-learn-to-love-the-brexit-bomb). It won't convince you of anything of course, it's just opinion. But at least the site contains a spectrum of views from positive to negative (http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/) from people close to the stuff you're talking about, not political commentators.
-
Handy cut out and keep Brexit guide:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Lots on trade, tariffs, and why we're screwed which has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a UKBer's much-vaunted investment portfolio.
Funnily I was just reading Investment Week's various 'expertsTM' views on the financial passport systems -far more informative on likely outcomes than this piece.
This is laughable and sums up the article:
So what happens if we don't make any of these deals? After the two year countdown we just fall out the EU with no trade deals in place?
'It's so much worse than that'.
and
We're like a man being thrown out of a plane into the sea with no lifejacket. Seriously. I'm not making this up. It's scary.
:lol: Quality journalism! Be afraid folks, like.. really afraid!
What a load of fucking garbage.
Try this for opinion from the financial world (http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/opinion/2464864/hugh-hendry-why-we-can-learn-to-love-the-brexit-bomb). It won't convince you of anything of course, it's just opinion. But at least the site contains a spectrum of views from positive to negative (http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/) from people close to the stuff you're talking about, not political commentators.
Well, I could talk style (an article in which the writer quotes Bob Dylan to show that things change) but that's a dead-end, we all have different tastes and the florid suits some. I think the point of the article is how individual investors can benefit from Brexit. That's not quite the same thing as saying Brexit is good for the economy, is it? Rather like Milo Minderbinder arguing for war...
-
<cynicism>Investors encouraging people to invest, next publicans will be trying to sell people beer.</cynicism>
-
Well yes that's true Johnny but I didn't want to be as defeatist as most
-
I see that the B of E didn't feel the need to cut interest rates. Perhaps things aren't as bad as some want us to believe.
-
What do you mean 'on here' Dense? Nothing matters. Nothing.
I didn't have you down as a nihilist kes. Please don't cut off my Johnson. Although you can cut off the other one, Boris that is
-
There's not enough meaningful data yet, especially vis-a-vis the "real" economy - a move in any direction would have been precipitous.
Btw, I'm not gleefully awaiting catastrophe just so my remain biases are confirmed. I would be very surprised if the economy is not damaged but have never predicted near apocalypse. The most significant damage (for example in investment) will only become apparent over time.
Meanwhile, my university has just today lost a very good senior overseas academic appointment because of Brexit. Many similar decisions, large and small, will be occurring and will continue to occur.
ps. in reply to Tregiffian obviously.
-
What do you mean 'on here' Dense? Nothing matters. Nothing.
I didn't have you down as a nihilist kes. Please don't cut off my Johnson. Although you can cut off the other one, Boris that is
Short memory you've got. I'm a Marxist nihilist now remember?
-
<cynicism>Investors encouraging people to invest, next publicans will be trying to sell people beer.</cynicism>
<sincerity> It can't have passed you by that a huge amount of this threads's hot air including mine has been bullshitting about the economy and what's going to happen to it. And of course investment is closely linked-with/part of the economy. The website I linked offers readers a range of different opinions and predictions, from a variety of experts pro/ambivalent/and anti-brexit, but yes all I suppose sharing a very general bias in favour of investment. How bad of a bias is that really? Does anyone in the financial world recommend actually not saving or investing? </sincerity>
<jibe@statistician> If only the world wasn't so messy and biased. Life would be so much more predictable and controllable. </jibe@statistician>
-
What Sean said - your site their seems to be overwhelmingly about how to profit from increased uncertainty. I've read a few pieces and I can't seem to see very much optimism about the country's fortunes as a whole - merely the opportunity to bet on them. Your man does, however, appear to largely agree with what I said on the last page:
Prospective economic growth now only has one realistic source: productivity gains. The boost to competitiveness from the sliding pound will help but ultimately productivity and GDP growth will require higher public and private investment. The later seems unlikely for now and hence the likelihood of a recession but in time a pivot to fiscal expansion will likely moderate and perhaps transform the outcome.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees that that would be 'a good thing'. Not me at least.
What Sean said - your site their seems to be overwhelmingly about how to profit from increased uncertainty.
The site is a news website about investing. That's pretty much the definition of investment - seeking opportunities in an uncertain world.
Death and taxes, etc.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees that that would be 'a good thing'. Not me at least.
What Sean said - your site their seems to be overwhelmingly about how to profit from increased uncertainty.
The site is a news website about investing. That's pretty much the definition of investment - seeking opportunities to preserve/create wealth in an uncertain world.
Death and taxes, etc.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees that that would be 'a good thing'. Not me at least.
What Sean said - your site their seems to be overwhelmingly about how to profit from increased uncertainty.
The site is a news website about investing. That's pretty much the definition of investment - seeking opportunities in an uncertain world.
Death and taxes, etc.
Crikey, what sort of overprivileged person has money to invest [emoji14]
-
The site is a news website about investing. That's pretty much the definition of investment - seeking opportunities in an uncertain world.
That a situation has such opportunities is no way an indication that the situation is a particularly good one to be in!
-
<cynicism>Investors encouraging people to invest, next publicans will be trying to sell people beer.</cynicism>
<sincerity> It can't have passed you by that a huge amount of this threads's hot air including mine has been bullshitting about the economy and what's going to happen to it. And of course investment is closely linked-with/part of the economy. The website I linked offers readers a range of different opinions and predictions, from a variety of experts pro/ambivalent/and anti-brexit, but yes all I suppose sharing a very general bias in favour of investment. How bad of a bias is that really? Does anyone in the financial world recommend actually not saving or investing? </sincerity>
Yes, you've done well at repeatedly pointing out others posts are hot air, nice of you to acknowledge the same of your own as it wasn't coming through particularly strongly in your posts, which was what I was getting at with the small dig further back about someones perspective not being as positive because they don't have shares. It all depends on your perspective, no matter how objective an individual attempts to be, we are the product of our experiences.
Its good to hear different points of view and have your own challenged though.
<jibe@statistician> If only the world wasn't so messy and biased. Life would be so much more predictable and controllable. </jibe@statistician>
It also wouldn't exist as we know it. The basis of evolution is variation (along with heritability) on which natural selection acts, if the world were less 'messy' there would be no variation on which natural selection can act, life wouldn't then evolve (I'm primarily a biologist as my scientific interests started in evolutionary biology and genetics, statistics is something I drifted into). More generally variation is the substance of and what makes a statisticians job interesting, so your jibe is pretty baseless. :tease:
-
I see that the B of E didn't feel the need to cut interest rates. Perhaps things aren't as bad as some want us to believe.
I suspect the B of E didn't cut interest rates because they hope that some people will then think that things aren't as bad as some people think.
-
God there's a lot of clever people on here
-
Thank you
-
I see that the B of E didn't feel the need to cut interest rates. Perhaps things aren't as bad as some want us to believe.
I suspect the B of E didn't cut interest rates because they hope that some people will then think that things aren't as bad as some people think.
:blink:
-
God there's a lot of clever people on here
Love you too, sweet cheeks. xx
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
-
I see that the B of E didn't feel the need to cut interest rates. Perhaps things aren't as bad as some want us to believe.
I suspect the B of E didn't cut interest rates because they hope that some people will then think that things aren't as bad as some people think.
Hmm yes and the moon landings were faked to make people believe the US was winning the space race. :???:
-
I see that the B of E didn't feel the need to cut interest rates. Perhaps things aren't as bad as some want us to believe.
I suspect the B of E didn't cut interest rates because they hope that some people will then think that things aren't as bad as some people think.
Hmm yes and the moon landings were faked to make people believe the US was winning the space race. :???:
So conspiracy theory vs sensible and fairly mainstream analysis. I very strongly suspect it was at least a contributing factor, and think it was probably a sensible one. Markets are jittery. Confirming doom and gloom for the sake of potential marginal benefits from an immediate .25% drop might well be counterproductive.
-
I don't know much about all this. I do know that pretty much every job I've had in the last ten years has been at least part EU financed and in some cases fully EU funded. I attended a conference in Manchester yesterday about EU funding mainly attended by third sector providers. Speakers included bigwigs from various government depts (DWP and DCLG) and Big Lottery and basically, no one knows anything or is prepared to commit to anything other than, "carry on as you are but expect change and probably not for the better".
Not particularly helpful...
Pretty much all lottery funding has been matched with EU money in the last few years, doubling the effect and the impact (not to mention the number of jobs created) and it seems highly likely this will stop. Lots of people worried and scared about the future of their organisations and staff. The impact is already being felt in terms of EU relationships particularly in education as highlighted by Prof Popp above.
I don't know what all this means in the long term or for the rest of you and I am now thankfully in a position that doesn't rely on EU funding but I know a lot of scared and worried people in lots of different walks of life, including close friends I've worked with for a long time.
#brexitbellends
-
Can't understand your negativity at all. Can't you see there are opportunities here for fund managers to profit?
-
You unpatriotic oik with your Doing Britain DownTM and your Project FearTM! Don't you know that we're Making Britain Great AgainTM? We've Taken Back ControlTM from the European SuperstateTM so now everything will be absolutely perfect. There are no problems. Wealth is Poverty; Poverty is Wealth.
I suggest you start singing the national anthem and ignore any information that contradicts the idea of a Brexit utopia. God Save The Queen!
-
There's no arguing with people who make comments like those Will.
Fatneck - There isn't a mental firewall that makes people who voted 'leave' unaware of these things. I too know people in exactly the sorts of positions you mention. My partner for instance, who used to work in EU-funded regional development positions. Knowing this isn't a good reason to continue with something - close political union with 27 other European states - that fundamentally you don't agree with.
Scottish Referendum - no, not the next one ::) - To the more 'enthusiastic' on here: How did you feel about the Scottish wanting independence from a close political union with the UK? Ask yourself if your feelings on that are consistent with how you feel about the UK wanting independence from a close political union with the EU. Many no doubt have consistent views on both. But some may have conflicting views.
-
There's no arguing with you Pete :p
-
Better together sums it up I think, on both counts. Although I can understand that given the choice of one or the other, the Scottish will choose the EU over the UK.
-
Better together sums it up I think, on both counts. Although I can understand that given the choice of one or the other, the Scottish will choose the EU over the UK.
It must have been clear to many in Scotland that that was the choice they were presented with at the last referendum.
I supect there was some element of "surely the English will come to their senses eventually" though.
-
I now sincerely hope that, when scotland goes, they'll take everything north of the watford gap with them.
-
I now sincerely hope that, when scotland goes, they'll take everything north of the watford gap with them.
What, those Brexit voting loons? No thanks...
-
The Wren's Nest and Almscliffe in Scotland?
-
Try this for opinion from the financial world. It won't convince you of anything of course, it's just opinion. But at least the site contains a spectrum of views from positive to negative from people close to the stuff you're talking about, not political commentators.
(https://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/robert-mankoff-and-so-while-the-end-of-the-world-scenario-will-be-rife-with-unimaginabl-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg)
-
ARM Holdings anyone? One of the most successful UK tech companies you've never heard of, whose products are in the majority of the world's phones and computers.
The first proper test of Theresa May's premiership has come - predictably enough - totally out of left field (ha ha - welcome to No.10 Mrs May).
It is the £24bn takeover of ARM, the UK's ONLY world leading hi-tech electronic company, by SoftBank of Japan.
The point is that her sole proper policy speech since announcing she wanted to become PM - the one she gave in Birmingham just a week ago - was completely unambiguous that she opposed foreign companies buying our strategically important businesses.
She cited Cadbury, which was acquired by Kraft of the US, and AstraZeneca, which narrowly escaped takeover by Pfizer. Both would have been blocked by her, she suggested.
Well she now has an opportunity to put her mouth where Japanese money is. What will she say about the surrender of ARM?
She cannot pretend it does not matter. ARM designs chips that go into billions of connected devices, from iPhones to a new generation of internet-linked household products.
It is at the heart of Cambridge's hi-tech research and manufacturing cluster. It supports jobs and knowledge well beyond the 3000 plus it directly employs there.
No other UK tech company has its reach or reputation.
What's more, one very important reason why the UK is economically fragile post Brexit is our unsustainably large current account deficit which is due - in part - to decades of selling our industrial jewels to foreigners, who have been siphoning profits and dividends earned here to other parts of the world.
So surely, you would say, May must oppose the ARM takeover as proof she is starting a new chapter in the UK's economic stewardship - an end to the hollowing out of our better-paying industries - which is what she claims.
Well maybe. She will be hearing a different argument from the more conservative officials in the Treasury and Downing Street, and from her more Brexit-loving ministers.
The Treasury will fret that, outside the EU and its single market, we cannot risk creating the perception that we are hostile to investment by foreigners after all these years - because that way lies the risk of capital deserting these shores and consequential penury.
Meanwhile the likes of Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox will doubtless argue that the ARM takeover is a vote of confidence in our supposedly glorious economic prospects outside the EU.
So this is a huge test of May, right at the start of her premiership. Will she measure up?
UPDATE 10.20
Well it didn't take long for May and her Chancellor Philip Hammond to be captured by Treasury orthodoxy.
They have welcomed the sale of ARM to SoftBank, with Hammond claiming it will turn this "great British company into a global phenomenon" - which, some would say, is to cynically ignore that it already is a global phenomenon.
May has obviously decided to go with the spin that Brexit hasn't turned off successful overseas investors from investing here.
But this is to gloss over that the Brexit-induced collapse in sterling makes our crown-jewel assets cheaper to foreigners than they've been in many years.
As I mentioned earlier, if the government simply waves through a stream of opportunistic takeovers of our great companies while sterling is on the floor, our capacity to ever again pay our way in the world will be fatally holed.
-
UPDATE 10.20
Well it didn't take long for May and her Chancellor Philip Hammond to be captured by Treasury orthodoxy.
They have welcomed the sale of ARM to SoftBank, with Hammond claiming it will turn this "great British company into a global phenomenon" - which, some would say, is to cynically ignore that it already is a global phenomenon.
May has obviously decided to go with the spin that Brexit hasn't turned off successful overseas investors from investing here.
But this is to gloss over that the Brexit-induced collapse in sterling makes our crown-jewel assets cheaper to foreigners than they've been in many years.
As I mentioned earlier, if the government simply waves through a stream of opportunistic takeovers of our great companies while sterling is on the floor, our capacity to ever again pay our way in the world will be fatally holed.
ARM is the proudest achievement of my life. The proposed sale to SoftBank is a sad day for me and for technology in Britain. (https://twitter.com/hermannhauser/status/755008815553273858)
-
Better together sums it up I think, on both counts. Although I can understand that given the choice of one or the other, the Scottish will choose the EU over the UK.
abso bloody bleedin' bloody lootely
-
Shame about ARM, I suppose. Although since the 80s UK manufacturing seems to have been getting flogged to foreign bidders no matter the circumstances, the decade, or the government of the day.
And yet more bad news for determind catastrophe-addicts: bank of england report shows no clear evidence of a sharp brexit slowdown. Or good news to some. Depends on your outlook.
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/20/ftse-100-smashes-6700-but-pound-flounders-below-131-as-investors/)
IMF slashes UK growth forecasts after Brexit
'Pound breaks $1.31 after UK jobless rate falls to fresh 11-year low
European bourses edge higher on robust earnings results
FTSE 100 poised to close above 6,700 for the first time since August 2015
UK unemployment falls to 4.9pc in the three months to May
Bank of England surveys shows no clear evidence of sharp Brexit slowdown
FTSE 250 just 2pc off pre-Brexit levels
'12:02pm
BoE agents report encouraging to the UK business community
Following the release of the Bank of England's agents report which showed that there is no clear evidence of sharp Brexit slowdown, Adam Tyler, chief executive of the National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers reacts:
"Coupled with the robust jobs data published this morning, this latest report from the Bank of England will provide considerable encouragement to the UK business community.
"The findings are certainly consistent with what we are seeing on the ground, namely that most businesses are carrying on more or less as normal.
"Businesses are monitoring events closely, especially news surrounding future trading relations, but the corporate paralysis some suggested has simply not materialised.
BoE
"It's not quite business as usual, but for many businesses in many sectors it's not far off. The challenge now is to ensure businesses continue to receive the funding and support they need in the uncertain times ahead. Again, there is no sign, as yet, that bank funding has dried up.
"Businesses appear to have taken a very pragmatic view on recent political events. Be cautious, certainly, but don't be overwhelmed."
Just a small story in the papers. If it were a story from the BoE about 'danger to UK economy/jobs/growth/gritstone' it would be headline fare. Strange world isn't it.
1 month now since brexit - still plenty of time yet for economic catastrophe of the scale predicted by the sages on here... :)
-
1 month now since brexit referendum - still plenty of time yet for economic catastrophe of the scale predicted by the sages on here... :)
Right now the UK is still part of the EU.
Still plenty of time yet for Article 50 to be enacted and the markets to react to the uncertainty that follows such action.
-
Can't remember now, Pete, but did you mention the downgrading of the country's credit rating? Or the IMF forecasting that global growth will take a knock, with the UK being worst hit of the developed states (see "spanner in the works" story reported yesterday)?
I'm no economic Mystic Meg and I'm not trying to paint a picture of doom and gloom, just pointing out that you seem to be revelling in picking and choosing the favourable stories from a wider and very complex picture.
Another bad news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36835566
Not directly related to The Economy, but science and academia is an industry where the UK is genuinely a world leading force.
-
No, I'm well aware of the other stories? They get plenty of airing on here (cherry picking going on?). I think it's good to have a balance
-
Okay, so pete do the below hold or not?
Early effects of leave vote appear mixed. More definitive metrics (GDP etc.) will not be available for some months.
All models of the consequences of an actual Brexit have yet to be tested, by actually leaving the EU and seeing what happens. Therefore, all concerns related to these predictions are still fully valid.
-
Of course 'concerns are valid'. There's a world of difference between valid concerns and painting an unrealisitc picture of a disaster story, which is what reading this thread has been like sometimes. As I keep banging on, the views on this thread are heavily biased toward negative news stories and of course that reflects the 84% of UKBers (who voted on the poll) who were in favour for remain. It amuses me that when I post up stuff that sounds positive people such as Will are happy to ask me if I think I'm deliberately cherry-picking positive news. Of course I am - because there's so much bias and cherry-picking of the negative on here it's unreal.
-
Of course I am - because there's so much bias and cherry-picking of the negative on here it's unreal.
You think so?
I reckon if you took a random selection of brexit based economic news articles it would look worse than on here, as you post positive story for every bad one!
(i.e. I would hazard a guess that 9/10 commentators/experts/whatevers think that shit is hitting the fan.)
-
there's so much bias and cherry-picking of the negative on here it's unreal.
Except its real, and thats why you are offering alternative points of view. However language such as...
predicted by the sages on here... :)
....despite the smiley comes across as somewhat cocksure and a little patronising, to me at least, can't speak for others.
As you've said yourself, nobody knows what is going to happen, so no one is "painting an unrealistic picture of a disaster story" as you are suggesting because.....no one, including yourself, knows whats going to happen, rather they are expressing their 'valid concerns'. Really what did you expect when the majority of posters on the forum voted for Remain? For their views to suddenly switch in light of the referendum results and them to change their mind and say "Oh well, that didn't go the way I expected it to, lets not worry though I'm sure everything will be all right, after all those who lead the campaign to leave are taking the bull by the horns and sorting everything out and theres some scope for short term profits for those affluent enough to be able to indulge in shares, so thats reason enough to be happy".
-
I don't think I've ever said anywhere on this thread that there might not be some positives to leaving the EU (which we haven't done yet, btw). However, whatever these positives might be are overshadowed by the net negative effect.
If I was selecting a few negatives in a largely positive picture then that would be cherry picking, but that's not the case (obviously your opinion may differ).
-
Brilliant, I love the "nobody knows what's going to happen so nobody's painting a disaster story". Apart from when someone like Pete offers a scenario then you try to pull his throat out of his mouth.. Brilliant :thumbsup:
No wonder I spend all day sitting in a chair pissing myself. May have to start investing in some special pants.
-
Brilliant, I love the "nobody knows what's going to happen so nobody's painting a disaster story". Apart from when someone like Pete offers a scenario then you try to pull his throat out of his mouth.. Brilliant :thumbsup:
Could you point to where I've tried to metaphorically pull Pete's throat out please? All I've done is say that Pete's links are no different to those others are posting which he rightly points out are all speculative, just as his are.
I also very clearly stated (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26815.msg528941.html#msg528941) that it is good to hear alternative points of view to your own.
Perhaps it would be constructive if Pete could list out of the host of posts what he considers to be 'valid concerns' and what constitutes 'painting a disaster story'. That would serve as a basis for more structured discussion. Or is it simply the volume of people who have 'valid concerns' that makes it 'painting a disaster story'?
-
That's just being an old fart, Dense. Do your pelvic floor exercises and maybe get some of these. I think the Princess Elsa ones would look great on you.
(https://www.drynites.co.uk/media/81513/6102-DryNites-Banner_RTBS.jpg)
-
OK, not the most scientifically rigorous method ( mainly because I'm not sure if using an "incognito window" is enough to rid me of my filter bubble) but i just googled "brexit" and "economy". Headlines from 1st page:
IMF cuts UK growth forecasts following Brexit vote
FTSE 100 smashes 6700 as Bank of England says 'no evidence' of sharp Brexit slowdown
Uncertainty Reigns in Global Economy Following Brexit Referendum
If you read the article...
A Brexit Economic Slump
UK economy must endure 'short, sharp shock' after Brexit vote
Brexit fallout to hit UK economic growth: EY Item Club
Brexit takes toll on German economic confidence, survey says
Crashing down? Brexit vote created 'substantial risk' to EU, says shock Brussels report
CEBR: Brexit impact could cost economy £142.5bn
IMF: Brexit a 'Substantial' Risk to World Economy
PwC forecasts slowdown in Northern Ireland economy after Brexit result
PwC forecasts no post Brexit recession for Northern Ireland
Brexit 'will be horrible for UK economy' - fund manager
Brexit impact is going to be horrible, says leading City fund manager
Now, it doesn't look so fucking rosy, does it? It's not cherry picking Pete, it's just a lot of people saying the same things. Of course, no one knows what will happen and economists are notoriously shit at predicting the future. But they ALL saying it. ALL!
Yes, this could all be media bias...but I am not sure why those who previously championed brexit (express etc.) would suddenly be downplaying the positives? What's the angle?
-
What's the angle? They knew it would be shit for a bit, everybody did, why report that it's shit at this moment in time?
-
Re. EU Science funding.
The below is taken from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/outcome-referendum-united-kingdom
and seems to be the official position on Horizon 2020 science funding - the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (I've put text in bold for emphasis).
The Statement of 29 June of the Heads of State or Government of 27 Member States, as well as the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, confirms that until the UK leaves the EU, EU law continues to apply to and within the UK, both when it comes to rights and obligations. This includes the eligibility of UK legal entities to participate and receive funding in Horizon 2020 actions.
Similar is said here: http://cambridgecleantech.org.uk/ixion-brexit-and-the-impact-on-european-horizon-2020-funding (again my bold)
The UK is committed to Horizon 2020 until its completion in 2020. This is cast into European law and the budgets are already fully in place. Therefore, there should be no effect on this funding whatsoever. When the UK leaves the EU it is likely, although not certain, to take on the position of an “Associated State” like Norway, and receive full benefits from H2020.
There's another balanced article on this funding which seems to support these points here:
https://www.myriadassociates.com/news/2016/how-will-brexit-affect-the-79bn-of-rd-horizon-2020-funding-from-the-eu/
Going on the news reports it seems clear that UK scientists are being discriminated against post the Brexit result. It also seems clear, based on the above, that this should not be happening. If the funding pot's in place and the UK has contributed to it up to 2020, UK institutions are entitled to a share up to 2020.
Now I know that will be of no consolation to scientists losing their jobs, universities not getting funding, etc., but I can't help wondering if the lawyers being engaged in trying to overturn the referendum result might not be more gainfully employed in protecting the scientists' interests.
It's a great pity that there's still no attempt to provide at least some degree of critical scrutiny or questioning of the issues around Brexit by the mainstream media. An article quoting scientists saying the funding cut is happening is all very well, but where is the analysis of why it's happening?
Fultonius, I notice you didn't backlink your quotes or give sources but I'm curious to know how many of the red ones were from The Guardian or FT websites?
-
Existing science funding isn't being cut - but Itbwill be in the future - because in the risk adverse world of grant application you don't want any weaknesses in your application (eg a UK partner..). It's not very nice but perfectly understandable..
The whole grant review process is so qualitative that it would be next to impossible to positively discriminate against any bias...
Problem is - even if we never leave there will be a three year period where we are not part of any applications - so a big gap in the future funding will appear.
Sadder in my view is not the £££ for some new fancy syncamegatronublaster etc.. But loads of EU funding is designed to deliberately encourage collaboration between nations - funding travel for meetings to develop ideas/concepts/ideas. From these loads of new ideas, collaborations and research friendships emerge. We'll lose out on all of this now. We'll be like US researchers who are sometimes invited - but can't be funded etc...
So Jooser - for us academics it's just tough shit....
-
why report that it's shit at this moment in time?
I believe its called "current affairs". ::)
-
I know.
"It's a bit shit today, it's day 25 out of day 2500 we predicted it'd be shit for. More news tomorrow"
-
I know.
"It's a bit shit today, it's day 25 out of day 2500 we predicted it'd be shit for. More news tomorrow"
It's probably more important than 'man grows record size cucumber' or the usual nothing's happening summer news ;)
-
Fultonius, I notice you didn't backlink your quotes or give sources but I'm curious to know how many of the red ones were from The Guardian or FT websites?
Oh fuck off you dick. 2 links form the Guardian, one positive (which wasn't there before...) and one negative, and 1 from the FT.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/qiFuDGDw1lBXSOF5pvTFvFc8Gijs1vlwkDr7-xKedkmD0zFdXhxyB0D8NrFHM57-PlO5QzgdRtaWjM3sJUEwnStLHsVcQUTYgBl_KmvOJkdJGsdX_t4zHkcvPQYi4Z9sFI4jhY7qakB1QDgdaHP7xHjPRjkoisDW4fF3lKKxJz5024Z0tmReE3YhDaLeUgl-q9bij0g7ESbWHteQrVqKpWqRdGmt26HlosvEO1zup1nndse0VXNwKCYgGFbxOQuwJfMVOg0k5StWaG99vCW0bWyLZwlMrg7LowQ62dqB3u_AWxZCmbg1mHcam4yCJjlsOpR1eR7ExG64GSef2KSn-jaUJJs7Ik1MaTVf0xPPsbtYH34nMpMCIv_KvGYryvXiquokBMr_CwDTj_3bC1bpcO6jCVK_oRjGMxpbQEnX6EQpfmJbuL404KHM5CelxVnfb4-UbyBB4F90IBa307UFe9lZN0o12gCFY8LlTCAP5IaCYkbBAPFYwVOzB3C_61E-NPKoA5ePc_N45JzEhgbBhvTiET_M7iygbBK7z_mrqLq158x8aB8avDKdIMp-tIZP5quHDQjVEASi0m7obBEj_kfOdnO6ZJo=w810-h872-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/m9CfpnvuGnFGnOZMFtL-PoxTLTNd5ZQJIhk9EWyvKwMV3wCPuncXUf01CFIXy3seV7KlhRzG_Q1bAEB3i2GF85aKvRo93AlZ4Wi5Nn89JM6RctPDswv27w7QpD4G60MwaF9srK0172N9yxhNRHPg2PKlS5LjbwUY7vQQYgCtF4pZq--Nnh-dkxDbw2l-mxhsej6gRkOKOrWr5hogJcOW_V7MSRIQMwcmf4xLR-UYZ1q0PXgXr6RY8kQ6iQP8TTmbOBudoeyPY2GJJZE48XA6BVF7loj_Ffr-x50Y_Zdhpq3gkiNw69fiY7vVc7HAr6knbNYaUgFvymwZNmKOXnAcEis5jbkSAd7FkoZ60Gdxe8o7FfBLq4zQb-Qi9UyaEblA91i_cyVgkBse5zSLl8LCQ5qvcJ6kGKj26JOcZq43QZkuKTOZpR7KIcqjdCPN-YP3r22NAldeCvAXPwhR8mKLmhRC8KMpWdr6hWKengmw22O29jAHpOiWywiJB0giU3UBmKXARjNMmrGKEWhf3O2QPLbfIV4VYkp83hYEUqlNAsQSWpsgM4IXSWB6F7CAVSa-uZTWZ1wkWY4EmLKZZuX-5xEaZHsUruY=w942-h459-no)
P.S. if you're genuinely "interested" and not just trying to score points about Guardian readers, then it would take you a few moments to google those headlines - far less than the 15 minutes it took me to copy them all across.
-
Look at what discussing politics in an adult manner has done to Ukb. Nobody posts on anything else anymore, except maybe power club, just brother turning against brother. :(
-
Look at what discussing politics in an adult manner has done to Ukb. Nobody posts on anything else anymore, except maybe power club, just brother turning against brother. :(
True. I just was raging Jooser's lazy stereotyping after I had spent a reasonable amount of time collecting information in the most impartial way I could.
-
So Jooser - for us academics it's just tough shit....
No, I didn't say that.
It's an awful and unnecessary situation that's entirely political, and I hope those in science/academia are pressuring the politicians to put it right. Something may be understandable but that doesn't necessarily make it reasonable, and I'm just looking for a bit of reason in this whole affair. Let us hope that a reasonable solution for the post-EU future of UK science, as outlined in some of those links, is sought.
Sorry, Fultonius, if my semi-rhetorical question seemed overly aggressive, it wasn't meant to be. After I'd posted I did search those headlines and found that three of the negative ones were The Guardian, three the BBC and one FT but also, predictably, the green (positive) one was the Express. It's surely not a slight on anyone to point out that pre-referendum bias in reporting has continued post-referendum.
Quote
PwC forecasts slowdown in Northern Ireland economy after Brexit result
Quote
PwC forecasts no post Brexit recession for Northern Ireland
These two stories are reporting exactly the same thing, a 0.2% growth prediction for the NI economy, but as you've quite rightly noted there's a different emphasis in the headline. The negative one is the BBC, and the more positive one is the Irish Times. This to me is interesting, but I'm just making an observation.
Just as during the campaign, there's a lot of exaggeration on either side of the argument. What I'm hoping for now - from UK/EU politicians, the mainstream media and in public discourse - is civility, balance and rational thought.
-
From the London School of Economics blog...
David Davis has demonstrated a decidedly muddled understanding of trade policy (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/david-davis-muddled-understanding-of-trade-policy/)
The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36684876).
-
You didn't emphasise the bit in the first paragraph where it says there is no precedent so it's all a bit hypothetical?
-
We are in uncharted territory where there be an assortment of dragons to be dealt with.
-
You didn't emphasise the bit in the first paragraph where it says there is no precedent so it's all a bit hypothetical?
I didn't need to, if people are bothered they'll do exactly as you have done and go and read the article in full for themselves. That is the way the Web works, linking between sources of information so there is no need to regurgitate every single point. I purposefully chose to link to that particular article where the authors had analysed the claim Cecilia Malmstrom made whilst being interviewed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222), as it gives more in-depth analysis of the claim and how things might pan out than the interview itself.
The law isn't hypothetical though, it is as stated, but as the article states and you've picked up on its never been tested. That doesn't mean that just because its not been tested the law won't be borne out, its quite reasonable to expect it to be, but its possible it won't be.
Beyond this the blog post highlights that its a rather fanciful of Davis and the government to think that they will be able to negotiate trade agreements quickly, the precedent is that they take a long time. There is also the problem that the civil service currently only has about 50 trade negotiaters and need to recruit many more (https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/opinion/there%E2%80%99s-global-shortage-trade-negotiators-%E2%80%93-here%E2%80%99s-how-whitehall-can-get-team-it), making the task of undertaking trade negotiations simultaenously with many countries even more challenging.
-
Ah ok you imply something as fact in the hope that someone else has to read the link to discount what you say as fact. What a wonderful way to use the web. No wonder people second guess each other all the time. Brilliant.
-
Ah ok you imply something as fact in the hope that someone else has to read the link to discount what you say as fact. What a wonderful way to use the web. No wonder people second guess each other all the time. Brilliant.
I am not an expert on any of these matters, I read what I can to inform myself. On a forum where people discuss topics that none of them are experts in it is only sensible to share thoe sources of information we use to inform ourselves so that others can read them themselves. This is a wonderful way to use the web and is the intention with which Berners-Lee designed the Web to work, sharing information, which previously had a technical barrier to it requiring people to be a little more IT savvy than the average computer user was willing to invest time in learning.
I don't, nor would I, retype or copy and paste a whole article into a forum so that it is perfectly represented, that is a complete and utter waste of time, when I can instead link to it, which is quicker and more informative, because unless I copy and pasted the whole article you can guarantee some prick like you would come along and say "Ah but you missed out X", so instead the best solution is to link to it and let people go and read it for themselves.
Had I wanted to imply something I would state it without linking to further information because, having read the article, I was fully aware that there was no precedent. If I wanted to imply or give others the impression that its not been tested why would I link to the full article that goes into to detail and digs into the claim?
Whats is it about this that you're struggling to get your head around? It seems to me you're just purposefully trolling. :icon_321:
-
Do I need to remind you of the forum rules you're so quick to remind others of?
-
Do whatever you like.
I made the personal attack (calling you a ), considered a bannable offence but noted as 'fair enough' if someone is trolling, because.....I think you are trolling, which is itself a bannable offence.
Instead of trolling try explaining what it is you don't like about the process of linking to articles I describe above.
-
I see your defense for your attack is that I'm trolling. Brilliant. I explained it in the post immediately after your post but you obviously didn't see it.
Is there any reason slack line is still a member of this forum?
-
Intelligent people can justify anything they want, can't they Slackers.
You'll be putting a cock on your avatar next and saying it's not a cock but a bell curve.
-
Why would he have an avatar? He shouldn't be on here again.
If there's anything I've learnt from this personal attack it's don't react in anger else you spell "defence" wrong :(
-
It's probably more important than 'man grows record size cucumber' or the usual nothing's happening summer news ;)
Had a Terry Pratchett moment there and thought I'd picked up my Kobo.
-
I know Dense is joking but if everyone who called anyone a twat (or worse) on here was banned then there'd be nobody left. I'd definitely have been banned about 1000 times.
So stop being a cunt Dense. 😝
-
Why would he have an avatar? He shouldn't be on here again.
If there's anything I've learnt from this personal attack it's don't react in anger else you spell "defence" wrong :(
That's ok Dence, easy mitsake...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
-
60 pages what the fuck?
Anyone got the TL;DR?
*logs back out*
-
The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36684876).
Technically, Ms Malmstrom will most probably be correct. But it does rather beg the question what penalties the EU could practically apply if we do carry out negotiations with a third party during the exit process. What are they going to do, threaten to kick us out of the club?
-
Looks like even the Torygraph has got fed up with all the politics/Brexit stuff - and is focussing instead on pussy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/larry-the-cat-treated-by-vet-amid-turf-war-fracas-with-rival-pal/
-
The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36684876).
Technically, Ms Malmstrom will most probably be correct. But it does rather beg the question what penalties the EU could practically apply if we do carry out negotiations with a third party during the exit process. What are they going to do, threaten to kick us out of the club?
It's fairly widely accepted that pissing all over the previous agreements you undertook with another party, while often counter-productive, is particularly foolish when undertaken concurrently with attempting to come to new agreements with said party.
But, I mean, it's not like our economy fucking depends on trade with Europe or anything.
-
The idea that the current government can whip round and see what trade deals it can get before invoking Article 50 and going to the EU to negotiate the terms of its exit is putting the cart before the horse, because the above article fails to mention that its illegal for the UK (or any other EU member) to undertake trade negotiations until after it has left the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36684876).
Technically, Ms Malmstrom will most probably be correct. But it does rather beg the question what penalties the EU could practically apply if we do carry out negotiations with a third party during the exit process. What are they going to do, threaten to kick us out of the club?
I would imagine the penalties would fall on the EU countries that would be doing the hypothetical negotiations. They are, after all still 'stuck' in the EU :whistle:
-
Why do you assume I'm talking about negotiations with EU countries? They're bound by the collective decisions made by the EU and that most likely will be sorted out as part of the Brexit deal. The rule bans us from conducting any negotiations with the rest of the world, that's going to be difficult to enforce.
I am intrigued that most 'Remain' supporters appear to fixate on the EU as if it is the be-all and end-all in the world, there's a lot of the rest of the world out there.
-
I see your defense for your attack is that I'm trolling. Brilliant. I explained it in the post immediately after your post but you obviously didn't see it.
This one....
Ah ok you imply something as fact in the hope that someone else has to read the link to discount what you say as fact. What a wonderful way to use the web. No wonder people second guess each other all the time. Brilliant.
I explained very clearly why I linked to the article and only put a brief summary of text in my post.
I note the sarcasm in "What a wonderful way to use the web", perhaps you could explain why you think my explanation is an inappropriate use of the web?
Or is there no scope for being sarcastic and you therefore can't be bothered to explain yourself?
You'll be putting a cock on your avatar next and saying it's not a cock but a bell curve.
No, I'm more mature than that. I read Lee's criticism which amounts to "You shouldn't have linked to an article with only a short summary of its content, you should have re-written it in full covering every nuanced point" and I took the time to explain my actions and why I use links. I await an explanation of why that is felt to be an inappropriate use of the web. In light of the criticism its ironic that Lee actually did click through and read at least the opening paragraphs of the article!
-
I am intrigued that most 'Remain' supporters appear to fixate on the EU as if it is the be-all and end-all in the world, there's a lot of the rest of the world out there.
I would imagine that the EU would like nothing more than a way to avoid an extended period of uncertainty, followed by two years of complex negotiation while at the same time setting a handy precedent for any future departures.
-
Never mind that Prof. Duggan made it clear before the Referendum that nobody will want to negotiate until the rUK's future relationship with the EU becomes clear and that the UK doesn't have the capacity to handle anything else until first the Brexit negotiations and then ensuing trade talks with the EU are finished.
Oh I forgot we've had enough of "experts".
In which case, I suggest we swiftly start trade talks with the 2 most technologically adavnced nations on Earth - Wakanda and Latveria.
In particular can we please send Boris to negotiate with the Latverian head of state.
I look forward to his comments and the sunsequent consequences.
-
Shame about ARM, I suppose. Although since the 80s UK manufacturing seems to have been getting flogged to foreign bidders no matter the circumstances, the decade, or the government of the day.
And yet more bad news for determind catastrophe-addicts: bank of england report shows no clear evidence of a sharp brexit slowdown. Or good news to some. Depends on your outlook.
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/20/ftse-100-smashes-6700-but-pound-flounders-below-131-as-investors/)
IMF slashes UK growth forecasts after Brexit
'Pound breaks $1.31 after UK jobless rate falls to fresh 11-year low
European bourses edge higher on robust earnings results
FTSE 100 poised to close above 6,700 for the first time since August 2015
UK unemployment falls to 4.9pc in the three months to May
Bank of England surveys shows no clear evidence of sharp Brexit slowdown
FTSE 250 just 2pc off pre-Brexit levels
'12:02pm
BoE agents report encouraging to the UK business community
Following the release of the Bank of England's agents report which showed that there is no clear evidence of sharp Brexit slowdown, Adam Tyler, chief executive of the National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers reacts:
"Coupled with the robust jobs data published this morning, this latest report from the Bank of England will provide considerable encouragement to the UK business community.
"The findings are certainly consistent with what we are seeing on the ground, namely that most businesses are carrying on more or less as normal.
"Businesses are monitoring events closely, especially news surrounding future trading relations, but the corporate paralysis some suggested has simply not materialised.
BoE
"It's not quite business as usual, but for many businesses in many sectors it's not far off. The challenge now is to ensure businesses continue to receive the funding and support they need in the uncertain times ahead. Again, there is no sign, as yet, that bank funding has dried up.
"Businesses appear to have taken a very pragmatic view on recent political events. Be cautious, certainly, but don't be overwhelmed."
Just a small story in the papers. If it were a story from the BoE about 'danger to UK economy/jobs/growth/gritstone' it would be headline fare. Strange world isn't it.
1 month now since brexit - still plenty of time yet for economic catastrophe of the scale predicted by the sages on here... :)
As it turns out there was time before the full month was up for that news to come through
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864273
Ok, not a catastrophe certainly in line with remainers predictions. Now back to the predictions of the Brexiters.........
BTW I'm not suggesting that this is any more valid as a prediction than the rosy picture you paint above but just pointing out that there is a long way to go and whilst the best case that's been outlined seems to be 'Maybe not as bad as all the doom mongers predicted' the worst case cannot be ruled out.
-
So May is talking a hard Brexit but I somehow doubt she will fully walk the talk.
Of more immediate concern is the effect this posturing is having on Sterling.
Any views (habrich) at what level of devaluation would force or provoke an interest rate rise? Dollar parity?
-
After several weeks of talking to European leaders, she suddenly decides "Hard" is the only way.
Because she knows that's all she can deliver, she's been told clearly and realises this is the only position that won't make her look like a whipped puppy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So May is talking a hard Brexit but I somehow doubt she will fully walk the talk.
Of more immediate concern is the effect this posturing is having on Sterling.
Any views (habrich) at what level of devaluation would force or provoke an interest rate rise? Dollar parity?
This is interesting, if so inclined.
You might want to watch what happens on Friday at the BOE gathering:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eur/5569-pound-to-euro-outlook-for-the-next-five-days/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Lucy Lillicrap is forecasting a long tailed hammer no less.
-
Lucy Lillicrap is forecasting a long tailed hammer no less.
But what's Linda Lovelace's position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lucy Lillicrap is forecasting a long tailed hammer no less.
But what's Linda Lovelace's position?
A safe distance from Donalds small hands...
-
I do wonder, how much this punditry becomes "self fulfilling" prognostication...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What's the angle? They knew it would be shit for a bit, everybody did, why report that it's shit at this moment in time?
Shit for a bit, looks like it's going to be shit for decades.
I think this is probably the angle, the good ship UK being hijacked by pirates and then forced into the rocks. Pirate crew on the bridge, captain St Theresa, long Jon "bozzer", verity"fox", and the hamster Hammond, Pretti "p" all asleep at the wheel.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/11/pound-pressure-city-fears-hard-brexit-bank-of-england-business-live (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/11/pound-pressure-city-fears-hard-brexit-bank-of-england-business-live)
I am just wondering when will people decide enough is enough.
What a freaking mess.
All looks very unpatriotic to me.
-
So May is talking a hard Brexit but I somehow doubt she will fully walk the talk.
Of more immediate concern is the effect this posturing is having on Sterling.
Any views (habrich) at what level of devaluation would force or provoke an interest rate rise? Dollar parity?
Sorry, in maelstrom of reports today, this slipped my notice until this evening. A more direct opinion. It won't.
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/5571-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-today-fools-errand
Also, at time of posting, this Tuesday eve, the pound seems to be at parity with the Euro (lack of capital intended); all bar 9 Euro cents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/01/liam-fox-pre-brexit-deal-setback-european-union (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/01/liam-fox-pre-brexit-deal-setback-european-union)
Looks as though things are going well from our chief Britshit negotiator. Dr Foxy.
Britshit was so important, St Theresa took her normal Swiss alp hols for Christ sake!
Who'd thought it, £ down by 20%
Petrol creeping up.
Apple computers up by £500.
Welfare state propping up big business, Nissan the first of many.
Things just get better and better, we are on the up!
Britshit means well Britshit.
-
Now, now. None of this defeatist talk. The people have spoken.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161101/1dff7764e50e5cf989ee9e5bba555673.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The people have obviously spoken from the toilet.
Matt you've run out of paper.
Oh Britshit.
-
Still hope:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
-
The more I see from the Government the more convinced I am that they are trying to make it look like they are serious about it whilst actually trying to make it guaranteed to fail. All this talk of hard Brexit does not square with the Nissan letter, which would seem to suggest very soft/ no Brexit. Still don't think it will happen.
-
Interesting perspective. Make Brexit seem so bad that when they inevitably don't deliver there is less of an outcry, more relief?
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
I sense a degree of attempted statesmanship from May where she will want to be seen to be a "strong leader" (i.e. divisive / Thatcheresque) and been seen to push through with Brexit but even when at least half the country don't want it. Even she can't be so stupid to not see privately that it would be an absolute fucking disaster. The question is will the Tory top brass put the genuine national interest ahead of their career progression? Track record on that is poor.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html#comments (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html#comments)
A lot of frothing going on at the daily wail too.
Nearly 4,000 comments already.
Farage raging so must be a good thing, taking back control and sovereignty...
-
When a country is as closely split ,on a simple yes/no issue, of this magnitude and import; the notion that 48(and a bit)% of that country are simply "unimportant traitors", is fucking nauseating.
Just as it would be, had the result gone the other way. It's fucking ridiculous situation and Cameron and co. should be fucking shot for putting us here.
Regardless of your views on in/out, surely everyone must be dismayed by this farce.
The absolute, out-and-out lies of the leave and remain campaign should be treated as criminal.
Though personally I think that would lead to far more prosecutions from the leave campaign.
It's shit, we will all suffer to some degree, there seem to be no positives emerging and the best take seems to be that things haven't quite collapsed yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwWrZlXXcAA_tlK.jpg)
-
True, I have a Aunt, who reads the Fail religiously and is vocal in her support for Brexit.
Ironically, her only son/child is a lecturer in Barcelona, has lived in France and Spain for 25 years and publicly denounced his dear old Ma.
They haven't spoken since early August.
It makes me giggle...
[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If the Britshitters are unhappy with courts here they could always lodge their appeal with the Euro Courts! ;D
-
Pointless exercise. Turkeys don't vote for christmas.
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161103/90dc0e83964100141611dab8eba25858.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161104/60b148af5765ab51cb656302602b37db.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Pointless exercise. Turkeys don't vote for christmas.
no - in this case they voted for Bernard Matthews :D
-
You've probably all seen this but it's worth linking... genius... :punk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwsQ_5Wm4oo
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161104/e76b57d29edb99b955e1d5fc84edde8e.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Loving this one:
From the BBC report today.
"Today's report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies reveals the difficulties ahead.
It suggests that given the slowdown predicted in the economy the chancellor will be dealing with a public finances outlook £25bn worse than predicted in the Budget last March.
With no changes in policy - and that's a major assumption given that Mr Hammond is (a) a new chancellor and (b) has already spoken of a "fiscal reset" - the IFS says tax revenues will be £31bn lower.
That will be partially offset, the IFS says, by the £6bn the government may regain by ending its contributions to the EU budget."
Potentially lose £31bn to save £6bn.
Except of course, for at least the next two years, we still have to pay the £6bn...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
At the risk of being accused of being biased for linking to an article....
Scottish government seeks to intervene in Brexit case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299)
-
Fuck that.
THEY'VE MADE TOBLERONES 6% SMALLER.
AND CHANGED THE SHAPE
JEYSUS FUCKETY FUCK FUCK
We're all doomed. And I've run out of tricks to make the text EVEN MORE ANGRY
-
Fuck that.
THEY'VE MADE TOBLERONES 6% SMALLER.
AND CHANGED THE SHAPE
JEYSUS FUCKETY FUCK FUCK
We're all doomed. And I've run out of tricks to make the text EVEN MORE ANGRY
I don't know how Mondelez are expecting us to eat them with that shape... Gone are the days where you have a triangle each :wavecry:
-
I bet brexiteers only eat Yorkies anyway..
(despite them being owned by the Swiss... shhhh)
-
Fuck that.
THEY'VE MADE TOBLERONES 6% SMALLER.
AND CHANGED THE SHAPE
JEYSUS FUCKETY FUCK FUCK
We're all doomed. And I've run out of tricks to make the text EVEN MORE ANGRY
Tom forget the Tobler, Brexit means Brexit, means getting one or two fewer fish fingers in a pack but still shelling out the same money, horrific news. :boohoo:
If goods are going up between 10-20% top end climbing shoes will approach nearly £150 :o
If things pick up in the future will things go back to normal?
The whole things a mess..
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/44883a7eea53047203561de978ed5a73.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fuck that.
THEY'VE MADE TOBLERONES 6% SMALLER.
AND CHANGED THE SHAPE
JEYSUS FUCKETY FUCK FUCK
We're all doomed. And I've run out of tricks to make the text EVEN MORE ANGRY
Tom forget the Tobler, Brexit means Brexit, means getting one or two fewer fish fingers in a pack but still shelling out the same money, horrific news. :boohoo:
If goods are going up between 10-20% top end climbing shoes will approach nearly £150 :o
If things pick up in the future will things go back to normal?
The whole things a mess..
Damn fucking right. Our cellar is rapidly filling up with cases of toblerones and boxes of Scarpa's I'm stashing...
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html
Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership.
However unlikely something like this is to happen as the individual couldn't offer much reciprocal benefit to the EU, if it did whats the disadvantage to a Brexiteer? They wouldn't have to sign up. She just wants everyone to suffer together.
-
I know we're not supposed to listen to experts anymore but....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/hammond-to-borrow-extra-125-billion-as-growth-slows-pwc-says
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html
Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership.
However unlikely something like this is to happen as the individual couldn't offer much reciprocal benefit to the EU, if it did whats the disadvantage to a Brexiteer? They wouldn't have to sign up. She just wants everyone to suffer together.
“This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.
This is a time for 17 million people to forcibly divide 64m from 450m, how dare they impose a choice on people who may want it..... added Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign “Discriminating against people based on their political views shows there are no depths the EU will not sink to.
she spluttered before leaving, her exasperation dangling as painfully as her prepositions (etc etc)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote)
Things still going well this week for Britshitters.
My maths might be a bit out but if 30,000 new civil servants are needed I would have thought going rate would be £40,000 each.
That works out at 1.2e9 on my calc or £1,200,000,000?
So peanuts really.
-
And with our overlords being addicted to austerity like a city trader is addicted to coke....I can only see that coming from "necessary cuts" elsewhere. Braw!
-
Please step forward Mikey "rude boy" Gove, from Guardian report.
Michael Gove, the former cabinet minister and leading Brexit campaigner, pressed for the UK to achieve a “quickie divorce” with the EU regardless of the economic consequences, as he raised concerns that civil servants were overcomplicating the process.
The former justice secretary, who led the Vote Leave campaign with Johnson, questioned why the UK could not just leave the EU without having settled its future relationship with the bloc after having sorted out “housekeeping” related to outstanding payments.
“Can we simplify?” Gove said. “What if I were to determine to simply leave the European Union, to trigger article 50 and to conclude the bare minimum in order to leave? What would article 50 actually require me to agree?
“For the purposes of this question, I am not worried about transitional arrangements, I am prepared to take the economic hit or to secure the economic benefits of not being inside the single market and being outside the customs union. I simply want the divorce on the quickest possible terms. What do I need in that quickie divorce?”
What a nob and simpleton.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/whitehall-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-work-arising-from-brexit-vote)
Things still going well this week for Britshitters.
My maths might be a bit out but if 30,000 new civil servants are needed I would have thought going rate would be £40,000 each.
That works out at 1.2e9 on my calc or £1,200,000,000?
So peanuts really.
Good job they are shedding jobs left, right and centre and loosing experienced Civil Servants at a rate of knots. Oh, hold on a moment, over 200 Policy jobs just gone in Sheffield :furious:
-
Didn't the whole civil service capacity thing come up on this thread before the Referendum? I do believe that the Leavers derrided such fears and suggested that the Whitehall could just, well, roll with it.
I suspect anyone with a good idea of how to make that rolling happen could be is selling such expertise for a lip-smacking daily rate.
Or to put it another way you're suggesting the civil service would remain doing things in the same way it did when we were part of the EU, if the country left the EU. That would be more than a bit silly wouldn't it? I'm no head of civil service but here's an idea - change with the demands of the situation.
It might take us a while to train staff in trade negotiation and would likely be more effective to recruit internationally to acclerate this type of work. Not something that has been addressed by leave, how we fill skills gaps at short notice that is (remember big F is going for 30,000-50,000 migrants a year, so drop of an order of magnatude).
Of course if the UK is suddenly renegotiating trade deals with everyone then the foreign trade negotiators might be a bit busy working for their own countries? After all, we're the 5th biggest economy you know and all the countries will want to do a deal with us (except the US, who has handily told us so). But these trade negotiators are probably career civil servants who wouldn't want to lose their cushty pensions for a short term contract with perfidious Albion, and who knows if they speak good enough English to draft highly complex technical documents. Sure, we could probably hire some British lawyers to do the job but they will all be salivating at the prospect of rewriting the oodles of UK law which would need to be untangled from EU law should we leave, and are we willing to pay loads of new unelected officials public servants the 100k+ a year needed to tempt them away from the private sector.
As if thinking about a massive increase in capacity in one of the more technical aspects of running the country doesn't throw up some obvious and rather difficult to solve problems, there's the obvious irony of getting in some immigrants to help us reduce our reliance on immigration. It would be funny, if it wasn't so serious.
As for the smart Leavers, who are like rich folks staying in trailers in a rain-soaked Festival of Dumb and trying not to get their chinos muddy, do you really trust your leaders to steer you through the course ahead? Boris, with his well known inability to grasp of detail. IDS, whose attempt to reform the benefits system reached about 150,000 people after six years of effort. Gove, with his flagship policy of creating new schools in areas that didn't need them, the radical destroyer whose own boss described him as "a bit of a Maoist". Steve "blue sky thinking" Hilton who wanted to close jobcentres, abolish maternity leave and alter the weather. Government by TED talk isn't my idea of fun. And, erm, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt.
You might want to divorce the principle from the personnel, but you can't. These are the people we'll have running the most complex and intricate challenge the government has faced in decades. Feeling lucky?
-
It's ok.
Bo Jo's got this.
Ffs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/u-k-s-brexit-policy-chaos-is-unacceptable-italy-s-calenda-says
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It was staringly obvious that there would be a huge amount of work for the civil service to do to untangle our system of government from the EU, however that in itself is not a reason not to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Remain and personally think it's a terrible investment of time and resource to have to go about re-legislating. However, if I was a Leave voter being told that we couldn't leave a political union that a majority of the populace was dissatisfied with simply because "it's too much work", then I'd be wondering where the CS' ambition was.
-
If you have a quiet few moments, this is worth a read:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/out-of-shape_pages_Nov2016.pdf?noredirect=1
The IPPR report ahead of the budget makes a strong case for the great challenges ahead and why we are completely unprepared for what's coming; it also looks as though the Blairite years might bear the blame for much of that...
Summed, I think, in these two plates:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161118/6db4b7fbf5ba9a7146af63efc915a1c5.png)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161118/4f1fea6c7e115c8da520a1dfaa1568ac.png)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
While I think there's little point in playing the blame game - where are where we are, I do find your summing up a little strange. Looking at the graph of investment, that you emphasise, this seems to fall steadily from (roughly) 1974-1984 and then very sharply in the periods 1990-1995 and 2008-2011.
-
Well, it was a trite summary; rather than an analysis and more than happy to be corrected. It is a character flaw of mine to posit as a statement.
However, I read the first graph as follows.
The early decline was consistent across Europe and the OECD and represents the Post Industrial decline common to most Western nations as they shifted to service economies. The global crash of 90/91 hit the UK particularly hard because we had shifted (under Thatcher) to a home owner/highly leveraged society and our housing market collapsed (the house I bought for £75k in 1990 was worth £40k by Aug 92. Sold for £78k in 2000).
What struck me was the steady decline during Labour's term, where the OECD saw small but steady growth, and I now see why the crisis of '08 hit the UK so hard.
Hard enough that despite almost a decade of QE and infinitesimal interest rates, we have hardly moved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It was staringly obvious that there would be a huge amount of work for the civil service to do to untangle our system of government from the EU, however that in itself is not a reason not to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Remain and personally think it's a terrible investment of time and resource to have to go about re-legislating. However, if I was a Leave voter being told that we couldn't leave a political union that a majority of the populace was dissatisfied with simply because "it's too much work", then I'd be wondering where the CS' ambition was.
Absolutely, but it does make a strong argument, at the very least, for taking a moment to prepare for time limited negotiations.
-
What struck me was the steady decline during Labour's term, where the OECD saw small but steady growth,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm sorry. are we looking at the same graph? I see a small fall of perhaps 2% over this pariod roughly matching the performance of the OECD and the US (Europe admittedly doing rather better). The period where we fell hopelessly behind looks like the fall of around 10% from roughly 88-93.
-
Well, it looks like a mildly positive move in OECD from 2001/2 until the crash in '08, with a similarly negative move in the UK over the same period (albeit with a dip and hook of mild recovery immediately prior to the crash).
Fairly sure I mentioned the crash of 1990 and posited my opinion for a partial reason for it's massive impact on the UK ?
I hadn't intended to lay the blame wholeheartedly upon Labour, far from it. I feel, as an Engineer (to whit, unqualified to make sound analysis) that Thatcher's great plan to "modernise" our economy seems to have left us woefully vulnerable to the vagaries of the financial markets (far more so than most Western nations) and was surprised to see the lack of recovery under Labour.
I'd lived overseas throughout that period and had viewed it as one of growth and prosperity, from a distance.
What I see in that graph is a lack of investment, leading to a vulnerability and a rather nasty hit. A hit that leaves us today below 1970 levels of investment, admittedly a Europe wide trend but far more pronounced in the UK. I also see an OECD level which has broadly retained investment over the same period.
Am viewing an illustrative graph as a PDF on an iPad without reasonable ability to scale or source figures to compare, mind you.
So, my question, does that look like a great position to be in, as we embark upon our great upheaval?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fairy nuff. There's a lot of areas where Labour should have done much better & IMO could have if they weren't so wedded to this neo-liberal economic bollocks, but given the utter shambles they inherited, collapsing health service, chronic underinvestment etc etc I don't think they could have fixed it all in such a short period. It's a lot easier/quicker to break things than it is to fix them, sadly.
Anyway no it's a disastrous place to be but I doubt even an economy like Germany's could pull this stunt without massive hardship.
-
Brexit Britain May Not Have the Clout When It Comes to New Trade Deals (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/brexit-britain-may-not-have-the-clout-when-it-comes-to-new-trade-deals)
Not clear whether the UKs contribution has been extracted from the EUs...
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iMR1tyxuFD5A/v1/-1x-1.png)
-
Chris Riddell is one of my favourite artists and I love the way he brings things to life.
I'd guess everyone has seen the Telegraph letter this is taken from but this (I hope) renders it less snarky and more Monty Python:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/4fcef2d3febfaad24712a7cce41e7d21.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/98140495008903c7a05015e63a097a4f.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/5f5fae13f53b2bbf487c3e2a1b4b533f.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/1d8b1549765aba8390c1629a6e97a846.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It was the FT, not the Telegraph. The FT comments are vastly more well-thought out than the latter...
-
It was the FT, not the Telegraph. The FT comments are vastly more well-thought out than the latter...
Oops, my bad.
Seriously though, you seem to be implying that the Telegraph is some sort of polar opposite to, say, The Guardian; surely you jest?
It's almost as if you are describing them as thinly veiled, oversized, pompous, Tabloids for slightly posh people (possibly, not as posh as they think they are, people) of an unwavering political bent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The Telegraph does seem to attract comments (and letters, more seriously) written by complete nutters. The Guardian attracts a different kind of nutter. The Mail's comments are in another league, of course. They did a piece online about a dinosaur poster I designed, and the comments descended into a massive American creationism argument.
I did quite enjoy bits of the Telegraph from time to time, but they've since sacked nearly everyone involved with those - Harry Wallop, Tim Walker, etc...
-
Not surprising. I am becoming a tad jaded to both "wings" of politics and their respective media mouth pieces.
And religion just plain grips my shit (because magic is just so much more believable than f&#€ing simple logic).
Bah Humbug! Bring on the AI apocalypse!
I'd settle for alien-overlords if they're at least scientifically literate (interstellar travellers? Seems probable).
Is designing your thing or dinosaurs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I forget who said it, but in many respects if you stick to the FT and Vice, you are pretty much covered…
Designing and writing - I'm doing a kids book about bugs at the moment. Some of them are on here - simontyler.co.uk
-
Designing Dinosaurs? Hope they come with valid passports.
-
(I missed a :) on that)
-
Yeah, because animals just suddenly grow wings. Have you never read the bible?
Dinosaurs just dont spring up from nowhere. Someone would have to create the first pair that could then produce offspring. Consider yourself on a desert island with no ducks...... no ducks are just going to "evolve" from a crocodile.... its totally stupid.
ok so this is the same as your post on the main topic.... Again.....just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that some higher power created life...it's just that you don't understand it. Not many people do so don't feel bad.
And to think creationists would have us believe dinosaurs evolved from God!
I think most say that God put the fossils there for some reason, not that they evolved from God. Either way it's idiotic. I don't believe that this Rae.s guy believes what he is saying, I think he is provoking reaction.
I love the "consider a desert island with no ducks" bit...
-
I'd settle for one with no duck-wits...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Brilliant Yossarian. That made me smile :)
-
And excellent work there too. [emoji1]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Oldmanmatt might be interested in this piece http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/like-those-before-him-philip-hammond-is-stuck-in-a-productivity-paradox-a3403971.html form yesterday's Standard. Bear in mind how rabidly pro-tory this paper is but it makes some interesting points about investment & wages.
-
Yep, and all of this ignores the reality of impending automation of huge swathes of the labour market...
We're doomed, I tell you, DOOOOOMMEDD!
It's one of those things, I guess. If you're a reader of the likes of New Scientist, The Economist et al; you know that all those jobs at Nissan are likely to vanish within a decade. You also realise that even massive investment and a whole raft new factories constructed here, still wouldn't bring the jobs people imagine. Who's going to build a new factory without the latest automation?
Some people think that's what they've voted for, I've heard it repeatedly "more factories, more jobs!" As if it's EU regs that closed the mines, caused production to move East and brought all that automation.
How do you explain to people that coal isn't coming back?
There's no point digging Tin from a Cornish hard rock mine, when some South American can scoop it up with a JCB?
All around, academics, futurists and economists are talking about the urgency of redesigning our society for the very real prospect of advanced AI and automation making most of us, frankly, surplus to requirements.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
In my next appraisal at work, I might say I've been practicing being surplus to requirements - as part of a social science study into the impacts..
-
How long until Automation and AI replace the political class... Imagine, decisions based on fact and logic. Hahaha ha.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
How long until Automation and AI replace the political class... Imagine, decisions based on fact and logic. Hahaha ha.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Roll on the day...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Its use in law has already been discussed:
https://www.ft.com/content/5d96dd72-83eb-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5
-
Yep, and all of this ignores the reality of impending automation of huge swathes of the labour market...
We're doomed, I tell you, DOOOOOMMEDD!
It's one of those things, I guess. If you're a reader of the likes of New Scientist, The Economist et al; you know that all those jobs at Nissan are likely to vanish within a decade. You also realise that even massive investment and a whole raft new factories constructed here, still wouldn't bring the jobs people imagine. Who's going to build a new factory without the latest automation?
Some people think that's what they've voted for, I've heard it repeatedly "more factories, more jobs!" As if it's EU regs that closed the mines, caused production to move East and brought all that automation.
How do you explain to people that coal isn't coming back?
There's no point digging Tin from a Cornish hard rock mine, when some South American can scoop it up with a JCB?
All around, academics, futurists and economists are talking about the urgency of redesigning our society for the very real prospect of advanced AI and automation making most of us, frankly, surplus to requirements.
I think it is important that we don't over-look the growing phenomenon of "excess labour / labour underutilisation" leading to substitution of machines by cheap / exploited workers. In the 1970s, a car wash was a fancy machine, today it is a bunch of people on poverty wages http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37499241. Making, instaling and maintaining machines creates good jobs and furthermore allows better and better machines to develop. Hand car washes from exploited, economically displaced people are not just socially destructive but a technological dead end. We won't get fancy machines if we have too much inequality. What we need IMO is a system that uses people for service and creative roles that can't be done so well by machines (eg caring well for elderly and children) AND ensures that the profits gathered from ownership of machines feed back around to everyone so that we can all afford what the machines can provide and so ensure that all those wonderful machines do actually get invented and installed.
-
UBI... UBI... UBI. Sing it! UBI!
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
Some sort of automaton tax?
You're right about automation and new (to us) tech methods also creating jobs - but they shift where the jobs are created.
Ok - lets pretend that in 10-15 years time taxis are replaced by driverless Ubers. This will crest jobs for software people, those running the company, those building the cars, batteries etc.. those doing the mapping for the driverless cars etc.. etc.. etc... but these jobs will likely be mostly made where the tech is developed (USA?) and even then only in certain areas - whereas 300000 cab drivers will lose their work in the U.K. I'm sure history is full of examples of this sort of thing happening throughout industrialisation..
-
What we need IMO is a system that..... ensures that the profits gathered from ownership of machines feed back around to everyone
What we need and what we get may not match.
-
I think it is important that we don't over-look the growing phenomenon of "excess labour / labour underutilisation" leading to substitution of machines by cheap / exploited workers. In the 1970s, a car wash was a fancy machine, today it is a bunch of people on poverty wages
That was the point of the aricle I linked, I think. In a low-wage economy you can do stuff like this whereas in Europe they can't employ people at poverty wages so they have to invest in a better car-wash machine creating good hi-tech jobs and the potential for export.
-
Keep it classy people.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161127/79b6b5a9789e21a0ca51e9112cca14cc.jpg)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Some cheery reading:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/time-challenge-brexit-pollyannas/
-
Now, now Mr Kenny; you're sailing close to the treason wind there.
Big smile please and a rousing chorus of "White cliffs of Dover" (don't forget to well up at the last line).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm sure a wall is already being selected.
-
Brexit Secretary suggests UK would consider paying for single market access (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/01/brexit-secretary-suggests-uk-would-consider-paying-for-single-market-access)
What exactly is the benefit of leaving the EU then? :shrug: :doubt:
Would the companies that benefit financially make any contribution towards these payments? Unlikely as it would then a 'hidden tax' on them.
Ah, yes, it would mean we'd be free of all the pesky legalese, things like the European Convention on Human Rights (which might yet challenge the IPBill), working time directives and so forth. :wank: :wank: :wank:
-
Brexit Secretary suggests UK would consider paying for single market access (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/01/brexit-secretary-suggests-uk-would-consider-paying-for-single-market-access)
What exactly is the benefit of leaving the EU then? :shrug: :doubt:
Would the companies that benefit financially make any contribution towards these payments? Unlikely as it would then a 'hidden tax' on them.
Ah, yes, it would mean we'd be free of all the pesky legalese, things like the European Convention on Human Rights (which might yet challenge the IPBill), working time directives and so forth. :wank: :wank: :wank:
Or, to put it another way, UK wants to have access to single market, for which Davis proposes we pay but have no influence over its regulation...
Boris: Free Movement
Davis: Contributions
Once Fox admits we'll have to abide by regulations it'll be the unholy trinity...
-
Brexit Secretary suggests UK would consider paying for single market access (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/01/brexit-secretary-suggests-uk-would-consider-paying-for-single-market-access)
Or as I just read on Twitter...
David Davis wanted to leave Netflix but then secured a special deal where he pays them £7.49 a month in return for access to their content.
https://twitter.com/carlmaxim/status/804281650230231040 (https://twitter.com/carlmaxim/status/804281650230231040)
-
Brexit Secretary suggests UK would consider paying for single market access (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/01/brexit-secretary-suggests-uk-would-consider-paying-for-single-market-access)
What exactly is the benefit of leaving the EU then? :shrug: :doubt:
Would the companies that benefit financially make any contribution towards these payments? Unlikely as it would then a 'hidden tax' on them.
Ah, yes, it would mean we'd be free of all the pesky legalese, things like the European Convention on Human Rights (which might yet challenge the IPBill), working time directives and so forth. :wank: :wank: :wank:
There is another side to the story as usual, not that you'd know about it from the filter bubble of talking to climbers or reading ukb threads.
A trade tariff is, in effect, the same as 'paying to access the single market'.
And one benefit of leaving the EU is it opens up the freedom to set up trade deals with anyone we want to globally. Currently as a member of the EU, we can't.
-
A trade tariff is, in effect, the same as 'paying to access the single market'.
Yes I understand that.
And one benefit of leaving the EU is it opens up the freedom to set up trade deals with anyone we want to globally. Currently as a member of the EU, we can't.
How easy are these to negotiate? I've read that its somewhat contingent on your economy and how powerful it is, in terms of global imports, which if this is accurate (Bloomberg seems a reliable source) suggests the UK is lacking in on a global scale and would therefore struggle to have much bargaining power when they get round the table with countrys X, Y, Z, A1, A2, Z180
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iMR1tyxuFD5A/v1/-1x-1.png)
There is then the pragmatic issue of having the staff to negotiate these trade deals which I believe has already been covered in this thread but the UK lacks such staff. That they seem to take years to negotiate too is a rather tricky confounder to achieving a nice custom trade deal (albeit likely governed by WTO regulations)
Employing them and also the wealth of lawyers required to disentangle existing laws in a country that is ostensibly still under 'measures of austerity' doesn't really cast a very rosy tint on prospects, even after searching outside the 'filter bubble' you suggest everyone else is living in (for the record I've taken to reading the Financial Times of late for information on Brexit as it seems fairly balanced).
Add into the mix the devaluation of the pound and the contraction of the economy its not looking that rosy really, regardless of the benefits of being able to negotiate your own trad deal.
I would really like to see some more positive estimates of the consequences but am reading very little because of my filter bubble the vast majority of supposed benefits appear to be heavily offset by costs and weakened position in the global economy.
-
And one benefit of leaving the EU is it opens up the freedom to set up trade deals with anyone we want to globally. Currently as a member of the EU, we can't.
But we have global trade deals via the EU. We can't negotiate our own deals, but we can(could) influence the EU deals. I'm always a bit baffled by the Brexiteers 'we can know look to the rest of the world' rhetoric as we always could. Our biggest export market is the US (if you take Europe as countries, not as 'the EU'), only 50% of our exports go to the EU. It's not like suddenly all these opportunities will open up and I really can't believe that we are going to be able to negotiate much better terms.
Slight aside but I was also listening to an interesting podcast (Times Red Box or one of the FT ones so not exactly left liberal though probably remain biased) that pointed out that we will probably fail to get our trade deals sorted pout in time. This didn't come as a surprise but what did was the fact that we can't just drop onto WTO terms, there's actually quite a bit of work to be done in order to trade under the WTO terms and we'd need to start pretty soon in order to get it all in place. Baring in mind we don't have enough civil servants for any of this, that seems unlikely to happen.
-
The eu doesn't have trade deals with a great many countries.
-
The eu doesn't have trade deals with a great many countries.
50 as of 2013 (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/november/tradoc_150129.pdf)
Approximately 1/3 of the world market by value (http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/)
All of which we go if we exit.
-
The eu doesn't have trade deals with a great many countries.
All the colours look quite similar but there do seem to be a few in place or being currently negotiated.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.pdf
-
The eu doesn't have trade deals with a great many countries.
It has trade deals with 50 countries (https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/).
Thats a good head start (of around 50) on the position the UK would be in should this go ahead. Given the lack of trained negotiators in this country and the length of time such negotiations take when there are people who can do the job how do you (or anyone else) propose the UK is going to catch up?
-
A trade tariff is, in effect, the same as 'paying to access the single market'.
Is this true? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6F0inyJPDc seems to say that it isn't.
If I understand correctly the U.K. could have a free-trade agreement with the EU but still lose most of the advantages of the single market.
-
Ooops!
-
The eu doesn't have trade deals with a great many countries.
It has trade deals with 50 countries (https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/).
Thats a good head start (of around 50) on the position the UK would be in should this go ahead. Given the lack of trained negotiators in this country and the length of time such negotiations take when there are people who can do the job how do you (or anyone else) propose the UK is going to catch up?
That's a question that I couldn't possibly answer so why ask it?
Not that I'd frame it in the same way ('catch up').
-
You're also ignoring the obvious point that a block of 28 countries each with their own self-interests makes negotiating *anything* a torturous exercise (Belgium/Canada e.g.) compared to one country negotiating with another. That point shouldn't be overlooked, but no doubt it will be every time someone on here talks about negotiations.
-
That's a fair point.
Do you agree though that we're actually in a pretty weak negotiating position? What have we got to offer? Lot's of debt and a fleeing financial services market?
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
I'm typing on my phone on a bus hence the brevity but -
'70 million relatively wealthy consumers' is the first thing that spings to mind
-
You're also ignoring the obvious point that a block of 28 countries each with their own self-interests makes negotiating *anything* a torturous exercise (Belgium/Canada e.g.) compared to one country negotiating with another. That point shouldn't be overlooked, but no doubt it will be every time someone on here talks about negotiations.
Yes it does but this is far more of a problem for Canada (which has paid half the negotiating costs and risks not gaining access to the biggest market in the world ) than it is for Begium that has paid 1/56th of the costs and risks losing access to well... Canada .
-
I believe consensus, whilst taking longer to achieve, is a good thing since it tempers extremism. Countries may have their own self-interests but in essence we are all human beings and have the same needs and wants so there shouldn't be that much difference. A block of 28 countries might be more difficult to negotiate with but together they have stronger power at the negotiating table than any individual country on its own something else that shouldn't be overlooked either.
There is no emoticon for rhetorical question, which was the framing of the how to 'catch up'.
There is the very serious problem of the UK lacking trade negotiators who are skilled and able to enter into the trade negotiations you are suggesting we have "the freedom to set up trade deals with anyone we want to globally". Just because there is, as you correctly suggest, the possibility of setting up trade deals on our own doesn't mean its going to happen even if we have the capacity to do so (which we don't) since its contingent on other countries wanting to enter into a trade deal with us. It seems to me the UK doesn't have a lot to bring to the table in that regard (see above figure). We may well differ in opinion on that point but there is no escaping the fact that the UK doesn't have enough skilled people to do the work you are suggesting. Heres one suggestion (http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/opinion/there%E2%80%99s-global-shortage-trade-negotiators-%E2%80%93-here%E2%80%99s-how-whitehall-can-get-team-it) from someone working in the area but that doesn't sound very promising either.
I'm yet to hear anything cogent from the current government as to how they are going to go about executing the UKs extraction from the EU, the nitty gritty of small matters like what they are going to seek in terms of trade with the remaining EU body, how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like etc. etc. . Please do widen my breadth of knowledge if you've information on this, but we're edging closer to Mays March 2017 deadline without any details.
-
how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like
Just on this - the answer is supposed to be that the great repeal bill will pass existing EU legislation into British law and that we can amend it at our leisure at a later date through the normal activities of parliament. (https://fullfact.org/law/ask-full-fact-great-repeal-bill/)
If I may, the question isn't how to disentangle ourselves from EU law, but rather how to disentangle ourselves from EU obligations, e.g. longer term infrastructure spending, research, etc. And on this the HM Government are silent.
-
I'm yet to hear anything cogent from the current government as to how they are going to go about executing the UKs extraction from the EU, the nitty gritty of small matters like what they are going to seek in terms of trade with the remaining EU body, how UK law is to disentangle itself from the bits of EU law that it doesn't like etc. etc. . Please do widen my breadth of knowledge if you've information on this, but we're edging closer to Mays March 2017 deadline without any details.
I think Slackers you and I come from extreme opposite ends of a spectrum that describes the need to know details are exactly correct before deciding on an action. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the utility of good planning, I do. But most significant courses in life have no certain outcomes when you start them.
Some of the commetntary in media and on here sounds to me like it comes from people who would find it impossible to leave the house on an uncertain agenda without suffering a crippling bout of neurosis about something or other. Fair enough, it's about the most important event our country has faced in recent times and people rightly want reassurance. But you aren't going to get the 'nitty-gritty'details you seek because until negotiations begin nobody knows exactly how the dynamics will pan out. That shouldn't be, but is, used in a tone of fear-mongering by those who's bias it rewards. The goevernment are right not to pander to a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail, nor would I expect them to have much more than genaral answers until we're well into the two years deadline.
-
Pete - I agree that it's easy to be neurotic about Brexit and worry a lot about it. But ~ lets face it what's happened so far doesn't inspire much confidence does it...?
If there's a bad election result (i.e. One you don't like) then at least there's a chance to reset in 5 years.. that hope doesn't exist for those against it.
-
A statement of what they want to achieve hardly seems " a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail".
I assume it will be question 1 day 1 from the EU when negotiations actually start.
-
I don't expect huge amounts of details about something which is very uncertain but some details would be reassuring to many concerned people and businesses. There is little reassurance in what has been said because it is so vague, whether thats because there is no plan or there is some desire to keep things secret I don't know, I suspect the former because if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the High Court parliament will vote on whatever plans there and they'll instantly become public record and impossible to hide from those you are going to negotiate with.
Taking tomtom's analogy with an election parties have manifesto's so you've an idea of what you're voting for. Its patently clear that a large portion of what was 'promised' by the Leave campaign was at best baseless and in many cases outright lies. That doesn't serve as much of a basis or starting for then progressing towards the stated goal which beyond "Leave the EU" is pretty vague.
A good starting point, in or out of the Single Market. It looks like the EU is unlikely to budge on having to accept free movement of people if this access is desired, that will be a fairly bitter pill for whom that was the basis of their 'Leave' vote but its a reality that needs dealing with. Nor do I think the consideration of who is going to do the work of trade negotiations is really the nitty-gritty details, the work that they would be doing is. Iits a fairly fundamental question to any undertaking, whether thats business or government, to ask whether there is the capacity to undertake the task and if the answer is at present no then where will it come from. This could even be grounds for delaying the triggering of Article 50 if there are not enough civil servants to undertake the negotiations it triggers.
-
Isn't one of the fundamental issues that we/they cannot negotiate any deals until the art.50 notice is up? As in, we can't negotiate a new deal, whilst still members; all we can negotiate is the terms of divorce. The terms of future access are supposed to be un-negotiable before the finalisation? Hence talk of interim deals (because it's never been done before, though I'm sure at least one EU leader said even that was impossible)?
If that's wrong, what is the score?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
The goevernment are right not to pander to a neurotic need for constant update and exact detail, nor would I expect them to have much more than genaral answers until we're well into the two years deadline.
This wouldn't be risible if they had something better to indicate than the gnomic 'Brexit means Brexit', but they don't. In that context it is ridiculous.
Furthermore there is no mandate for our cabinet in camera to determine the form and direction of our departure without public scrutiny, neither from a GE nor from the terms of the referendum.
Fox, Patel, Johnson, Davis et al don't stand before the house muttering vacuously because they have the inscrutable cunning of a fox.
They do it because they haven't the competence for the task ahead.
-
Isn't one of the fundamental issues that we/they cannot negotiate any deals until the art.50 notice is up? As in, we can't negotiate a new deal, whilst still members; all we can negotiate is the terms of divorce.
If that's wrong, what is the score?
That's my understanding. I'm guessing though that whether or not to leave the EEA , customs Union etc form part of that 'divorce' settlement.
-
No idea about legality of doing this, if it's a problem I'll delete.
Article from the FT, usually paywalled for me.
"You can save yourself a lot of time and trouble by taking people at their word. The British, heirs to an artful conversational culture in which nobody says what they mean, are uniquely bad at it. After the second world war, British governments never believed Franco-German talk of European unity. When it turned out to be more than metaphorical, London did not think they would act on plans to deepen the project into social policy. When they did, it was sure they would stop short of a monetary union.
Sample the FT’s top stories for a week
You select the topic, we deliver the news.
Select topic
Enter email addressInvalid email
Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.
As recently as January, David Cameron, prime minister at the time, assumed the EU was bluffing when it ruled out a drastic revision of his country’s terms of membership. The story of Britain in Europe is a story of naked intent mistaken for something more sophisticated, of ironists confounded by continental literalism.
It is happening again, even as the relationship ends. Everyone in and around British politics strains to understand, and competes to influence, Theresa May’s negotiation strategy — as though the content of the eventual exit deal is largely a matter of what the prime minister asks for.
When scrawled notes from a ministerial meeting are snapped by a photographer, industrialists study them and fear for their access to the single market. When a parliamentary seat falls to pro-European Liberal Democrats in south-west London, hope rallies of a softer exit. Zealots on both sides pore over domestic court rulings as if they contain pointers to the final outcome.
You can lose your mind to this conjecture. There will always be another clue, another government leak to suggest the prime minister’s mind is turning this way or that. The trouble with all the eagle-eyed Mayology is its Anglocentric premise: that the British side of the negotiations is the decisive variable. It is a touching thought.
The EU is not a passive party. It is, by population and output, the preponderant force in the talks. It has decades of experience in sparring with nations, including Norway and Switzerland, that cheekily desire a happy niche in its project short of full membership. It will do more to set the terms of Britain’s extrication than Britain itself, which was always the best reason to stay.
It is also characteristically candid about what those terms will be, if only we could switch off our Wildean irony radar and accept words at face value. When Donald Tusk says the “only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit”, there is nothing in history to suggest the European Council president is giving us his smoking lounge repartee. When Angela Merkel, German chancellor, talks up the indivisibility of the four freedoms, a good time-saving exercise is to believe her. When in the summer EU leaders rejected informal talks with Britain in advance of Article 50 being tabled, ministers in London smiled at the charade and waited for the European line to waver. They still wait.
These are just the EU’s public statements but there are no more encouraging whispers being exchanged in private. If David Davis has emerged as the Eurosceptics’ lonely realist, airing the prospect that the “best possible access” to the European market will come at some cost, it is because he has done the basic work of diplomacy as minister for EU exit. He has talked to enough European capitals to lose the illusions of the summer. Paris is the hardest in rhetoric but Berlin is no softer in substance.
The EU makes up for the opacity of its institutions with the transparency of its interests. It cannot afford to set the precedent that a member state’s exit can lead to a better life outside or substantial concessions to stay inside. If it does, every nation will chance its arm and the union will crumble. Abhor this brute self-preservation all you like: it is honest self-preservation. When Ms Merkel said favourable terms for Britain would create a Europe in which everyone does “what they want”, Eurosceptics flinched with their practised blend of outrage and vindication, as though she had let the cynical truth slip in an unguarded moment. But when did she claim otherwise? When did anyone?
What happens in London is less than half the story in the coming years. Yes, British business should assume a hard exit, but not because their own government especially desires one. Yes, Mrs May manages to be vague and bullheaded at the same time, but even a masterly prime minister would have to reckon with the EU’s strategic interest in making exit hurt. Yes, our internal politics merits some analysis, but not as much as the other side’s. They are telling us what we need to know. Human communication is not always and everywhere a kind of intricate dance.
janan.ganesh"
https://www.ft.com/content/37b5933c-b884-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Sorry, ill child, no sleep, too much time to read; interesting though:
Liam Fox statement.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-12-05/HCWS316/
Politics today editorial:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I've been looking forward all week to this week's episode of More or Less:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084dqpr
Best listened to after re-reading some of the predictions made pre-referendum.
In short - some economists at influential institutions such as the Bank of England, the IMF and the Treasury, let their personal bias colour their predictions of the economic effect of brexit; and, it's incredibly difficult/impossible to predict confidence. Experts ::)
:tease:
The BBC - not known for it's pro-brexit bias - also has a good article on where we're at 5 months on, including some interesting figures on hate crime.
Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418
The trade figures in that bbc article have been updated - to show a large narrowing of the trade deficit over the last two months. A record rise in the export of goods, here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/09/record-uk-exports-drive-huge-narrowing-trade-deficit/
Finally, The Spectator has this thought-provoking piece:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/gdp-data-shows-strong-growth-uk-economy-brexit-vote-whod-thunk/
It's worth pasting here in full as a reminder to those whose chief line of argument was to dig out the economic-expert-stick to hit the 'dumb racist xenophobes' over the head with:
''Soon, the weekly data started to rather contradict the mood of panic – which baffled the various experts, many of whom had by then forecast an immediate recession. Pieces of good economic news were dismissed as deceptive snapshots. And when Q2 GDP came in looking very strong – 0.6 per cent (it was revised up to 0.7 per cent today) – that was dismissed as containing just a few weeks of post-referendum data. The real story, it was said, will come when the Q3 data arrives for July, August and September.
Well, that data was published this morning, and it is (again) stronger than expected, up by 0.5pc quarter-on-quarter – far better than the consensus estimate of 0.3pc. And yes, the total 0.5pc is a tad slower than 0.7pc of Q2 – but that was lifted by a freak surge in industrial production during April.
This 0.5pc growth for Q3 of 2016 is exactly in line with pre-referendum OBR forecasts. And it compares with the Treasury’s hysterical forecast of a contraction between -0.1pc and -1pc (Table 2C, pdf). The reality, it turns out, was far better. While economists were in mourning, the shopping public kept calm and carried on. Britain is this year forecast to have the strongest growth of any major economy.
The question, now, is: why did so many intelligent economic analysts and commentators get it so wrong? How did some of the finest minds in Britain get themselves worked up into such a state that they predicted an immediate recession? How did the infamous Treasury dossier get out of Whitehall? When it published forecasts of an immediate GDP contraction of up to -1.0pc for Q3 alone, why wasn’t this immediately rubbished by people who should know better? Why was it treated so credulously? How could there have been an immediate collapse, given that Brexit would not have taken place? Negotiations to leave the EU haven’t started yet; there are no changes in our terms of trade. So why did anyone think the economy would have fallen off a cliff?
That isn’t to say there won’t be turbulence from Brexit – we’ll probably have slower growth in the short term, at least. The weak pound should put inflation back to normal levels (about 2.5pc next year), which should dampen consumer spending next year. But there will still be growth; no one is expected to be poorer by a penny. Let alone the £4,300pa that the Treasury absurdly suggested.
After the 2015 general election, the opinion pollsters had a long look at themselves to work out how whether groupthink had led them into error. There’s a case for the Treasury, and other economists, to work out what happened here. The behaviour during the Brexit campaign does undermine trust in government. Economic forecasts are supposed to be dispassionate. Today’s publication of the Q3 data might be a good time to ask what went wrong.''
Carry on.
-
a) the new post-coup Tories have used the noise to quietly ditch the deluded economics that the pre-coup Tories were wedded to, as well as puling every lever they have to try and keep the economy from tanking.
b) It's not yet certain that article 50 will ever be invoked or ,if it is, whether that will mean leaving the EEA.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this 'good news' is in fact 'it's not quite as bad as predicted' isn't it? And the predictions all assumed A50 would be invoked immediately. Whereas anyone can see there is a lot or wavering going on.
Carney's speech is worth a read for a less bullish brexiter viewpoint: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2016/946.aspx
In summary, the referendum threatened the economy, so we cut interest rates even further and did another massive round of QE - which is all working as hoped.
But not as good as if we had just 'carried on' and remained.
-
Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.
-
Many structures can take a bit of turbulence - if they're strong enough....
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8xE_nT3QySo
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.
While this line of thinking is popular, you will find that we are not in a post-brexit phase.
We are in a post-refendum phase. Given the turbulence that we have already seen, this might suggest that the post-brexit phase will be...
-
"some turbulence" is a breathtaking euphemism for blighting people's whole lives.
As far as I can tell this "turbulence" is likely to be a decade atl east of constant financial crisis coming straight on top of the 8 years of financial crisis we've already been put through.
-
Don't worry, it will all be worth it in the end because.. Um... Well... Anyone?
-
Or to put it another way: some turbulence is inevitable post-brexit. As was said all along.
While this line of thinking is popular, you will find that we are not in a post-brexit phase.
We are in a post-refendum phase. Given the turbulence that we have already seen, this might suggest that the post-brexit phase will be...
....A shitstorm of catastrophic proportions?? So far all we've seen is the match being struck, it's not even touched the fuse yet. The big boom from this shitcracker is yet to come.
-
Don't worry, it will all be worth it in the end because.. Um... Well... Anyone?
What's conspicuous in its absence is any war cry from the "leadership" saying "it's going to be tough, but it'll be worth in the long term for X, Y and Z".
What we seem to get is "it's not quite as bad as some predicted, and we're not going to get X, Y or Z because the EU won't let us, but we'll take the scraps left at the table while giving up any ability to influence the direction of the scrap providers (rEU)."
But at least we "bring back control"...
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
"some turbulence" is a breathtaking euphemism for blighting people's whole lives.
As far as I can tell this "turbulence" is likely to be a decade atl east of constant financial crisis coming straight on top of the 8 years of financial crisis we've already been put through.
'Constant financial crisis'??
Are these predictions of financial doom based on anything other than your own filter bubbles?
No need to answer that. But a simple check and you'll see we aren't in a recession. In 2008-11 we were.
Nor is one forecast, since the various economic forecasters changed their previous pre-referendum doom-laden forecasts to more optimistic ones post-referendum. For e.g. the IMF have 'U-turned' since before the referendum and are now predicting the UK to have the fastest growing economy of any of the major G7 economies in 2016. How is that even possible based on what everyone was predicting just a few months ago?
Of course everything's relative, no-one is growing as fast as they have in other periods of strong growth.
Fastest growing major (G7) economy in 2016 doesn't tally with us being 'in constant financial crisis' - maybe you meant you are personally? And maybe you're sore about the referendum result. But don't let your own personal bias colour predictions of doom that aren't based in reality and are against objective facts - surely that was one of the accusations (correctly) made against the more extreme brexit-campaigners.
Other viewpoints/opinions are available if you look outside your own facebook/twitter feeds.
-
Pete, just searching online for "UK financial outlook" brings up a few sources, from PwC, FT, oecd.org etc. I would not argue that growth is dire, but it's not he only indicator.
I'm no finance expert/economist but the OECD report seems to point to the boost of growth being at the expense of higher and quite rapidly increasing inflation, poor business investment and risk appetite.
Even your choice of source, the IMF, predicts "the UK's decision to leave the EU was likely to exert a permanent drag on long term growth as it cut its forecast for growth in 2017 to 1.1%"
Tell me again what we're going to gain from all this?
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
As long as the economy is doing dandy everyone living under it must be doing fine and sharing in that growth mustn't they? That would be why there's been such a dramatic increase in utilisation of food banks over the last few years....
(https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/number-of-food-supplies-2008-2016-768x293.png) (https://www.trusselltrust.org/2016/04/15/foodbank-use-remains-record-high/)
Economic quantification of growth (or otherwise) within in an economy doesn't always align with all individuals experiences within because it doesn't always follow that there is uniform shift for everyone. The rich getting richer would result in a higher mean and greater variation whilst the poor remain in the same place.
-
Other viewpoints/opinions are available if you look outside your own facebook/twitter feeds.
Is the Mail allowed - or are they guilty of "left-wing bias" from your POV as well ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612079/Brits-suffered-biggest-wages-drop-G7-French-Germans-enjoy-pay-rises-despite-working-fewer-hours-do.html
-
(In reply to Slackers, but applies to above too)
That's all very well and not being disputed by anyone is it?
But what does that have to do with us leaving the EU, bearing in mind the situation you describe had/has nothing to do with brexit and pre-dates it by a long margin? I understand our species tendency to pin whatever ills us most on whatever most easily springs to mind, of course.
You might as well blame Tony Blair. Actually that's probably not a bad option.
-
So basically what you want (what everyone wants bar a very small number of extremely wealthy) is a redistribution of wealth and a more equal society. That has very little to do directly with the brexit debate and everythiong to do with the UK government.
Fultonius - a couple of articles in the Spectator sum up my views on what benefits brexit offers us. Far better to read those than for me try to explain cack-handedly. http://www.spectator.co.uk/tag/brexit/
In short - removal of a major constraint on government decision-making. A fully accountable government with no-where to hide, instead of a government with an easy out that can make itself appear to be acting as middle-management. The option to agree trade with whoever we choose.
-
(In reply to Slackers, but applies to above too)
That's all very well and not being disputed by anyone is it?
But what does that have to do with us leaving the EU, bearing in mind the situation you describe had/has nothing to do with brexit and pre-dates it by a long margin? I understand our species tendency to pin whatever ills us most on whatever most easily springs to mind, of course.
Thought it was patently obvious, guess I was wrong.
Discussion around growth/contraction of economies can be measured not just in terms of how markets and GDP are performing relative to other time points and economies, but also in terms of something called human impact . A concern of many is that Brexit will slow down economic growth, you are countering these 'doom sayers' with metrics suggesting things aren't as bad as some predicted.
None of this quantifies the human impact that has many facets but across a society can be quantified in one dimension by the utilisation of food banks. If things go tits up then recession is quite likely, further austerity follows squeezing the poorest in society. However, if there isn't an economic recession and instead there is moderate growth that doesn't automatically mean that the worst off in society will benefit, its possible that the rich have got richer and the poor remain at the same level, but overall the economy looks better.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
That has very little to do directly with the brexit debate and everything to do with the UK government.
And who is undertaking the brexit negotiations? Surely they have a responsibility to consider the impacts not only on the economy but the whole of society? If the focus is only on one set of metrics (economic performance/strength) they could easily be misled into thinking things are dandy for everyone when that is not the case.
-
A fully accountable government
Fully accountable to who? They will no longer be fully accountable to a greater controlling hand, that's for sure.
Seems to me like the government (most likely to remain Tory) will remain true to their roots, help the rich Tory heartland voters, fuck the poor who naively voted for Brexit in the first place believing the lies they were sold that it would make their lives better, but if (or probably when) it goes to the wall, the toffs will look after own, first and foremost.
-
So the argument you seem to be making is that growth metrics such as GDP are only one way of measuring an economy and others - such as human impact - should be taken into account.
1. I agree.
2. Why then - if GDP is only one factor - not also point this argument to people when they claim that GDP is suffering as a result of brexit? The trend on this thread is to label all ills (in this case low GDP growth) on brexit. When somebody points out that we have the fastest growing economy of the G7, the line of argument switches to point out that GDP isn't all that a good indicator of an economy's health. It's a subtle shift, but a biased one nonetheless. The obvious counter is that despite lower GDP growth the human impact may be different with a government fully accountable to its public than one that isn't.
Thanks though, I'll be sure to use your point against anyone who argues that GDP is lower as a result of brexit. JB? :tease:
Ref your second paragraph regarding food banks. As I just said, this situation predates anything to do with brexit by a long way. It's pretty damming reflection of the way the UK is currently. But it's a separate debate really.
-
A fully accountable government
Fully accountable to who? They will no longer be fully accountable to a greater controlling hand, that's for sure.
Seems to me like the government (most likely to remain Tory) will remain true to their roots, help the rich Tory heartland voters, fuck the poor who naively voted for Brexit in the first place believing the lies they were sold that it would make their lives better, but if (or probably when) it goes to the wall, the toffs will look after own, first and foremost.
Well there are only so many 'toffs' and 'tory heartland voters'. They aren't an infinite pool and democracy will dispose of a government that fails to satisfy the majority - imperfect voting systems noted. The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?
-
e.g. the IMF have 'U-turned' since before the referendum
You mean a "U-turn" on forecast which took Mr Cameron's word when said that he would immediately issue A50 notification after a vote for Brexit?
To be fair growth has been stronger than expected, but looking at the longer term forecasts, which include the effects of the Brexit process, growth weakens over the coming years just as other nations' growth strengthens...
-
In short - removal of a major constraint on government decision-making. A fully accountable government with no-where to hide, instead of a government with an easy out that can make itself appear to be acting as middle-management.
Joesph Stiglitz:
"I think this illustrates a general point: that leaving the EU is not going to immunise you against bad policies. You can have bad policies in or out of the EU."
(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/09/05/interview-joseph-stiglitz-brexit-euro-mistake/)
-
Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/
-
Fultonius - a couple of articles in the Spectator sum up my views on what benefits brexit offers us. Far better to read those than for me try to explain cack-handedly. http://www.spectator.co.uk/tag/brexit/
Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...
-
Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/
That's a good piece. I guess most of us here will find more sympathy with Parris. One thing they don't cover us that this has all come at a bad time with technological development. 'Fake news' used to come in papers like the Sport and Enquirer where we knew it was a joke. Now it comes through the same websites as the real stuff. People don't know where they are, and are losing faith in facts and going with their gut.
-
Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/
To turn a section of this on its head and on you:
RIDLEY erm: I wonder, Matthew petejh, what it would take to convince you that your fears hopes about Brexit were misplaced?
(In case anyone hasn't read the piece pete linked: Matthew = remain and Ridley = leave.)
-
The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?
No, it's not the big story, it's side column. Big Story is with no credible opposition, the tories will basically have a mandate to do whatever they want without the control of Brussels and safe in the knowledge that it will be very difficult to oust them.
-
Here's a very good debate on bexit. Nothing on here really comes close, least of all from me.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/matthew-parris-vs-matt-ridley-on-brexit-bitterness/
To turn a section of this on its head and on you:
RIDLEY erm: I wonder, Matthew petejh, what it would take to convince you that your fears hopes about Brexit were misplaced?
(In case anyone hasn't read the piece pete linked: Matthew = remain and Ridley = leave.)
Ridley's answer to Parris, approximately.
E.g.
''RIDLEY: I wonder, Matthew, what it would take to convince you that your fears about Brexit were misplaced?
PARRIS: If I were completely wrong about all this, then within seven years or so our economy would be growing faster than the economies of our European partners. I would want to see a friendly and co-operative relationship between us. I would want that not to have hurt our relationship with the United States or the rest of the world, and I’d want to see Britain bounding ahead in the way that you and others have described. And then, if I’m still alive, I will write a piece for The Spectator saying I was wrong. And what about you?
RIDLEY: If in five years’ time we are lagging behind the rest of the EU economically — by the way, we may have a recession that has nothing to do with Brexit — but if we have bad relations with our EU allies that are preventing co-operation on standing up to Putin and so on, and if Theresa May has been replaced by a protectionist, then yes indeed, I will have made a mistake in voting the way I did.''
-
The big story is the lack of any credible opposition. Who else are they going to vote for?
No, it's not the big story, it's side column. Big Story is with no credible opposition, the tories will basically have a mandate to do whatever they want without the control of Brussels and safe in the knowledge that it will be very difficult to oust them.
But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted', in any way a better situation than a government that can be?
-
Because they aren't Tories.
-
Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?
And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?
How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain" (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway, but I think we can agree to disagree on that)
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
Because they aren't Tories.
Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.
-
Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?
And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?
How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain" (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway, but I think we can agree to disagree on that)
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
That's hardly a worthwhile point is it? You may as well accept governance by a bloke on a laptop in Nigeria if the only requirement is it doesn't do anything you don't like.
I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.
Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...
JB - if any one article best articulates my own feelings about the EU then it's this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/
I think that the common market is a great idea in theory. But not central european governance and ever closer union.
-
Because they aren't Tories.
Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.
I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.
The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.
-
Because they aren't Tories.
Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.
I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.
The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.
In other words you're concerned by a remote government that doesn't represent you? Sounds familiar to me.
If the opposition is weak then who's going to fix that? The only people who can fix that are the people. Seems to be a lot of people looking beyond our shores to an institution that at heart has the motive to protect itself and expand, for a solution to domestic problems entirely of our own making.
-
Because they aren't Tories.
Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.
I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.
The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.
In other words you're concerned by a remote government that doesn't represent you? Sounds familiar to me.
If the opposition is weak then who's going to fix that? The only people who can fix that are the people. Seems to be a lot of people looking beyond our shores to an institution that has it's own protection at heart, for a solution to problems entirely of our own making.
I didn't say it was my concern. Furthermore, it is weakness of our, UK, political and constitutional settlement which creates this problem.
-
I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.
For your first point - we are super easy to trade with (at the moment) because we are part of the EU. If someone wants to trade something with us - its the same rules as for all the EU countries. Miles easier than having to go through UK's own bespoke paperwork/customs etc...
For your second point - why are we constrained to being a largely white European population? As a nation we can let in as many people from anywhere as we like! Its the government thats been imposing rules on non EU immigration not the EU!
Anyway we've argued all this in the past (except the second point which I'll put down to being a mistype/understanding) during the run up to the vote...
-
point 2. A net migration of a third of a million people per annum from the eu hardly leave much scope for anyone else.
point 1. The EU can't hope to best represent every one of it's members interests and circumstances regards trade. Yes it makes trade very easy, on its terms. I'm not against a European trade agreement . I am against a government - see NAFTA as an example of a free trade agreement set up without a central government or central currency. It doesn't have to be like the EU is.
-
Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?
And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?
How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain" (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway, but I think we can agree to disagree on that)
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
That's hardly a worthwhile point is it? You may as well accept governance by a bloke on a laptop in Nigeria if the only requirement is it doesn't do anything you don't like.
I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.
Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...
JB - if any one article best articulates my own feelings about the EU then it's this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/
I think that the common market is a great idea in theory. But not central european governance and ever closer union.
It's a very worthwhile point IMO. Why? Well, if, on the whole, the EU provides benefits and one of your main motivations for ditching it is "because it's easier to get rid of those in power in Westminster than Brussels" but you can't name an instance when you would have *used* that ability... Then...Well... It's lot of upheaval for precisely nada!
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted', in any way a better situation than a government that can be?
That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.
If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.
I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.
Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.
The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.
Pete keep defending the indefensible.
-
But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted', in any way a better situation than a government that can be?
That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.
If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.
I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.
Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.
The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.
Pete keep defending the indefensible.
jfdm I stopped reading your post at 'britshitters walk away from problems'. No idea what the rest of your post says. If you want to make points that anyone else can be bothered to listen to then make them civil and avoid ridiculous mass generalistion/sweeping stereotypes.
-
Nothing new.
Ain't happened yet.
If the bugger existed, God might have a clue what the outcome will be. Other than omnipotent imaginary super-beings, no one really knows.
The balance of prediction seems to be in the negative, much of the "positive" seems neutral at best. I'd love to be convinced of the merits, and shall joyfully buy Pete et al, a pint or six if they're right.
And quoting the Spectator is as valid/biased/pointless as me quoting the New Statesman (I know, I do often, doesn't mean I don't realise).
Me:
I find it hard to see much benefit.
I find it hard to imagine us re-shaping our economy to suit.
If (IF) the financial service industry largely deserts us for the mainland, we might be screwed.
I am completely unconvinced by the unelected/big brother/remote argument (read so much now, I realise it's far more about us failing to engage).
I really hope I'm wrong. Let's face it, we better all hope that each and every remainer is wrong, 'cos it ain't gonna change now.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted', in any way a better situation than a government that can be?
That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.
If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.
I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.
Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.
The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.
Pete keep defending the indefensible.
jfdm I stopped reading your post at 'britshitters walk away from problems'. No idea what the rest of your post says. If you want to make points that anyone else can be bothered to listen to then make them civil and avoid ridiculous mass generalistion/sweeping stereotypes.
Touchy, must of hit a raw nerve.
I voted remain and now classed as a remoaner.
I just ran with that and call a brexiter Britshitter.
Shame that you didn't read the post fully but thanks for reposting it anyway.
I enjoy read your musings about the great Brexit utopia we are going to live in.
Keep defending the indefensible.
-
I didn't. It isn't worth reading anyone who characterises others in such a closed-minded way, whatever side of the vote they were on.
No-one least of all me believes in a utopia after brexit, nor after a remain vote had there been one. It's easier for you to attack my point of view (and easier to ignore any failings of your own) by believing I'm saying that.
Cheers for contributing.
-
I'd love to be convinced of the merits
You asked, felt I ought to deliver.
We're going to get less red tape. Look at what I found, from the well-respected (in policy wonk circles) blogger Rick:
"They [Leavers] claim to be able to save £33 billion* by removing EU red-tape but look at the second most expensive regulation on that list. It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."
Rock and roll, £4.6 billion! It's like a merit, but bigger, better, shinnier, Britisher.
:punk: :punk: :punk: :punk: :punk:
Just ignore this bit: "I have been hoping that, at some point during the campaign, when a Leave advocate mentioned the £33 billion in red tape, an interviewer would say, “So you want to go back to the pre-2008 banking system that led to the crash do you?” Because that’s the implication of removing the regulation. CRD IV is one piece of red-tape that makes us all a lot safer."
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/post-brexit-britain-a-deregulated-pariah-state/
-
It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."
I'm confused. I'd not heard of this before, but it looks like a financial regulatory framework? How does it cost £4.6 billion? By stopping banks doing stupid risky things that might make them a lot of money but might also cause financial collapse?
Edit - just noted the footnote.
-
Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things.
So by your thinking we shouldn't have the Scottish or Welsh assemblies and devolution?
-
Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things.
So by your thinking we shouldn't have the Scottish or Welsh assemblies and devolution?
Democracy sucks.
At least, people do, anyway.
George Carlin, I think, said something like:
"Imagine how stupid the average person is, how dumb you can be; now remember half the population are even dumber than that."
All hail the rise of the machines!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
point 2. A net migration of a third of a million people per annum from the eu hardly leave much scope for anyone else.
I believe you will find that is a third of a million net per annum of EU and non-EU citizens. But that's just like objective fact my opinion.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199)
-
It isn't worth reading anyone who characterises others in such a closed-minded way, whatever side of the vote they were on.
As opposed to you, who labelled others as neurotic a page or so back because they wanted details on the Government's plans.
-
Its ok calling people neurotic though. ::)
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/535fc649345c2a647be7f48ca7652747.jpg)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Saying a person, group or institution are acting neurotically actually means something. It isn't an insult. Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.
Surprised I need to explain that.
It's not like calling someone a twat or a cunt is it Slackers.
-
Saying a person, group or institution are acting neurotically actually means something. It isn't an insult. Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.
Believe it or not people might be insulted by suggesting they are, individually or collectively, acting neurotically, after all it is ultimately just your opinion of how they are behaving. You might not be offended by such a reference, I'm not, but some might.
Surprised I need to explain that.
It's not like calling someone a twat or a cunt is it Slackers.
As I explained to Doylo, I do not use the word 'cunt' when I wish to insult someone. Shark edited my original posts, but Jaspers response (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26815.msg529483.html#msg529483) indicates that I used 'twat' and not 'cunt' and in the direct messages I exchanged with Shark in light of Lee reporting me it is also documented that I did not use 'cunt' so Lee, Doylo and yourself are putting words in my mouth and I would be grateful if you stopped doing this.
I didn't wish to drag the discussion out or further off-topic the other day by quoting these but since you are repeating Doylo's false attribution here are the quotes from the direct messages I had with Shark. Obviously you will be unable to view the rest of these since they are Direct Messages, but contact Shark if you wish to check their veracity.
I could have easily made the same point without calling him a "fucking twat"
...to call someone a "fucking twat"...
That Lee is happy tell me to "Fuck off (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,26815.msg528648.html#msg528648)" but doesn't like it when the tables are turned and I call him a "Fucking twat" is in my opinion a case of double standards.
-
People can be as insulted by all sorts of things, as the internet has made us all more than aware. Someone feeling insulated in and of itself is not good reason for censoring whatever it was that insulated them, or we'd have no discourse as you know. There are meaningless insults ('britshitter') and there is meaningful language ('acting neurotically'). Both can insult someone but both aren't equally valid in a debate.
Surprised etc.
-
Sorry for cocking up the quoting in my last post. Thank you for not falsely attributing insults I did not make to me this time.
-
It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."
Edit - just noted the footnote.
Don't go doing silly things like that. Just relax and enjoy the sovereignty- and dont worry, interconnected global financial system. Britain's got this!
-
Good piece here: http://indyref2.scot/uk-not-likely-to-survive-brexit-article-50-decision
I am consistently amazed that this aspect keeps getting forgotten/ ignored. If it happens, it will be Engexit not Brexit. Scotland will leave the UK, and the only logical course for N Ireland will be to reunify with Eire.
-
Eng&WalExit I think.
-
For the above reason alone I think it will never happen.
-
May cares not a jot for Scotland. Subserve or shut up seems to be her approach. I wonder if she'd rather risk the break up of the UK than the anger of her eurosceptics and the "popular noise".
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
But it's the "will of the people" she's answering to. Honest.
-
For the above reason alone I think it will never happen.
The concise ambiguity in your post Dave leads me to believe you would be an excellent civil servant... ;)
-
Eng&WalExit I think.
wangxit
-
Brexit
means
Brexit
-
Brexit
means
Brexit
Shirley?
-
Brexit
means
Brexit
Shirley?
That looked a bit too close to the french flag to me...
-
Saying a person, group or institution are acting neurotically actually means something. It isn't an insult. Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.
Surprised I need to explain that.
It's not like calling someone a twat or a cunt is it Slackers.
And google say:
"Insult
verb
ɪnˈsʌlt/
1. speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
noun
ˈɪnsʌlt/
1.
a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act.
"
Your usage of neurotic came in a piece which was clearly disrespectful. It was not however, as your other examples are, a profanity.
PS. Sorry, don't have a copy of the OED to hand.
-
Brexit
means
Brexit
Shirley?
That looked a bit too close to the french flag to me...
Росси́я!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Apparently this years Footie Manager is "the" Christmas gift politicos hope to receive in there stocking.
It contains all the different flavours of Brexit.
What planning, Fox and Bozzer have been playing this non-stop.
From today's Guardian.
Football Manager stays ahead of the game
Further laurels for the creators of Football Manager, who are the latest entity in British public life to hint at more sophisticated Brexit thinking than Liam Fox.
In a fascinating interview with the Daily Telegraph, Sports Interactive’s boss Miles Jacobson revealed that next year’s 17th iteration of the game will include three Brexit scenarios and timetables, of which hard Brexit will obviously most affect gameplay. According to Jacobson, the creators “have included every possible outcome in the game, using artificial intelligence and percentage chances to make every game different … If people think the outcome is bleak, this is what I believe will happen.” As he points out: “Preparing for the Brexit aspect of the new game has taken a lot of research, too: a lot of reading, a lot of talking to politicians and people in football.”
This feels confusing. As the victorious Brexiteers have spent much of the past three months telling us all, preparing for Brexit was the job of their Whitehall predecessors. Their failure to do it means that those now in charge of leading the process have to make terrifyingly empty speeches once a week, until some sort of clue is got. For a video game to appear ahead of them on this front is another one for the notional committee on unpatriotic activities, which we can only hope will be convened IRL without delay.
-
Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
Brexit, will more than likely most of us worse off.
It's not an insult it's a statement of fact.
Britain will be shitter - Britshit.
Democracy doesn't work for the many just the few....
-
I'm with petejh.
-
I'm with petejh.
It's a conspiracy!!!
-
are we allowed to blame Putin's hackers for the disastrous referendum result?
-
are we allowed to blame Putin's hackers for the disastrous referendum result?
-
are we allowed to blame Putin's hackers for the disastrous referendum result?
"Highly probable" apparently :-\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1V-u2EOBCQ
-
Worth reading about the amazing trade deals we'll be getting post-brexit.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie
-
are we allowed to blame Putin's hackers for the disastrous referendum result?
I swear there was a big fella in a fur hat, hiding under the desk when I made my cross and a strong smell of borscht. Do you think they could have hacked the pencil? Or, did he switch my paper, with lightning reflexes, as I blinked?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Interesting post Dave. The problem is that virtually everyone, me and most (all?) other posters on this forum included, have no substantial technical understanding of the rules and possibilities surrounding trade.
A minority seem to optimistically embrace the Francis Drake image of buccaneering Blighty, free to do whatever it wants - as long as other countries agree of course, because trade is an agreement between two parties who both shape the outcome.
A majority see that point and and whilst recognising the volatility of this new situation will present some successes realise that the other parties will be able shape our future in less positive ways because a) their own interests come first and b) trade deals with us are not such a high priority to them as our Brexit voices would have you believe.
It is grossly naive to imagine that we can successfully be 'pro having our cake and pro eating it'. Add to that the economic drag of the huge length of time these arrangements will take, with the huge investment of government resources they will consume and we are looking at a period of clear economic decline.
I am not now going to get into the two biggest reasons for remaining in the EU, including the economic aspect, namely stability in Europe and the ability to align and discuss action on the environment and climate change.
I wouldn't mind so much hearing people say ' I know the economy will contract and Britain's international role will be diminished, and this perhaps permanently; I just think it is worth it to be outside of the EU for ideological reasons'.
But I haven't heard that yet. And I don't like be taking for a fool.
I have read pjh's contributions with interest. I hope he keeps posting- it is good to be challenged, good to hear another voice, good to not just sit inside an echo chamber.
But I can't help thinking that optimism is horribly misplaced.
-
I'm with petejh.
On what, exactly, everything he says?
-
Pretty much; nobody can usefully predict the future and I am of the view that we are moving as well as possible down the right road and will be nicely out of the way when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.
-
nobody can usefully predict the future..... when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.
As I understand it we were pretty much out of the way of that anyway being outside the Eurozone.
Of course, if things got really bad poliitically then the single-market might collapse which would be very bad as it would put the rest of the EU in exactly the situation that we have just volunteered for.
-
Pretty much; nobody can usefully predict the future and I am of the view that we are moving as well as possible down the right road and will be nicely out of the way when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.
So you believe some experts... ;)
-
Pretty much; nobody can usefully predict the future and I am of the view that we are moving as well as possible down the right road and will be nicely out of the way when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.
So you believe some experts... ;)
;D
But seriously having read most of Mervyn King's End of Alchemy that seems implicit in his analysis unless a lot of fundamental things change that are politically too hard to imagine happening. The economies of the member countries are too far out of step with each other.
-
The end is nigh, the euro will collapse tomorrow ... the day after tomorrow ... the next day ... pretty soon ... ... the next year ... within five years ... at some point in the future ... :boohoo:
Seriously, the immediate collapse of the euro is pure fantasy only entertained by forecasters well outside the union. It did not fall with the collapse of Greece (as was widely believed by the same idiots who always predicts the swift demise of the euro) and it will not fall with the coming banking crisis in Italy.
-
I have always wondered about that, the whole collapse thing.
This seems as good a place to ask as any, with Simon and Habrich reading...
The Euro zone, from my ignorant perspective (I mean that), seems to be (fiscally) a single country. That is to say, my impression is, that it is a block with a single monetary policy and currency.
So, how does that differ from a single country, with regions of varying wealth? You know, like the US?
The states of the US have considerable autonomy, no? But the Federal US is united under a single fiscal policy, right? And surely the Euro zone is too? I assume it's constituent nations are more "troublesome" than the US states, but still highly constrained, so how is any more likely to collapse than the Dollar?
If the Greek meltdown didn't kill it, what will?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I was wondering exactly that.
-
You could argue that 2007 nearly bought the dollar down... and might have if the odd bank hadn't been saved...
-
There's a theory about optimal currency zones that people say predicts the immediate demise of the Euro. Since that hasn't happened I assume that the theory is flawed
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
-
Pretty much; nobody can usefully predict the future and I am of the view that we are moving as well as possible down the right road and will be nicely out of the way when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.
So you believe some experts... ;)
;D
But seriously having read most of Mervyn King's End of Alchemy that seems implicit in his analysis unless a lot of fundamental things change that are politically too hard to imagine happening. The economies of the member countries are too far out of step with each other.
The FT examined Mervyn King's record as a forecaster...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/70d2c34a-ded9-11e5-b7fd-0dfe89910bd6?client=safari
-
Can anyone comment on the view from Scotland? Lloyd's and several Japanese banks have announced that they are in the process of moving at least some of their business from London to the EU and I assume most others in the City are putting similiar plans in place. It seems to me that Edinburgh could be well positioned to catch some of that money if it was clear that ( a presumably independent ) Scotland would be remaining within the single market.
What's the independence mood like there now?
-
What's the independence mood like there now?
I think that when / if Art 50 gets triggered, another referendum vote will be unavoidable, and I can't see it going No again.
-
I think that when / if Art 50 gets triggered, another referendum vote will be unavoidable, and I can't see it going No again.
I guess it has to wait on Art 50 . Although it seems like that might be missing the boat if the big money guys are already working on where to go.
-
Possibly. I expect everyone has a and b scenarios though
Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
-
Interesting post Dave. The problem is that virtually everyone, me and most (all?) other posters on this forum included, have no substantial technical understanding of the rules and possibilities surrounding trade.
A minority seem to optimistically embrace the Francis Drake image of buccaneering Blighty, free to do whatever it wants - as long as other countries agree of course, because trade is an agreement between two parties who both shape the outcome.
A majority see that point and and whilst recognising the volatility of this new situation will present some successes realise that the other parties will be able shape our future in less positive ways because a) their own interests come first and b) trade deals with us are not such a high priority to them as our Brexit voices would have you believe.
It is grossly naive to imagine that we can successfully be 'pro having our cake and pro eating it'. Add to that the economic drag of the huge length of time these arrangements will take, with the huge investment of government resources they will consume and we are looking at a period of clear economic decline.
I am not now going to get into the two biggest reasons for remaining in the EU, including the economic aspect, namely stability in Europe and the ability to align and discuss action on the environment and climate change.
I wouldn't mind so much hearing people say ' I know the economy will contract and Britain's international role will be diminished, and this perhaps permanently; I just think it is worth it to be outside of the EU for ideological reasons'.
But I haven't heard that yet. And I don't like be taking for a fool.
I have read pjh's contributions with interest. I hope he keeps posting- it is good to be challenged, good to hear another voice, good to not just sit inside an echo chamber.
But I can't help thinking that optimism is horribly misplaced.
Well, I'm happy to say I disagree with us being part of the EU project due to ideological reasons. And I'm happy to say I think that us leaving will inevitably change the landscape of our economy for the worse in the short term for sure.
Though I don't believe it will be for the worse permanently, far from it.
My ideaolgy in a nutshell is: I believe in the idea of a free trade agreement in Europe; I believe in the idea of free movement of goods, services and capital.
I don't believe that the unrestricted free movement of people from 27 other nations is sustainable or desirable in the long run for the UK. I do believe in *relatively* unrestricted movement for people with the skills our country most requires. It isn't racist or bigoted to think that - it's reasonable.
For context. The two foriegn countries I've lived and worked in for a sustained length of time (Canada and New Zealand) don't have unrestricted free movement of people - they required that I got a work visa. This was easy enough to do - I worked 5 years on work visas; and then residancy if I wanted to stay. I don't consider Canada or New Zealand racist for refusing me free movement into their countries.
It's absurd that some people (sometiems feels like many) are quick to use the racist club to beat people with. It strikes me that they do this because they can't form good enough arguments on their own and need the nuclear option of *racism* to feel like they're on the right side. It freezes any sensible discussion.
Though I do recognise that a racist element exists in the UK as it does everywhere, and they undoubtedly see brexit in racist terms.
I believe the EU goverment is a restriction on our own goverment, and also gives our government a place to hide, and the UK would be better off without it in the long run. Can I eloquently cite any examples of specific actions the EU have taken that I strongly disagree with of the top of my head, no. I've read a selection of 'experts' who can give examples, and I've read plenty of 'experts' who think the EU's postiive for us. I'm going with my gut instinct after reading a balance of views. I've made my choice that governance by the EU isn't the best course for us.
I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.
I've recently been reading a little bit about NAFTA and how it compares to the EU. Also about the US's moves to offer the UK membership of NAFTA. Some interesting views here, from before the referendum result: http://www.euro-know.org/europages/telegraph/dt990719.html
-
Interesting post Dave. The problem is that virtually everyone, me and most (all?) other posters on this forum included, have no substantial technical understanding of the rules and possibilities surrounding trade.
A minority seem to optimistically embrace the Francis Drake image of buccaneering Blighty, free to do whatever it wants - as long as other countries agree of course, because trade is an agreement between two parties who both shape the outcome.
A majority see that point and and whilst recognising the volatility of this new situation will present some successes realise that the other parties will be able shape our future in less positive ways because a) their own interests come first and b) trade deals with us are not such a high priority to them as our Brexit voices would have you believe.
It is grossly naive to imagine that we can successfully be 'pro having our cake and pro eating it'. Add to that the economic drag of the huge length of time these arrangements will take, with the huge investment of government resources they will consume and we are looking at a period of clear economic decline.
I am not now going to get into the two biggest reasons for remaining in the EU, including the economic aspect, namely stability in Europe and the ability to align and discuss action on the environment and climate change.
I wouldn't mind so much hearing people say ' I know the economy will contract and Britain's international role will be diminished, and this perhaps permanently; I just think it is worth it to be outside of the EU for ideological reasons'.
But I haven't heard that yet. And I don't like be taking for a fool.
I have read pjh's contributions with interest. I hope he keeps posting- it is good to be challenged, good to hear another voice, good to not just sit inside an echo chamber.
But I can't help thinking that optimism is horribly misplaced.
Well, I'm happy to say I disagree with us being part of the EU project due to ideological reasons. And I'm happy to say I think that us leaving will inevitably change the landscape of our economy for the worse in the short term for sure.
Though I don't believe it will be for the worse permanently, far from it.
My ideaolgy in a nutshell is: I believe in the idea of a free trade agreement in Europe; I believe in the idea of free movement of goods, services and capital.
I don't believe that the unrestricted free movement of people from 27 other nations is sustainable or desirable in the long run for the UK. I do believe in *relatively* unrestricted movement for people with the skills our country most requires. It isn't racist or bigoted to think that - it's reasonable.
For context. The two foriegn countries I've lived and worked in for a sustained length of time (Canada and New Zealand) don't have unrestricted free movement of people - they required that I got a work visa. This was easy enough to do - I worked 5 years on work visas; and then residancy if I wanted to stay. I don't consider Canada or New Zealand racist for refusing me free movement into their countries.
It's absurd that some people (sometiems feels like many) are quick to use the racist club to beat people with. It strikes me that they do this because they can't form good enough arguments on their own and need the nuclear option of *racism* to feel like they're on the right side. It freezes any sensible discussion.
Though I do recognise that a racist element exists in the UK as it does everywhere, and they undoubtedly see brexit in racist terms.
I believe the EU goverment is a restriction on our own goverment, and also gives our government a place to hide, and the UK would be better off without it in the long run. Can I eloquently cite any examples of specific actions the EU have taken that I strongly disagree with of the top of my head, no. I've read a selection of 'experts' who can give examples, and I've read plenty of 'experts' who think the EU's postiive for us. I'm going with my gut instinct after reading a balance of views. I've made my choice that governance by the EU isn't the best course for us.
I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.
I've recently been reading a little bit about NAFTA and how it compares to the EU. Also about the US's moves to offer the UK membership of NAFTA. Some interesting views here, from before the referendum result: http://www.euro-know.org/europages/telegraph/dt990719.html
Thanks Pete, really good post, appreciate you taking the time.
this bit interests me:
I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.
Do you have a veiw of what "the best possible outcome" may be? I'm guessing, but I suspect many remainers may not be for from your position, but also not being naive, consider that remaining is a much better "possible outcome" than any realistic outcome of leaving, and without the inevitable and significant short term pain.
-
The odd thing is, I disagree with you, Pete, much less than you think.
But, where you (possibly rightly) point out my prognostications of doom, your (to me) unfounded optimism, almost pushes me to greater extremes of doom mongering; just for balance!
You needed to have a Visa in both NZ and Canada because you are a European and not from within any trading block of which those nations are members, had you been your immigration status would have been different. Your status within Europe would have been the same had you been a national of either of those nations, working here.
What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations. Personally, I don't imagine you to be racist, I am impressed that you have presented some of the better arguments for Brexit of any I have come across; in a debate that (I'm sure you can imagine) I have followed avidly.
However, can you not see how that advocacy could be perceived as racist? Why that trope is trotted out so often as a response?
Further, isn't one of the President Elect's flagship policies the rolling back of NAFTA?
One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?
I think you are wrong, I think our economy and influence will decline, not just in the short term. To avoid that we need to be an exporting nation, with something to offer the world that the world needs. What would that be? Even if it were a whole series of commodities, what?
Our economy is predominantly service based and vastly biased to the financial services, a sector which faces a very real possibility of simply buggering off elsewhere.
Nothing that hasn't been said before and less than has been asked repeatedly by the remain camp. There has been no answer! None at all.
Which is why we are pissed off, we are being dragged into the unknow based solely on peoples gut feelings OR (in many cases) out and out racism (many of the leave leaders are unabashed racists).
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
You needed to have a Visa in both NZ and Canada because you are a European and not from within any trading block of which those nations are members, had you been your immigration status would have been different. Your status within Europe would have been the same had you been a national of either of those nations, working here.
The rules aren't the same.
The rules for citizens of NAFTA member states to work in each others' countries are more restrictive than for EU citizens to work in EU member states. In NAFTA states you need a pre-arranged job offer and for the job to be on a government list. Explained here:
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/nafta.html
-
What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations.
No, I do not. I'm in favour of trade agreements, period.
What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations. Personally, I don't imagine you to be racist, I am impressed that you have presented some of the better arguments for Brexit of any I have come across; in a debate that (I'm sure you can imagine) I have followed avidly.
However, can you not see how that advocacy could be perceived as racist? Why that trope is trotted out so often as a response?
I can accept that people perceive all kinds of things that aren't accurate, and which suit their outlook, attitude, beliefs, circumstances etc.
-
One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?
A globalised world means just that. Membership of the EU precludes the UK from striking agreements in a global market. Currently the EU does not have a trade agreement with the US, China, India, Australia, Brazil and many other large trading nations. That isn't to say the UK will either. But self-evidently, not having a trade deal in place hasn't killed us all .
Trade agreements aren't the be all and end all. The way people are talking about them you'd think we'll drop off an economic cliff never to resurface. To quote one commentator:
'Countries succeed, with or without trade deals, if they produce goods and services other countries want.'
The UK could do with some of that attitude right now.
-
One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?
A globalised world means just that. Membership of the EU precludes the UK from striking agreements in a global market. Currently the EU does not have a trade agreement with the US, China, India, Australia, Brazil and many other large trading nations. That isn't to say the UK will either. But self-evidently, not having a trade deal in place hasn't killed us all .
Trade agreements aren't the be all and end all. The way people are talking about them you'd think we'll drop off an economic cliff never to resurface. To quote one commentator:
'Countries succeed, with or without trade deals, if they produce goods and services other countries want.'
The UK could do with some of that attitude right now.
OK - so what goods and services do we produce that other countries want?
Finance sector is a good one. But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...
Car assembly. Honda, Mini, Jaguar, Nissan: But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...
Erm.... whisky? reality TV? (Edit) Royal Family?
Honestly, I'm not trying to be an arse, but I'm struggling to think of what items/things/services the rest of the world will bite our arm off to make trade deals for...
-
We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...
And I personally wouldn't use the term 'rest of the world will bite our arm off' - we're a wealthy advanced country of approx 70 million people, not a pair of shoes.
-
Higher education (though we're on the verge of royally buggering that up as an export).
-
We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...
And I personally wouldn't use the term 'rest of the world will bite our arm off' - we're a wealthy advanced country of approx 70 million people, not a pair of shoes.
You know, fairly sure from Tom's comment that he's read that (probably the OEC figures Tom?). Number one export from the UK? Cars I believe? One of the most threatened industries, no? Don't we actually import more cars (value) than we export? And that's our largest single export.
Centrax is based here, my uncle is an Engineer there. They manufacture Gas turbines, another of our biggest exports. As I understand one of the US manufacturers is looking to buy them out (Solar I think) and move production East somewhere. Only rumours there, but I do know that China is becoming more reliable as a precision tech manufacturing destination.
I don't see how "pulling our socks up" is going to help retain these industries?
Short of reducing our labour costs, how are we going to compete?
Most remainers argue that the much vaunted 5th this and 9th that, are exactly what we (greatly) risk losing!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Observatory of Economic Complexity - UK (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/)
Imports are higher than exports giving a negative trade balance of $191 billion (USD).
Majority of UK import/exports seem to be with the EU which might change in the future contingent on a swathe of unknowns.
-
See? Cars! Surprised at Gold though. Have to check that out, I'm assuming some sort of re-export thing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...
So I googled it (same link as Slackline) and our top five exports are:
Cars - At risk as we are leaving the EU - what will it cost the bgovernment to keep the plants here?
Gold - WTF? I don't get how this works but I doubt it benefits the man on the street.
Crude Petroleum - Declining Market
Refined Petroleum - Declining Market
Drugs - We seem to be doing ok at this but don't know the market well enough.
and our top five imports are:
Cars (more than we export)
Crude Petroleum (more than we export)
Refined Petroleum (more than we export)
Drugs (more than we export)
Computers
Pete, I'd love more than anything to be proved wrong and it all to go amazingly well but.......... I really don't see how.I can still see the benefits, those that you've mentioned bplus getting out the CAF etc but I have zero confidence in our government to make a good go of it, ehen we were in the EU they stopped the EU from protecting european steel suppliers so as not to offend the Chinese, we've got not coherent energy policy, the only new l;arge scale energy generation project that's been signed is for an unproven EPR design that will run massively over budget and they are already promising to maintain the CAF subsidies to the large landowners - the bit that needed getting rid of.
I realise that all sounds pessimistic but.....
-
Isn't the EPR French owned and Chinese built?
Edit:
Ah, yes to answer my own question and EDF say:
"EDF has acknowledged severe difficulties in building the EPR design. In September 2015 EDF stated that the design of a "New Model" EPR was being worked on, which will be easier and cheaper to build."
Which, even as a second hand quote, seems to imply "unproven".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Drugs - We seem to be doing ok at this but don't know the market well enough.
Currently it benefits from having European Medical Agencies (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/) and the harmonisation of drug approval across member states. The process becomes more complicated, expensive and takes longer when done at the national level with each system having its own 'standards'*. Currently pharmaceutical companies face challenges in getting even existing drugs approved in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) which are strong emerging markets but with their own disparate standards and systems of approval.
* Heard a quote the other day that amused me...
Standards are like toothbrushes, a great idea but no one wants to use anyone elses - Anita Golderba (https://laureltarulli.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/standards-are-like-toothbrushes-a-good-idea-but-no-one-wants-to-use-anyone-elses/)
-
Isn't the EPR French owned and Chinese built?
It's a financial joint venture (Hinkley C) between EDF (French, mainly state owned) and CGN (China, state owned).
However, the EPR is a French design, by Areva (French, state owned).
The fact that all other EPR projects on the go are massively over budget and behind schedule shouldn't worry us at all.......
-
Isn't the EPR French owned and Chinese built?
It's a financial joint venture (Hinkley C) between EDF (French, mainly state owned) and CGN (China, state owned).
However, the EPR is a French design, by Areva (French, state owned).
The fact that all other EPR projects on the go are massively over budget and behind schedule shouldn't worry us at all.......
Am I right in assuming that this decision was not really affected by our membership (or not) of the EU? (apart from Austria trying to scupper the deal - which they didn't manage to do..)
-
Am I right in assuming that this decision was not really affected by our membership (or not) of the EU? (apart from Austria trying to scupper the deal - which they didn't manage to do..)
Nothing to do with the EU, more a general whinge on our government's* lack of ability to produce coherent long term policy for energy and the mess we end up in when panicked.
*of either hue, Labour did no better.
-
Higher education (though we're on the verge of royally buggering that up as an export).
I have a few Sciency type friends involved in research and knowledge transfer, across and around UK Academia. They seem genuinely petrified and by far the most pessimistic of voices in (as Pete would have it) my "Echo chamber". It seems the Government are unable to guarantee anywhere near similar funding for research, most projects are European collaborations, some are already crumbling in anticipation.
I'm really not expert or knowledgable on this. There must be a few on the forum who know the ins and outs?
Ironic, since High tech and research are two of the most touted arrows in our supposed quiver, ready to launch us into greatness.
Sorry, it's too bloody difficult to resist sarcasm. [emoji12]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't see how "pulling our socks up" is going to help retain these industries?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AKA, trying to improve the UK's - currently awful - productivity? Yeah, what crazy talk.
Short of reducing our labour costs, how are we going to compete?
The overdue currency devaluation making UK produce more competitive has been a good start. Reflected in export growth since Stirling declined. Remember Germany is one of the strongest exporters in part due to its relatively weak currency.
-
Higher education (though we're on the verge of royally buggering that up as an export).
I have a few Sciency type friends involved in research and knowledge transfer, across and around UK Academia. They seem genuinely petrified and by far the most pessimistic of voices in (as Pete would have it) my "Echo chamber". It seems the Government are unable to guarantee anywhere near similar funding for research, most projects are European collaborations, some ate already crumbling in anticipation.
I'm really not expert or knowledgable on this. There must be a few on the forum who know the ins and outs?
Ironic, since High tech and research are two of the most touted arrows in our supposed quiver, ready to launch us into greatness.
Sorry, it's too bloody difficult to resist sarcasm. [emoji12]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read that Horizon 2020 (EU research funding program) is pledged to continue to... 2020. Despite brexit.
Beyond that..
-
Higher education (though we're on the verge of royally buggering that up as an export).
I have a few Sciency type friends involved in research and knowledge transfer, across and around UK Academia. They seem genuinely petrified and by far the most pessimistic of voices in (as Pete would have it) my "Echo chamber". It seems the Government are unable to guarantee anywhere near similar funding for research, most projects are European collaborations, some are already crumbling in anticipation.
I'm really not expert or knowledgable on this. There must be a few on the forum who know the ins and outs?
Ironic, since High tech and research are two of the most touted arrows in our supposed quiver, ready to launch us into greatness.
Sorry, it's too bloody difficult to resist sarcasm. [emoji12]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was responding directly to TT's question about what goods and services we generate that the rest of the world might wants and was, in that context, really only referring to foreign students (esp. non-EU). Even though this service is normally delivered in the UK it is in effect an export market and one in which we are a world leader (second to the US). The sums are very significant. But universities are in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg and governments look set to undermine the sector through restrictions on student visas etc.
Brexit is a clear threat to UK access to EU funding, though (as with everything Brexit connected) we don't yet know the extent to which that threat will be realised.
-
It's largely our clampdown on foreign non EU students (to try and meet silly Davids migration targets) that's chopping off a massive revenue stream for U.K. HE. As I've posted here before our non EU students have to sign in each week and notify the govt if they leave the country and come back (e.g. Going to a conference). We used to get lots of Indian and Nigerian students but that's dried up since visa clampdowns....
Re EU funding the Swiss were #2 or 3 in top EU grant Earners until their 2014 referendum on stopping EU migrants. They're now 13-14th as it would appear reviewers were punishing Swiss proposals... (this effect has and was well reported ok he Brexit run up).
EU finding is 13% of UKHE research funding iirc? Might be more. That said someone at our place scored EU 2.3m last week in an EU grant...
-
It's not about productivity or efficiency. It's about whether we can produce something(s) that we can export. One of my Partners here is a Software designer, currently big business (he says) for the UK globally.
He seems virtually suicidal about the whole thing, vastly exacerbated by the "Snoopers charter" apparently. I get the "Echo chamber" assertion, I really do, but I really don't seem to be personally acquainted with any leavers, except a Bat shit crazy, elderly Aunt (Who's only son Lectures in Barcelona and won't speak to her (and is home for Xmas, it's hugely funny and Xmas day looks exciting)).
So, yes, I guess I live in a filter bubble.
What strikes me most, though, is the fragility of Pro argument.
A good point is made about the strength of our exports, but it's foundations are immediately shaken by several other people in a matter of minutes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We used to get lots of Indian and Nigerian students but that's dried up since visa clampdowns....
There has been a decline in Nigerian students applying here too. It has been suggested that for Nigeria the visa situation is compounded further by the countries oil based economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria#Oil) which took a nose dive when barrel prices dropped resulting in many not being able to afford to travel to the UK to study.
<anecdote>An Italian colleague has handed in his notice in the last week and is moving to a position in Germany. He has cited concerns and uncertainty about Brexit as a strong motivating factor in his decision.</anecdote>.
-
I'm a fan of the anecdote designator Slackers. Please can we make this an option for Matt ;)
OMM - 'foundations shaken', what after an exchange of posts made during tea breaks on a climbing forum? Hardly a 'foundation' for anything much! You make it sound like all of the chief economic forecasters got their forecasts way off. Oh hang on..
-
Because it was Pete. You suggested that we are a strong exporting nation, a quick review of that statement showed that it largely hinges on the things that we have been told are most threatened. So I took your point, looked at it and realised all the experts in my "Echo chamber" had gone over this ground and reached a very different conclusion to you.
Shaken.
Please point out the leave expert(s) and how their interpretation differs. If an argument can be effectively challenged by a layman, with only a little reading, it's not much of an argument.
So, I keep hearing that our education system is failing to give us the workforce we need, I keep hearing we are unproductive etc etc and usually from the same media outlets that pushed the Brexit line. And then the same sources tell me that all we need to do is change out attitude and be more productive (which I referred to as "pulling our socks up"), without any substance. None of your arguments hold any water and yet you criticise me for relating anecdotes? Sorry mate, you have provided no evidence. It's not me being an arse, or picking a fight with you or even that I have diametrically opposing world view; I check out the things people tell me and try to make the best judgment I can from the information available. Something far too many people fail to do. I haven't ignored or dismissed anything you or anyone else on here has said/linked to/rumoured, I read the links, follow the trails, try to understand and eventually arrive at a position. You believe I started with an unshakable ethos that I cling to regardless, I didn't.
Neither have I ever pretended a rumour or speculation to be anything else. The whole leave argument has been nothing but speculation, the remain argument has had support from almost every accepted "Expert" in any field you cate to choose. That's not my fault.
The sky hasn't fallen. It might not.
If this was me back in my Exped guiding days, assessing snow conditions, weather predictions, team ability etc (none of which am I an "expert" in, always relying on others for the research and standards); I'd have canceled on this sort of evidence.
Same when I was planning Dive expeditions or entering a cave system or, or, or... you get the picture.
Which is a long winded way of saying, I think you're wrong, because nothing you have said has convinced me that the "experts" are wrong.
Weather forecasts are frequently wrong. If I ignored a bad forecast and proceeded to sea regardless; I would be rightly castigated should the shit hit the fan.
And I'm not a meteorologist and no ships Captain is.
This is a bad forecast, maybe we won't have hurricane force winds and Tsunamis, but even the best predictions look like force 10's+ and pretty high storm surges.
So now imagine you are a Captain and you have those forecasts, would you still put to sea because just over half the passengers voted for it? The crew (Academics, industry pro's, Economists etc) all say "no! Too risky!" and half the passenger are shouting "no!". Then quite a few of the passengers who voted to sail have changed their minds as the sky darkened.
Oh, sorry, I'm not allowed to use analogy; I forgot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I haven't time to read all that now but, from a quick glance, you're wrong from the off. I actually wasn't 'suggesting the UK is a strong exporter' - I was simply pointing out where we sit in the big picture. 'Strong' or not is relative. Compared to China and the US or the entire EU we're minnows.
But as it happens, 9th out of roughly 30 major countries (the full list is 180 odd but I'm ignoring most) - and the 2nd largest exporter in the EU - suggests to me that we *are* actually relatively significant exporters. And exports have already started to increase/ trade gap decreased according to the recent Q3 growth figures.
-
OK - so what goods and services do we produce that other countries want?
Finance sector is a good one. But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...
Car assembly. Honda, Mini, Jaguar, Nissan: But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...
Erm.... whisky? reality TV? (Edit) Royal Family?
Honestly, I'm not trying to be an arse, but I'm struggling to think of what items/things/services the rest of the world will bite our arm off to make trade deals for...
I am very far from being a brexiteer, but i do disagree with some of this sense of hopelessness.
The City will not fail, and it's not in anyone's interests to let it do so. I think most European leaders recognise this, even if they don't admit it in public.
You need to get away from physical things. Beyond banking, associated services like insurance, financial consulting, management consulting, the legal sector, etc eclipse physical export products by a massive amount. With a devalued pound, they represent even better value for money now.
Oil services, big architecture, engineering consultancy, design, the film industry. It goes on and on and on.
Yes, we're uncompetitive when it comes to processing steel, and lots of promising small / medium IT / tech companies get snapped by US firms.
But I think we do punch pretty hard for our weight.
-
And the drop in the £ post Brexit means we're not punching as much above our weight now?
But hey ho...
-
My point was more that our services sector is well-established and world class, and is not going to somehow fizzle out overnight.
My hope is that we will start to see more of a compromise being made on each side about a watered down, opt-in / buy-in style exit, less uncertainty, more confidence, pound rises (but not too much), we drop corporation tax, pick up some more foreign investment.
The whole thing is a fucking disaster and a massive setback, but the defeatism is getting a bit tiring...
-
Is it defeatism when you look at Johnson, Davis, May, Fox et al and think
'They aren't up to the job.' ?
-
No. I don't have a lot of confidence in at least three of them. But I do have some confidence in Hammond. A small amount.
And I have confidence in the treasury, and the foreign office, and the department for international trade (who only today helped me with an export opportunity, in Russia no less) who will be briefing.
And I have quite a lot of confidence in British business. If people want what you're selling, they tend to buy it.
-
You need to get away from physical things. Beyond banking, associated services like insurance, financial consulting, management consulting, the legal sector, etc eclipse physical export products by a massive amount. With a devalued pound, they represent even better value for money now.
Oil services, big architecture, engineering consultancy, design, the film industry. It goes on and on and on.
That's great Yoss but these aren't jobs that everyone can do. The economy we have now is leading to a wage disparity and the jobs being talked about aren't going to be available to the average man on the street in Boston Lincolnshire. You're talking about jobs for the middle classes in the cities. That's fine for you and me (I'm in engineering consultancy) but we need to build an economy that works for everyone. The economy is so disconnected from the average Briton, when the economy is doing well It means nothing to the average worker but does mean bonuses and more wealth for the people at the top.
Yes, we're uncompetitive when it comes to processing steel
We are competitive, we just don't have a state subsidised system like the competitors that undercut us (and the UK voted against the EU proposals to help the European steel market). We are so enamoured with the "free market" that we seem blind to the fact that it's rigged and we happily throw industries to the dogs on the basis that they can't compete in this free market against competitors that are propped up by their respective governments.
Apologies for the negative rant.
-
The economy is so disconnected from the average Briton, when the economy is doing well It means nothing to the average worker but does mean bonuses and more wealth for the people at the top.
isn't there a theory going around that people at the top need average (and below average) people to build and do things for them? and usually they pay them for this?
-
The economy is so disconnected from the average Briton, when the economy is doing well It means nothing to the average worker but does mean bonuses and more wealth for the people at the top.
isn't there a theory going around that people at the top need average (and below average) people to build and do things for them? and usually they pay them for this?
They seem inclined to pay comparatively less and less for those services and ultimately these roles will be automated.
-
That's great Yoss but these aren't jobs that everyone can do. The economy we have now is leading to a wage disparity and the jobs being talked about aren't going to be available to the average man on the street in Boston Lincolnshire. You're talking about jobs for the middle classes in the cities. That's fine for you and me (I'm in engineering consultancy) but we need to build an economy that works for everyone. The economy is so disconnected from the average Briton, when the economy is doing well It means nothing to the average worker but does mean bonuses and more wealth for the people at the top.
I think it's a great pity that infrastructure development / large scale construction has been allowed to languish quite as much as it has. Big projects get stuck at the discussion phase for years while, say, competitive airports get built in Turkey. I would love to see a decade of infrastructure investment but even with top level commitment the public reaction would probably still end up with everyone bickering about what's happening where.
Which is a pity because construction is something we're also good at, and something that we could be exporting too. South Korean companies like have got quite adept at picking those sorts of foreign contracts. Like the Mersey Gateway for example.
-
That's great Yoss but these aren't jobs that everyone can do. The economy we have now is leading to a wage disparity and the jobs being talked about aren't going to be available to the average man on the street in Boston Lincolnshire. You're talking about jobs for the middle classes in the cities. That's fine for you and me (I'm in engineering consultancy) but we need to build an economy that works for everyone. The economy is so disconnected from the average Briton, when the economy is doing well It means nothing to the average worker but does mean bonuses and more wealth for the people at the top.
I think it's a great pity that infrastructure development / large scale construction has been allowed to languish quite as much as it has. Big projects get stuck at the discussion phase for years while, say, competitive airports get built in Turkey. I would love to see a decade of infrastructure investment but even with top level commitment the public reaction would probably still end up with everyone bickering about what's happening where.
Which is a pity because construction is something we're also good at, and something that we could be exporting too. South Korean companies like have got quite adept at picking those sorts of foreign contracts. Like the Mersey Gateway for example.
Yup - theres HS2, Severn Tidal Barrage, Transpennine rail electification/HS3... working vaguely with things to do with flooding - an investment of c.£10Bn would result in a grand infrastructure scheme making most vulnerable towns and cities far safer.. but this wouldn't happen as no-one every notices when things like that work - only when they fail..
Transport, Energy, Housing.. simple.. :)
Its interesting what you said Yoss about jobs frittering away overnight (or words like that)... well that won't happen overnight, but jobs will fritter away over the next 5 years or so. Friend works for cybersecurity startup in Cambridge.. high value company, c.50 employees, growing fast (ironically due to EU regulation on IT security meaning everyone in Europe will have to comply to new rule...). No more investment in the UK, instead all new personnel being recruited in their fledgling (read 2-3 people) offices in Dublin and NYC..
Pete mentioned hopelessness - or rather people giving off a sense of this (probably meant people like me!).. well, I don't feel hopelessness about the UK's future - I don't think society here will collapse (either overnight or in 5-10 years) or crash... but I do feel a genuine hopelessness with my inability to do anything about it! Thats the problem with this stupid referendum, no way back - well apparently, though the LibDems would have my vote at the moment..
-
Meanwhile, the EU court has ruled the UK's mass retention of snooped phone and email data is illegal.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter
A case bought by David Davis (and others)... I'm sure theres a word to describe such a situation...
Though as the article points out the ruling may become redundant if/when we leave the EU...
-
And I have confidence in the treasury,
So do I but even so they can't keep government afloat single handedly. Estimated increase in net debt this year >£47 billion (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis)
and the foreign office,
led by....
and the department for international trade
led by.....
And I have quite a lot of confidence in British business. If people want what you're selling, they tend to buy it.
...no matter what the terms or tariffs.
I don't share your confidence because I don't see that it is grounded in anything more than optimism. I think we both hope you are right and my perception that this is a devilishly difficult mess led by one of the weakest cohorts of politicians in generations is mistaken.
-
My sense of hopelessness stems not only from the economic prospects, which look dire, but also from the collapse/hijacking of our democracy.
Under our system what should/would have happened, if indeed there is a majority in favour of leaving the EU, is that a large no of eurosceptic MPs (a mix of anti-EU Tories, UKIP & independents I guess) would have been elected at the last GE.
A eurosceptic govt would then be in place (prpbably after a Tory coup) but with a tiny majority given the 48/52 Nos so a compromise deal would be worked out - say a Norway type thing.
Instead we have, for the 2nd GE in a row now (& arguably the 3rd) a govt enacting drastic irreversible changes that nobody voted for, in that they weren't in any manifesto at the GE.
-
I don't share your confidence because I don't see that it is grounded in anything more than optimism. I think we both hope you are right and my perception that this is a devilishly difficult mess led by one of the weakest cohorts of politicians in generations is mistaken.
Personally, I find everything gets dangerously depressing unless you approach life with a reasonable degree of optimism...
-
Well I'm all for that.
-
latest press release from the Department for Exiting the European Union https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep9Vzb6R_58 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep9Vzb6R_58)
-
I don't share your confidence because I don't see that it is grounded in anything more than optimism. I think we both hope you are right and my perception that this is a devilishly difficult mess led by one of the weakest cohorts of politicians in generations is mistaken.
Personally, I find everything gets dangerously depressing unless you approach life with a reasonable degree of optimism...
Amen.
Just remember to check your back for stray "Kick me" signs...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I think it's a great pity that infrastructure development / large scale construction has been allowed to languish quite as much as it has. Big projects get stuck at the discussion phase for years while, say, competitive airports get built in Turkey. I would love to see a decade of infrastructure investment but even with top level commitment the public reaction would probably still end up with everyone bickering about what's happening where.
Which is a pity because construction is something we're also good at, and something that we could be exporting too. South Korean companies like have got quite adept at picking those sorts of foreign contracts. Like the Mersey Gateway for example.
BTW We work on the Mersey Gateway project, I was there last week and visit regularly, and I agree with your sentiments. Although it's actually a consortium of contractors from Korea (Samsung), Portugal (FCC) and UK (Kier). Funded by Australian (Macquarie), Spanish (FCC) and multi-national BBGI. It's an impressive site (and sight). And it does employ a great many local workers.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aCwYoPRamb5svbZvpQqp9xVpAcqoXOpdSmT8iSfrb9riiEpadO48dRRjnJ5q1iKJkbuBSsHCBUqYpK7v8x0WMtCJ-n3RjRZy2dsjfw5wT3btxQXD-_boYpCuD2ru3bzCG77feLrzQiAlMz1Lw5boYbKFxK_1kGvmnWHQ72IAzSuBfM-5Ohg8I0bc4cdNZ_bLZqmpPhNL_8nuzIqGLckqowIUH9mZtrkb4v5dN3XG0OmGmQDh9Rq_e3zjoAUw-6KXKEtboJORSy79ca94zv81lFp10nATEdj-v-BAXIMpDPLn21dib3TyWblcpkkbtg_4O00J06ye0ZMWiaJJiNxXgZx0bnFOBNDu00bLWLIlFOrX-drB3yMMuXW2wUQVJMtF1nPOOovh46c97q3G7PjISDjlgCsv4ej64p1lvtqKdvbScJhMaXiSuGaNLTJJMDPuqxCuXHQJHDHbpeecPwOAyZlYanUJgRspoO_S98tB9lH7G86KErsrnL3iCaTWvWdD0tUqmdJESwerjJMAmR7I9JY5in3iJ27MpIo37SeuTr4-P97X0QyFFK4OsWOBJuTaWNZZ0iURJZGyx__OjL7qtGsczqBs86xIIZeMeuY6gyO23yU7GZzA=w690-h918-no)
-
Is it defeatism when you look at Johnson, Davis, May, Fox et al and think
'They aren't up to the job.' ?
It quickly gets tiresome to read if you aren't coming up with a better alternative.
-
Sorry if you don't like it, but that won't change reality.
-
Is it defeatism when you look at Johnson, Davis, May, Fox et al and think
'They aren't up to the job.' ?
It quickly gets tiresome to read if you aren't coming up with a better alternative.
We get a stab at an alternative government in four years time when the next general election rolls round, there might be internal shuffling in the mean time but there's nothing the general public can do to change that aspect of government until then.
-
It quickly gets tiresome to read if you aren't coming up with a better alternative.
It's too tempting to point out that the 'better' alternative was on the ballot next to "leave'.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A running commentary from David Davis - The Brexit secretary has provided some valuable insights into government thinking (https://www.ft.com/content/2d1323a4-c2c0-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a)
Likely a paywalled article (the 'Background Reading' does link to more detailed articles on each but I'm too lazy to copy the links over too)...
David Davis’s wide-ranging hearing with MPs from the Brexit committee yesterday provided new indications of where government policy is heading. Theresa May insists she is not providing a running commentary on her negotiation but the Brexit secretary has provided a few valuable insights into government thinking.
The timing of the government’s Brexit plan. Mr Davis said the proposals would not be published until February at the earliest. He said there are “quite a few decisions still to be made", noting that the government will be guided by 57 industry sector analyses that it has commissioned from civil servants. He did not indicate whether plan would be in the form of a white paper, a green paper or something lighter.
It is no surprise that Mr Davis is leaving publication as late as possible. If the Supreme Court upholds the demand for a Commons vote on the triggering of Article 50, ministers will want to curtail debate. The vote will certainly be passed but ministers do not want to see the bill amended by MPs.
Britain will not negotiate with the EU over immigration. This was the most striking revelation of the day. Many had assumed that, at the heart of the UK-EU talks, would be a simple bargain: the more the UK restricts migration controls on EU citizens, the less Britain could expect privileged access to the single market.
Mr Davis is taking a more ruthless approach. He said UK immigration levels would be set “in the national interest”, they would be subject to “clear control by this parliament” and the precise migration policy that Britain sets would not feature in the talks with the EU.
In some ways, this is no surprise. Mr Davis has long believed that EU states will not want to restrict Britain’s privileged access to the single market because their own manufacturers need to export to the UK. Immigration policy is also something that successive UK governments will want to fine tune regularly after Britain has left the bloc. Even so, the EU’s negotiating position is bound to be influenced by how restrictive Britain’s border controls look set to be.
A transitional deal is a possibility. Mr Davis’s position has shifted. Last month he told banking executives that he was “not really interested” in am interim pact. Now he is prepared to accept one “if necessary”.
Mr Davis’s stance remains more cautious than that of Philip Hammond. The chancellor said this week that all “thoughtful politicians” accept the need for an interim deal. Mr Davis will only back a transitional pact as a way of facilitating a free-trade agreement whose outlines are agreed in principle. “We need to know where we are going before we decide on the transition,” he said.
Even so, the politics regrading a transitional deal have shifted inside cabinet in a direction that will reassure many in the City.
The reversibility of Article 50. The British government has long insisted that Article 50, once triggered, cannot be reversed. It is easy to understand why ministers take this view. Any suggestion that it can be revoked will encourage the EU to play hardball in order to persuade the British to change their minds and reverse the referendum decision.
Mr Davis stuck to this line for the most part: “It’s very difficult seeing it being revoked,” he said. “We don’t intend to revoke it.” But then he added cryptically: “It may not be revocable. I don’t know.”
This may be a subtle indication that the government expects a legal judgment on this issue next year — and one it may not like.
Background reading
Beware false hope Guy Verhofstadt's suggestion of “associate citizenship” for British citizens post-Brexit may have raised false hopes, writes Steve Peers on the LSE's Brexit Blog. The law professor says Verhofstadt not only lacks the authority to negotiate on this issue, but the chances of securing agreement from all other member states are pretty remote.
Never mind Article 50 Article 127, which governs the UK's membership of the EEA, is a separate agreement and it is unclear whether simply leaving the EU will be enough for Britain exit the single market, writes Gavin Barrett in The Conversation.
City hit (1) The FT writes that Lloyd’s of London has become one of the first major City businesses to put a timetable on plans to move a part of its operations to the EU in preparation for Brexit. John Nelson, chairman of Lloyd’s, said that the market had decided it needed to act sooner rather than later to protect the 11 per cent of its revenues coming from Europe.
City hit (2) The EU is preparing rule changes that enable territorial restrictions on the clearing of some euro-denominated transactions even before Britain leaves the bloc, according to the FT's Alex Barker and Jim Brunsden. For years the UK has fought against attempts to relocate euro clearing to the single currency area but European officials say a move to restrict euro-clearing outside the eurozone is likely before Britain’s expected withdrawal from the bloc in 2019.
Seems a very risky gamble to not budge on immigration in the hope that the EU will still want access to our markets when innumerable European ministers and government officials within member countries have all repeatedly said that access to the market is conditional on free movement of people.
-
My (limited) understanding is that "it's conditional" not in the sense "we won't negociate on that" but more in the sense "driving that car is conditional on putting petrol in" i.e. we cannot be in the single-market without freedom of movement even if all 28 countries wanted it.
-
Thats my limited understanding too which is why I think its a risky stance to take as there regardless of how desirable it is for other countries to continue from the free trade they have with the UK its not going to happen unless the UK accepts free movement of people, i.e. the Government will extract us from the common market and whatever we're trying to sell to other European countries will, whilst potentially desirable, will be more expensive and in turn scope for making alternative options viable.
-
Does anyone have any idea how possible it might be for the entire block to take a step back on political union to, say, pre-Euro levels?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Thats my limited understanding too which is why I think its a risky stance to take as there regardless of how desirable it is for other countries to continue from the free trade they have with the UK its not going to happen unless the UK accepts free movement of people, i.e. the Government will extract us from the common market and whatever we're trying to sell to other European countries will, whilst potentially desirable, will be more expensive and in turn scope for making alternative options viable.
When people talk about tariffs and their effect on our exports to the EU (and everywhere else) it's worth remembering that the 15% devaluation of Stirling since brexit eclipses any likely tariff imposed by the EU as a result of exiting the single market (likely to be approx 2% if we can't negotiate better). This means UK goods would be cheaper to foreign importers than when we had 0% tariffs as an EU member. I'm not suggesting that's either all good (Matt) or all bad. It also makes foreign imports more expensive. Just pointing out that it's not as simple as 'exit EU=tariff=UK goods more expensive'.
-
Again my limited understanding from Prof. Dougan's handy podcasts is that Tariffs aren't really the problem with leaving the single market.
-
Thats my limited understanding too which is why I think its a risky stance to take as there regardless of how desirable it is for other countries to continue from the free trade they have with the UK its not going to happen unless the UK accepts free movement of people, i.e. the Government will extract us from the common market and whatever we're trying to sell to other European countries will, whilst potentially desirable, will be more expensive and in turn scope for making alternative options viable.
When people talk about tariffs and their effect on our exports to the EU (and everywhere else) it's worth remembering that the 15% devaluation of Stirling since brexit eclipses any likely tariff imposed by the EU as a result of exiting the single market (likely to be approx 2% if we can't negotiate better). This means UK goods would be cheaper to foreign importers than when we had 0% tariffs as an EU member. I'm not suggesting that's either all good (Matt) or all bad. It also makes foreign imports more expensive. Just pointing out that it's not as simple as 'exit EU=tariff=UK goods more expensive'.
Thanks, I'm always happy to sit corrected (I don't type standing). I had read the excellent article on WTO terms (http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie) dave posted the other day (bizarrely before he posted it as it flew past in one of my Twatter lists) but had forgotten to factor in the devaluation of the GBP when typing earlier. I thought the article was insightful, and if my understanding of it is correct, its saying that upon exiting the EU the UK is going to maintain whatever agreements are already in place and trade negotiations with the rest of the world will be a very long slow and drawn out process if/when they start happening, which is something that extracting us from EU bureaucracy is supposedly going to free us from (viz. points made about how long it took to finalise the EU/Canada trade agreement due to all 28 EU countries having to be happy).
I guess the huge uncertainty is what is driving Japanese banks and Lloyd's of London insurers to plan moving operations to elsewhere in the EU (https://www.ft.com/content/cc085d38-c349-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354).
The FTs analysis of what Davis has said with regards to EU migration and the hope to still retain access to the common market still seems bullish to me.
-
Obviously not directly related and much longer in the making than can be attributed to Brexit. However, anyone come across figures relating to changes in importation costs due to the drop in the pound? Such has been touched upon earlier in the thread, but I don't remember any figures/links to data.
http://www.expressandstar.com/business/midlands-business/2016/12/20/goodyear-closure-wolverhampton-factory-shuts-gates-for-last-time-after-89-years/
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Not completely impartial given the source but just came across EuroMyths (http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/) which fact checks some of the sensationalist headlines in the press.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/theresa-may-set-vision-brexit-tuesday-january-17-2017/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/theresa-may-set-vision-brexit-tuesday-january-17-2017/)
St Theresa is going to give us some terms and conditions regarding the thingy me bob that took place last year :slap:
Thought that word/phrase Brexit bingo would be fun to play regarding the speech.
My five are..
1) Red, white and blue Brexit.
2) Take back control of borders.
3) Hard ( i mean exit nothing else!!!) ;D
4) Make a success
5) Democratic will of the people.
-
Can't wait to hear what empty baseless platitudes our "haunted art gallery owner" PM comes up with this time to disguise the fact nothing is happening and we have near as makes no difference no leverage to bargain.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/theresa-may-set-vision-brexit-tuesday-january-17-2017/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/theresa-may-set-vision-brexit-tuesday-january-17-2017/)
St Theresa is going to give us some terms and conditions regarding the thingy me bob that took place last year :slap:
Thought that word/phrase Brexit bingo would be fun to play regarding the speech.
My five are..
1) Red, white and blue Brexit.
2) Take back control of borders.
3) Hard ( i mean exit nothing else!!!) ;D
4) Make a success
5) Democratic will of the people.
Can I have
1) I'm sorry I don't have a clue.
2) Please please please buy our stuff.
3) Black, Green and Gold Brexit.
4) You fucking voted for it, you are getting it whether you like it or not.
5) Lose / lose scenario.
-
We have near as makes no difference no leverage to bargain.
I think we will get what we're given in all but this respect: a lot of EU financial transactions pass through the city and it could cause real problems if this were seriously impaired - for us, obviously- but for some EU economies too.
It's one significant lever in a morass of otherwise impotent inadequacy.
-
What a fuck up. My day at a funeral has been more uplifting than reading the news this evening.
-
So... Sturgeon should be on the war path.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
My bingo scores weren't great.
The whole thing is a giant cluster fuck.
"Britain a great trading nation" about 100 years ago.
Let's have a look at who's doing the deals
Foxy - ah Verity Gate, all forgiven.
Gove - who left uk education in a mess.
Bozzer - the clown.
The list goes on Patel, Hunt the c..nt, Davis.
The country is secure in these hands..
If we can't trade within EU we are up the creak without a paddle.
All I can see are deals for those with clout, everybody else sling your hook.
Foxy, Gove, Bozzer st T all lining their own nests...
Where is a strong opposition when you need it.
Labour going out with a whimper, supporting this farce.
-
Britain has been a very significant trading nation for much longer than that.
-
Britain has been a very significant trading nation for much longer than that.
Yep, but when could we say we were top dogs?
It wasn't really in the last century?
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
In this weeks Sharkathon, I did laps on action direct as part of my new post truth training.
If you tell a lie often enough it is believed.
-
Honestly, I found Action Direct a bit tweaky for laps.
Just saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Honestly, I found Action Direct a bit tweaky for laps.
Just saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well it's a bit short - and only a couple of tricky moves. I need something a bit more sustained for my post truth work out.
I could dangle a large bucket of sand from the bolt just above the Crux - so I could hang from a mono and punch HARD into the sand/bucket. About 20 reps might work.
-
"no deal is better than a bad deal".
I think my jaw genuinely dropped when I read that...
-
From reading German and French press on May's speech:
Reaction in Germany: Whatever... Reaction in France: What the fuck? Eh... whatever
-
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
You might try looking at yourself and ask what you're trying to gloss over by writing '2/3rds didn't'. You're developing a habit on here of letting disingenuous statements by brexiteers beget your own disingenuous statements.
Of the people who believed the issue was important enough to vote on, the majority voted for leave. Those that didn't vote aren't part of a silent majority to be allocated to the side that lost to bump up the numbers. The universe doesn't work like that despite your protestations.
-
Nah Pete's right.
Neither can they be written off as "not bothered", mind you. Plenty didn't feel qualified, I've spoken to a few. Some hoped it would just go away. Some couldn't be bothered, some felt like their little voice wouldn't make a difference.
Some people don't feel clever enough to even try to understand.
Still, the whole "we won, you lost, get over it" thing is utter shit. This will make my life worse, I know plenty of others who feel like they're staring down a gun barrel; wondering what's going to happen to their businesses etc. The only people not worried are those who are sure they won't be affected. Little pigs in brick houses are inclined to forget bricks might not be available to all.
Don't worry though, only a few "speed bumps", nothing to worry about.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Oops.
Link didn't post.
\_[emoji53]_/
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
You might try looking at yourself and ask what you're trying to gloss over by writing '2/3rds didn't'. You're developing a habit on here of letting disingenuous statements by brexiteers beget your own disingenuous statements.
Of the people who believed the issue was important enough to vote on, the majority voted for leave. Those that didn't vote aren't part of a silent majority to be allocated to the side that lost to bump up the numbers. The universe doesn't work like that despite your protestations.
I'm sorry for letting the facts get in the way...
I'm don't need to look at myself, I have a functioning brain.
You seem apposed to anybody who has a view that is different to your own.
37% isn't a majority.
What about all those people who didn't get a chance to vote/weren't entitled to vote.
If we take your no. 51/48 and this had been a football game it would have been called a draw.
Spin it how you want Pete, but I won't agree with you on this.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/iPb7GQU.jpg)
Little Britain: Prime Minister Theresa May leads the UK into isolation
-
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
You might try looking at yourself and ask what you're trying to gloss over by writing '2/3rds didn't'. You're developing a habit on here of letting disingenuous statements by brexiteers beget your own disingenuous statements.
Of the people who believed the issue was important enough to vote on, the majority voted for leave. Those that didn't vote aren't part of a silent majority to be allocated to the side that lost to bump up the numbers. The universe doesn't work like that despite your protestations.
I'm sorry for letting the facts get in the way...
I'm don't need to look at myself, I have a functioning brain.
You seem apposed to anybody who has a view that is different to your own.
37% isn't a majority.
What about all those people who didn't get a chance to vote/weren't entitled to vote.
If we take your no. 51/48 and this had been a football game it would have been called a draw.
Spin it how you want Pete, but I won't agree with you on this.
In the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997, 50.3% voted yes, on a 50.2% turn-out. So approximately 74.8% of voters didn't vote for devolution. Yet there they are.
-
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
You might try looking at yourself and ask what you're trying to gloss over by writing '2/3rds didn't'. You're developing a habit on here of letting disingenuous statements by brexiteers beget your own disingenuous statements.
Of the people who believed the issue was important enough to vote on, the majority voted for leave. Those that didn't vote aren't part of a silent majority to be allocated to the side that lost to bump up the numbers. The universe doesn't work like that despite your protestations.
I'm sorry for letting the facts get in the way...
I'm don't need to look at myself, I have a functioning brain.
You seem apposed to anybody who has a view that is different to your own.
37% isn't a majority.
What about all those people who didn't get a chance to vote/weren't entitled to vote.
If we take your no. 51/48 and this had been a football game it would have been called a draw.
Spin it how you want Pete, but I won't agree with you on this.
In the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997, 50.3% voted yes, on a 50.2% turn-out. So approximately 74.8% of voters didn't vote for devolution. Yet there they are.
And here in lies the lesson of the day.
Democracy sucks.
(I'm, oddly, moderately serious about that. Must be getting seriously old, because I look at some people and cringe when I realise they have the vote.
Mostly people over 65 though...)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Yes democracy sucks.
The biggest gripe I have is who is sticking up for the views of those that don't want this.
Anyway it's not just me that thinks that the numbers don't add up.
AC Grayling thinks the same way, great minds think alike?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-speech-why-didnt-she-make-it-in-parliament-ac-grayling-a7532271.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-speech-why-didnt-she-make-it-in-parliament-ac-grayling-a7532271.html)
"It was obvious from the outset that the unnecessary, ill-advised, badly-framed and "advisory only" referendum which the May government treats as if it were binding and as if it had a super-majority in support of it (whereas only a minority of the electorate voted for it), would result in a mess of epic proportions. And May’s speech confirms it."
-
We are in a post truth age - Trump/Farage etc.
St t stating the majority voted for this.
Glossing over the fact that 2/3rds didn't.
You might try looking at yourself and ask what you're trying to gloss over by writing '2/3rds didn't'. You're developing a habit on here of letting disingenuous statements by brexiteers beget your own disingenuous statements.
Of the people who believed the issue was important enough to vote on, the majority voted for leave. Those that didn't vote aren't part of a silent majority to be allocated to the side that lost to bump up the numbers. The universe doesn't work like that despite your protestations.
I'm sorry for letting the facts get in the way...
I'm don't need to look at myself, I have a functioning brain.
You seem apposed to anybody who has a view that is different to your own.
37% isn't a majority.
What about all those people who didn't get a chance to vote/weren't entitled to vote.
If we take your no. 51/48 and this had been a football game it would have been called a draw.
Spin it how you want Pete, but I won't agree with you on this.
Are you also glossing over numbers by 'rounding down' from above .5 of a decimal?
BBC: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887) Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.
And if it had been a basketball game, which it wasn't, brexit would have won the NBA championship. Your analogy is meaningless.
I'm not attempting to convince you of anything or change your mind or glory in a result - 90% of my friends voted remain, I don't spend my day trying to change their mind becasue I respect their views. I'm pointing out that what you're writing isn't very sensible.
-
I'm not being sensible
I'm not the only one.
Please see my last post regarding AC G
That makes at least another person who has similar views.
Obviously we aren't sensible.
If you are going to be pedantic 51.9/48.1
Don't forget this doesn't include those that didn't/ couldn't vote.
Anyway this was all about sovereignty and borders.
So don't bring American sports into this.
You know what I'm saying.
The vote was too close to make all these fundamental changes.
And that Con party are now in control of what will be lasting changes.
No cross party talk, no sense of unity.
Just peppy talk about being a great trading nation.
-
So Pete, and the other brexiteers on here, are you happy with the direction this is going? Is any brexit better than no brexit?
-
More pertinent, surely is that the current position was that put forward by UKIP at a recent General Election , where, despite massive financial & media support it won exactly one seat IIRC.
-
It's such a Fu#*%$g joke.
Will no-one rid us of this twat?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170118/de647f658d4f4fd1067879ca40b94bdb.png)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
More pertinent, surely is that the current position was that put forward by UKIP at a recent General Election , where, despite massive financial & media support it won exactly one seat IIRC.
All you need to know about the state of the Conservative Party in 2017 (https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/821472723343966208)
I can hardly believe that the PM is now using the phrases and words that I've been mocked for using for years. Real progress. (https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/821336404257017856)
-
More pertinent, surely is that the current position was that put forward by UKIP at a recent General Election , where, despite massive financial & media support it won exactly one seat IIRC.
When I heard the plan a thought did flash across my mind for a second. In light of the fact that I now live in the post-2016 new world order where nothing makes sense I dismissed it immediately. However, it might have something in it? I'm not getting my hopes up.
What if May's strategy, knowing that there are 48% of people out there who are unlikely to be happy with the proposals, is to make the plan so unappetising as to legitimise its refusal by the commons or trigger a second referendum? A second referendum in which the vote is whether to accept or reject the specific deal, as opposed to the vague notion that was put to the electorate in June.
-
Mays speech was a gambit, the deal comes at the end of the negotiations. The Supreme Court will rule next week on whether Parliament get to vote on her initial stance as the basis of triggering Article 50 as she plans to "by the end of March 2017", but it still won't be clear what the rest of the EU will counter with nor what, if anything, will be thrashed out between the UK v's 27 European members who all have to agree.
EDIT : Further musings...
Seems a dangerous game to play being so bullish and is "no deal rather than bad deal (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/17/prime-minister-vows-to-put-final-brexit-deal-before-parliament)" really the get out clause that will be hung to? No deal suggests one of two things, not leaving the EU or having no trading deal at all in place with the EU. The former depends on whether the UK can revoke Article 50 after submitting it which will hinge on the forth coming Dublin Court Case (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/12/further-brexit-court-cases-to-be-launched-in-dublin-and-london) which will seek to determine if this is possible. The later doesn't seem feasible.
-
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph (https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph)
Just some simple immigration facts.
Net migration 335,000 in the year up to June 2016
Split roughly 50/50 between eu/non eu migrants.
Why just pick on EU citizens.
I thought St t was in charge of the Home office?
Reduce non eu immigration without recourse to all this.
I suppose this doesn't fit with gun boat/Victorian/trading diplomacy narrative.
-
Despite falling totally on the remain side and preferring that we were staying, i actually think leaving the EU lock stock and barrel including the single market is the right thing to do. Get out completely and then re negotiate our position.
Asking to stay in any part of it will only lead to a messy hotchpotch of half deals and compromises that will neither be good for us or the EU. It will hurt us in short term but i am pretty sure the business and trade side of the whole affair will sort its self out in the end. We want to buy and sell stuff to them as do the German, French etc. to us. I think leaving completely then renegotiating will actually turn this around quicker.
There appears to be as much posturing from the MEPs in europe as there was here prior to this happening but i suggest its a lot of hot air, and probably some more sensible, practical discussions are happening between business leaders as we speak, i know they are in my industry.
I am now more interested in the direction we take relating to leaving the ECHR, what kind of immigration policy we are going to have and whether Scotland departs the UK as i think these points will have a much more lasting effect on the country.
-
I thought St t was in charge of the Home office?
What are you referring to when you write 'St t'?
-
I thought St t was in charge of the Home office?
What are you referring to when you write 'St t'
St Theresa - the patron st of Brexit ;D
She was in charge of the home office, I'm using the term loosely here.
Before becoming a PM with no mandate.
-
Despite falling totally on the remain side and preferring that we were staying, i actually think leaving the EU lock stock and barrel including the single market is the right thing to do. Get out completely and then re negotiate our position.
Asking to stay in any part of it will only lead to a messy hotchpotch of half deals and compromises that will neither be good for us or the EU. It will hurt us in short term but i am pretty sure the business and trade side of the whole affair will sort its self out in the end. We want to buy and sell stuff to them as do the German, French etc. to us. I think leaving completely then renegotiating will actually turn this around quicker.
There appears to be as much posturing from the MEPs in europe as there was here prior to this happening but i suggest its a lot of hot air, and probably some more sensible, practical discussions are happening between business leaders as we speak, i know they are in my industry.
I am now more interested in the direction we take relating to leaving the ECHR, what kind of immigration policy we are going to have and whether Scotland departs the UK as i think these points will have a much more lasting effect on the country.
That "short term" will extend well into your retirement and half way through your children's working lives (if you're over 35 now).
Plus, don't we already know we'll continue paying into the EU for many years post departure, regardless of how hard or soft we leave?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
French journalist's perspective on May's speech. It's brutal, but may represent a common view:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/europe-loser-brexit-britain (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/europe-loser-brexit-britain)
-
That "short term" will extend well into your retirement and half way through your children's working lives (if you're over 35 now).
Plus, don't we already know we'll continue paying into the EU for many years post departure, regardless of how hard or soft we leave?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
[/quote]
I dont believe that at all although at 48 i hope to be retired in 5 or 6 years.
Trade will have sorted its self out back to where we are now in 3-5 years. All the other stuff will take a lot longer but will be sorted eventually but the trade stuff will be quicker. Politicians think they can control trade but its the other way around.
I am ardent supporter of the EU,have businesses in Holland, Belgium and Germany, suppliers from across the EU and the likes of Norway and am pretty sure the ability to trade as we do now will not change at all in the longer term. This thought is shared by most if not all of my business friends and colleagues both here and over there. Probably a bit more paperwork but thats not a problem.
-
A lot more. Don't you remember what it was like before open boarders? I do.
And it won't be businesses making the trade tariffs and levies.
Then there's the 2 years before we can start negotiations for new deals and the estimated 6-10years to negotiate a deal. All with people who are either upset with us or see us as soft target.
Trade deals may not be everything, but they exist for a reason...
If there is any break or delay in a supply chain, into which we export; the importer will just source elsewhere (we may make the best Jam, but not the only Jam and is it really that much better than French Jam etc (you get my point)).
Rosey talk does not guarantee future business and business is the land of the fair-weather friend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Of course trade between EU and UK will be tariff-free, no? All trade between mature nations is tariff free, or close to tariff free. I haven't heard a single voice suggesting introducing tariffs, neither in France nor in Sweden. However, Theresa May made it clear from day one that she opposes barrier-free trade — and I don't think EU has much leverage on this point.
-
To paraphrase several EU govt ministers/pm's etc... why would anyone put making a deal with a country with a market of 60 million ahead of a group with a market of 500 million.
Mays rhetoric is establising a hard initial bargaining point as slackers stated - but really do we have many cards to play in this 'game'....
-
Despite falling totally on the remain side and preferring that we were staying, i actually think leaving the EU lock stock and barrel including the single market is the right thing to do. Get out completely and then re negotiate our position.
Asking to stay in any part of it will only lead to a messy hotchpotch of half deals and compromises that will neither be good for us or the EU. It will hurt us in short term but i am pretty sure the business and trade side of the whole affair will sort its self out in the end. We want to buy and sell stuff to them as do the German, French etc. to us. I think leaving completely then renegotiating will actually turn this around quicker.
There appears to be as much posturing from the MEPs in europe as there was here prior to this happening but i suggest its a lot of hot air, and probably some more sensible, practical discussions are happening between business leaders as we speak, i know they are in my industry.
I am now more interested in the direction we take relating to leaving the ECHR, what kind of immigration policy we are going to have and whether Scotland departs the UK as i think these points will have a much more lasting effect on the country.
Historically you would be fooked without your French contingent so maybe Brexit will work. We tend to recruit from outside of the EU ;-)
-
To paraphrase several EU govt ministers/pm's etc... why would anyone put making a deal with a country with a market of 60 million ahead of a group with a market of 500 million.
As usual it isn't as simple as that apparent truism makes out - it depends entirely on what their purchasing power is and what they're buying.
100 million poverty-stricken consumers versus 10 million affluent consumers? No contest, if you're a manufacturer of much other than cheap basic necessities.
Take this interesting stat that highlights our importance to the German car industry:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267252/key-automobile-markets-of-bmw-group/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/267252/key-automobile-markets-of-bmw-group/)
Breakdown of BMW Group's worldwide automobile sales in FY 2015, by region
US 20.6%
China 18.1%
Germany 12.7%
UK 10.3%
France 3.5%
Italy 3.2%
Japan 3.1%
Other 28%
That's one example, plucked at random off the top of my head.
-
I knew it German cars, we hold all the aces.
Still trying to fathom out brexit.
This sums it up, when challenged, there Is little substance.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwK1MCTltSA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwK1MCTltSA)
-
Whoops posted twice for some reason
-
Fair enough for the BMW trade deal. I id a good look for a similar breakdown for Unilever - less of a luxury brand. And it's hard to find similar data - except the U.K. (As well as Germany, France and Italy) are in their top 10 markets.
But manufacturers rarely get individual deals anyway - so I think my point is still important...
-
To quote the Economist:
"Such a sectoral approach is anyway unlikely to work, for two reasons. One is that the EU will not offer favoured access to its market only for certain industries. The second is that the World Trade Organisation does not allow it. The WTO accepts free-trade deals and customs unions, but only if they embrace “substantially all the trade”. Were the EU to single out cars, say, for barrier-free trade with Britain, the EU would be obliged by the WTO’s non-discrimination rules to offer the same deal to all WTO members, including China and India."
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21714960-theresa-may-opts-clean-break-europe-negotiations-will-still-be-tricky-doing-brexit?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
So Pete, and the other brexiteers on here, are you happy with the direction this is going? Is any brexit better than no brexit?
Hi JB. Yes, I'm still happy with the way things are going.
No, 'any brexit' isn't better than 'no brexit'.
Because the word 'any' covers an awful lot of different outcomes from benign to catastrophic.
If you could come back to me with detailed examples of, say, 10 different versions of brexit with details of the different outcomes for each of the following: trade deals with EU, trade deals with non-EU countries, movement of people, movement of capital, movement of goods, customs deals, specific tariffs, defense arrangements, research collaboration and funding, sovereignty, make-up of the UK, make-up of the EU, law courts, climate-change obligations, agricultural policy, security collaboration, energy security, worker's rights, currency movement, interest rates, GDP, productivity, inequality, access to good quality education, access to welfare, access to healthcare, v-grade/font grade.
Then I can get back to you. Shouldn't take long, couple of lifetimes?
-
Is it not fairly safe to predict that any trade deal the UK has with the EU upon exiting will be worse than we currently have now whilst part of the EU?
The remaining 27 members would be ludicrous to agree to better trade conditions to a member who leaves than to its remaining members as there would then be a huge incentive to leave, precipitating the disintegration of that which they are standing together for.
-
No, I don't agree it's as simple as that.
For some reasons why, I recommend this as reading material (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal.shtml).
Before anyone says, I'm not betting the farm on everything they suggest coming true. But neither am I taking what you just said at face value as inevitable.
For e.g., who was aware of this fact (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal-germany-cant-afford-hard-bargain.shtml) about who actually pays for German exports to EU countries? (i.e. Germany does!). And therefore why there's much more leverage than at first glance resulting from the UK leaving the EU and becoming a non-EU customer to Germany.
(for those who can't be bothered)
With subdued domestic demand, Germany and the EU depend on trade-induced moderate growth including close trading relations with Britain. Nine EU countries send at least 5% of their total exports to the UK. In Germany whose economy is highly export-dependent, that percentage is about 7.5% of total exports. In 2015 Germany’s trade surplus with the UK alone was a staggering €51bn, about one fifth of Germany’s entire trade surplus.
If anything, these figures understate Germany’s economic dependency on Britain. In 2015 around 36% of Germany’s total exports went to the Eurozone. However, under the so-called TARGET2 payments systems operated by the European Central Bank, Germany’s balance of payments surplus with the eurozone is financed not by the transfer of foreign currency reserves, gold or other near-liquid assets to Germany but by an open-ended overdraft facility granted by the Bundesbank.
Under this peculiar system, the exporter is paid but not by the importing country but Germany’s central bank, i.e. the German public at large, which never receives payment from the importing country but a mere credit note from the importing country’s central bank. As of July 2016 the Bundesbank’s TARGET2 balance stood at over €660bn. That sum is the total debt owed by other eurozone central banks to the Bundesbank, which is unlikely ever to be repaid. The Bundesbank, in other words, has become another ‘bad bank’ financing the current account deficits of other eurozone members. Germany’s trade surplus with the eurozone therefore is little more than a massive ‘accounting trick.’ If German eurozone exports were paid for in the same way as her other exports, Germany would be a much richer country. That Germany is moderately prosperous at all, is owed in large measure to her ‘real’ non-eurozone trade surplus. Germany and, by analogy, other export-driven eurozone economies depend on trade with the UK as a key trade partner outside the dysfunctional eurozone much more than is commonly realised.
-
I think it will end up being the same. Its as much interest to the EU to trade with us as with us to them. There is more risk to us as exports to the EU are a bigger percentage of our total exports than the EUs to us (44% v 16%) but the value to them is great (220 ish v 290ish). So whilst i am sure the politicians want to punish us hard it will not make sense to do so.
Only 3 of the 27 import more from us than export to us. Will they want that to stop by making there goods more expensive for us to buy? Pretty sure what ever deal is made will be a two way thing.
Also you make the assumption that the open access trade deal is the most important thing for all 27 countries when i dont think this is the case.
-
For some reasons why, I recommend this as reading material (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal.shtml).
Thanks for the link.
Aren't the authors conclusion that free movement of goods and services should continue predicated by the EUs principles that this is married to the free movement of people?
May seemed pretty clear in her speech on Tuesday that the UK governments opening position to forthcoming negotiations are that this requisite won't be met.
-
That was May's opening position. And the EU's opening position is known.
As to what actually happens, we'll see where we end up at the end of negotiations
-
So Pete, and the other brexiteers on here, are you happy with the direction this is going? Is any brexit better than no brexit?
I'm sanguine about how it's going. Once the posturing and grandstanding stops on both sides and the work of the negotiations starts then I believe a reasonable deal for each side will be achieved. A spanner will then be thrown in the works during the EU ratification of the deal by a region refusing to agree to it (as with the Canada trade deal). This will then be dealt with by the usual EU fudge (ie they will keep pushing the question at the offending region until they give the right answer...)
-
+1
-
+2
Its the willy waving politicians on both sides that will make it a slow process.
-
That's a neat summing up.
I also think the debate has suffered as a result of the competitive political commenting which some people are literally making careers out of. You can spend hours "engaging" with it via Twitter - oooh, did you read that amazing Stephen Bush article in the New Statesman, maybe you should read Isabel Hardman in the Spectator, oooh it's AC Grayling, actually why has no-one asked Stephen Hawking and Phil Collins what they think too, etc.
The only thing I've engaged with today is my hostility towards Boris. I am looking forward to his eventual sacrifice which I hope will be both decisive and bloodthirsty...
-
+1 Re: Boris Sacrifice
-
actually why has no-one asked Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking on EU Referendum (https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2016/may/31/stephen-hawking-on-eu-referendum-britain-risks-being-isolated-video) (albeit prior to the referendum itself, he touches on the consequences in this December 2016 Opinion piece (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/stephen-hawking-dangerous-time-planet-inequality))
-
Just trying to find the link to the opinion piece Phil Collins wrote for Prospect. Think it was called No Brexit Required...
-
I knew something was in the air tonight.
-
I also think the debate has suffered as a result of the competitive political commenting which some people are literally making careers out of,..... oooh it's AC Grayling,
The only thing I've engaged with today is my hostility towards Boris. I am looking forward to his eventual sacrifice which I hope will be both decisive and bloodthirsty...
To be honest I'm not bothered about what ACG has for breakfast.
Yesterday was told I'm not being sensible.
Had a mooch, came across acrticle by Grayling which chimed with what I said.
I'd like to think Mr G is sensible so posted it up.
A lot of talk about trade and the economic side of things.
But nothing on the biggy immigration.
Talk about stopping EU immigration but nothing about Non -EU immigration.
Brexit leaders stated that immigration should be the 10's of thousands.
Link to most recent immigration stats.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
(https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics)
I'd just like to know why Cons are out raving and so enthusiastic about Brexit.
After referendum result nobody wanted to own the issue.
They were never this enthusiastic about health, education, equality etc.
I can only think that behind the scenes lots of moving and shaking going on.
So the winners aren't those who voted for Brexit, but big business.
Those with deep pockets, not Becky Brexit or Rob the Remainer.
We have the big repeal bill to look forward to.
Who is going to protect workers rights, the environment etc
I'm sure it won't be Theresa, or Boris.
Yes Yossi your right Boris, Hunt, Gove, Fox, Cameron all deserve a long painful demise....
-
I also think the debate has suffered as a result of the competitive political commenting which some people are literally making careers out of,..... oooh it's AC Grayling,
The only thing I've engaged with today is my hostility towards Boris. I am looking forward to his eventual sacrifice which I hope will be both decisive and bloodthirsty...
To be honest I'm not bothered about what ACG has for breakfast.
Yesterday was told I'm not being sensible.
Had a mooch, came across acrticle by Grayling which chimed with what I said.
I'd like to think Mr G is sensible so posted it up.
A lot of talk about trade and the economic side of things.
But nothing on the biggy immigration.
Talk about stopping EU immigration but nothing about Non -EU immigration.
Brexit leaders stated that immigration should be the 10's of thousands.
Link to most recent immigration stats.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
(https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics)
I'd just like to know why Cons are out raving and so enthusiastic about Brexit.
After referendum result nobody wanted to own the issue.
They were never this enthusiastic about health, education, equality etc.
I can only think that behind the scenes lots of moving and shaking going on.
So the winners aren't those who voted for Brexit, but big business.
Those with deep pockets, not Becky Brexit or Rob the Remainer.
We have the big repeal bill to look forward to.
Who is going to protect workers rights, the environment etc
I'm sure it won't be Theresa, or Boris.
Yes Yossi your right Boris, Hunt, Gove, Fox, Cameron all deserve a long painful demise....
Is this beat poetry or iambic pentameter?
-
He's been taking lessons from me.
Shame Dense isn't around to get wound up about it.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
In terms of the Tory Eurosceptics, I think a lot of it dates back to the early days of the EEC and the architects of the Euro, and the fact that the latter always had in mind a fully federalised Europe. Partly as that would be the only way they saw the Euro would work, and partly because, if you're into greater and greater union, then why not continue to its natural conclusion. So, if you're a Tory with ideological issues about what you see as a radical European experiment, it's a pretty straightforward position to take.
All the pro-Brexit firebrands like Hannan, etc seem to totally define themselves along these lines. Looks, here - another opinion piece - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit
It would've been ok if it had just been a bunch of stuffy Spectator readers droning on about it, but once UKIP figured out that, if they rephrased it as an immigration and money-in-your-pocket issue, lots of basic, gullible people thought it might be a good idea too. I think, in a lot of ways, Farage is a genius. Blair had a brilliant team behind him, but Farage has done it largely himself. Fuck up this country, fuck up European politics for the next few years, fuck up the US election...
-
That doesn't explain those people who voted for brexit who a) aren't natural Tories and b) aren't supporters of Farage or ukip. Clearly a majority were one or the other, but I'd be interested to see some stats of the breakdown of political views of leave voters.
Finding a federalised European state unattractive isn't the preserve of Tory or ukip supporters. I think you can find that ideology in voters from all parts of the spectrum.
-
No, I quite agree. The interesting thing was how the argument was framed, and how it was quite independent of left / right ideology. Or ended up as such, partly thanks to Corbyn...
-
I can only think that behind the scenes lots of moving and shaking going on.
So the winners aren't those who voted for Brexit, but big business.
Those with deep pockets, not Becky Brexit or Rob the Remainer.
Excuse my cynicism but that seems an underlying theme that plays out across the board in many democracies and not just post-communist countries.
For example there are many MPs across all parties (i.e. its also not linked to ideology) who have a conflict of interest with regards to healthcare and privatisation (https://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/compilation-of-parliamentary-financial.html) (dated but demonstrates the prevalence and I doubt things have changed much).
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."
Noam Chomsky (https://genius.com/Noam-chomsky-the-state-corporate-complex-a-threat-to-freedom-and-survival-annotated)
-
Thanks, interesting commentary.
-
I took that political compass test a year or two ago, and just took it again this morning. The result both times was the same - lower left area of the bottom left quadrant (libertarian socialism), same as quite a few others on here no doubt. According to the commentary on that site regarding brexit voters, I shouldn't have voted the way I did.
-
I shouldn't have voted the way I did.
Well at least you've admitted it now ;)
-
That questionnaire seems to be framed to lead anyone well to the left of centre.
-
As is the tone of their commentary on brexit.
-
The only thing I've engaged with today is my hostility towards Boris. I am looking forward to his eventual sacrifice which I hope will be both decisive and bloodthirsty...
I'm amazed this hasn't already happened TBH - what an absolute buffoon the man is! His head would look great on a spike with his stupid floppy hair wafting about in the breeze
-
No, I don't agree it's as simple as that.
For some reasons why, I recommend this as reading material (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal.shtml).
Before anyone says, I'm not betting the farm on everything they suggest coming true. But neither am I taking what you just said at face value as inevitable.
For e.g., who was aware of this fact (http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal-germany-cant-afford-hard-bargain.shtml) about who actually pays for German exports to EU countries? (i.e. Germany does!). And therefore why there's much more leverage than at first glance resulting from the UK leaving the EU and becoming a non-EU customer to Germany.
(for those who can't be bothered)
With subdued domestic demand, Germany and the EU depend on trade-induced moderate growth including close trading relations with Britain. Nine EU countries send at least 5% of their total exports to the UK. In Germany whose economy is highly export-dependent, that percentage is about 7.5% of total exports. In 2015 Germany’s trade surplus with the UK alone was a staggering €51bn, about one fifth of Germany’s entire trade surplus.
If anything, these figures understate Germany’s economic dependency on Britain. In 2015 around 36% of Germany’s total exports went to the Eurozone. However, under the so-called TARGET2 payments systems operated by the European Central Bank, Germany’s balance of payments surplus with the eurozone is financed not by the transfer of foreign currency reserves, gold or other near-liquid assets to Germany but by an open-ended overdraft facility granted by the Bundesbank.
Under this peculiar system, the exporter is paid but not by the importing country but Germany’s central bank, i.e. the German public at large, which never receives payment from the importing country but a mere credit note from the importing country’s central bank. As of July 2016 the Bundesbank’s TARGET2 balance stood at over €660bn. That sum is the total debt owed by other eurozone central banks to the Bundesbank, which is unlikely ever to be repaid. The Bundesbank, in other words, has become another ‘bad bank’ financing the current account deficits of other eurozone members. Germany’s trade surplus with the eurozone therefore is little more than a massive ‘accounting trick.’ If German eurozone exports were paid for in the same way as her other exports, Germany would be a much richer country. That Germany is moderately prosperous at all, is owed in large measure to her ‘real’ non-eurozone trade surplus. Germany and, by analogy, other export-driven eurozone economies depend on trade with the UK as a key trade partner outside the dysfunctional eurozone much more than is commonly realised.
I have no idea whether this argument is true or relevant. But let's assume that it is.
To suggest this issue will act as a very important factor in how Germany approaches the Brexit negotiations requires two further assumptions. Firstly, that the Germans wouldn't want to take a decision which was based on their political goals and how they envisage the future of their country, even if it was economically harmful. And secondly, that having done so, and seen some constraint on their ability to export to an important market, that they wouldn't then be able to replace that market with faster growing ones further away.
Now where have I seen arguments like that before...?
:-\
-
Owen Patterson (ex-minister) and John Longworth (Leave Means Leave) laughed at in Germany when suggesting the UK is "a beacon of open, free trade around the world" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38707997)
The occasional light-hearted attempts at EU-bashing - usually guaranteed to get a cheap laugh with some British audiences - was met with stony silence. In another setting - at another time - this gathering of the elite of Germany's powerful business community would have lapped up the British wit. Every ironic quip would ordinarily have had them rolling in the aisles. But British charm does not travel well these days. Rattled by the economic havoc Brexit could unleash, Germans are not in the mood for gags.
:-\ :-\ :-\
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-guy-hands-says-cut-wages-30-percent-twenty-years-private-equity-a7540986.html
Just read it.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-guy-hands-says-cut-wages-30-percent-twenty-years-private-equity-a7540986.html
Just read it.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Economic predictions for 20 years hence, really??? Total and utter bollocks and a complete waste of time. You might as well ask the tea leaves.
-
Nah, tea leaves no, successful fund managers? Worth paying attention to.
Still all expert opinion anti-brexit, still no credible pro argument.
Wow! This is a really big bubble!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
''Still all expert opinion anti-brexit''.
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write. Yep, you're in a bubble alright.
-
No Pete, you are the probrexit reality denier. You have been all along. Rose tinted specs and glorious Empire, with tea and cakes for all.
It's a bad idea.
Most people that voted for it didn't understand what they voted for.
It'll make most of those very same people poorer for at least a decade.
You are a dreamer, mate. I'm hardly alone in my bubble, here. For some reason you take my rebuttals of your tripe personally (oops, did I say that out loud?).
You are happy to predict a land of milk and honey after the "little hiccups " and "speed bumps", twenty years from now, but cry foul if someone with a real investment track record says the opposite? And I'm dumb? Look in the mirror.
And read it again, he said it would be good for the economy, bad for working and middle class people.
Next time you call me dumb, remember you voted Brexit, along with every racist Nazi in the country, but I don't accuse you of being one of them.
You are deluded and bamboozled by Farage and his ilk, but call remainers dumb?
Show me the expert opinion in support of your claim, that can't be refuted with the quickest google search.
It's been done again and sgain throughout this thread. By many people.
But that's ok it's everyone else who's wrong or just guessing, you are making informed prognostications of almost omniscient worth...
No, you're not.
Still waiting for your experts. Been waiting since day one of the thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
On the plus side, Keir "Because I'm worth it" Starmer is doing sterling work as the Shadow Brexit Secretary, and I'm thinking of putting money on him becoming the next Labour leader.
That haircut deserves international recognition.
(http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.3883216.1418314215!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
-
No Pete, you are the probrexit reality denier. You have been all along. Rose tinted specs and glorious Empire, with tea and cakes for all.
It's a bad idea.
Most people that voted for it didn't understand what they voted for.
It'll make most of those very same people poorer for at least a decade.
You are a dreamer, mate. I'm hardly alone in my bubble, here. For some reason you take my rebuttals of your tripe personally (oops, did I say that out loud?).
You are happy to predict a land of milk and honey after the "little hiccups " and "speed bumps", twenty years from now, but cry foul if someone with a real investment track record says the opposite? And I'm dumb? Look in the mirror.
And read it again, he said it would be good for the economy, bad for working and middle class people.
Next time you call me dumb, remember you voted Brexit, along with every racist Nazi in the country, but I don't accuse you of being one of them.
You are deluded and bamboozled by Farage and his ilk, but call remainers dumb?
Show me the expert opinion in support of your claim, that can't be refuted with the quickest google search.
It's been done again and sgain throughout this thread. By many people.
But that's ok it's everyone else who's wrong or just guessing, you are making informed prognostications of almost omniscient worth...
No, you're not.
Still waiting for your experts. Been waiting since day one of the thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't bother respondeding to it.
He's got his big spoon out and keeps stirring it to get a reaction.
I think PDiddy Pete voted Remain.
Alternative facts alive and well in both the USA and UKB.
I'm off to do laps on Action Direct, with a head torch. 8)
-
Head torch!
Pah! Half a candle in your right hand is the only true way!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Pete, I've dipped very sporadically into this thread, but as far as I can tell you've said the following at some point:
- Trying to make economic predictions 20 years in the future is worthless
- Brexit will cause short term pain/hiccups
I may be wrong on the above, if so sorry and Ignore this post.
Presuming the above is right, then what sort of logic would allow Brexit to be a sensible decision economically? It eludes me...
Of course your main psyche for Brexit may be some vague notion of freedom or governing ourselves r whatever, in which case I'll just have to agree to disagree on whether I'd trust Brussels or Whitehall to do a better job.
-
Economic predictions for 20 years hence, really??? Total and utter bollocks and a complete waste of time. You might as well ask the tea leaves.
I'm mindful to agree except this is the sort of time frame we're told is when the economic benefits of Brexit will start to be felt. Obviously we can't take his prediction as gospel but it's an opinion worth considering. Besides, he's saying this is what he thinks it'll be like in 20 years and presumably represents an end game of sorts. The implication being that the decline will begin way before, probably in the sort of timeframes you would consider more predictable.
-
Most people that voted for it didn't understand what they voted for.
Not a single person who voted for Brexit understood what they voted for because there was and still isn't a clear definition of what it will mean.
-
Pete in cartoon dog form.
(http://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png)
-
::)
Jesus.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-guy-hands-says-cut-wages-30-percent-twenty-years-private-equity-a7540986.html
Just read it.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Economic predictions for 20 years hence, really??? Total and utter bollocks and a complete waste of time. You might as well ask the tea leaves.
Clearly the man's predictions are guestimates based on an extrapolation of current trends, and as such unreliable, as you rightly point out. Of course, rather than make overall forecasts (a mug's game), people have and will make conditional forecasts which tend to be more accurate.
But let's ignore those, to level the playing field in your direction because clearly you're in the minority here and it's good to play nice with minorities (isn't it?).
We could instead look at the short term outlook for employment and wage growth. That isn't good.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-rf-earnings-outlook-q3-2016/
Is this acceptable as part of the inevitable adjustment process, or do you worry that it might be a long-term loss?
And moving away from forecasting, what's your view on Mrs May's suggestion that we might become, basically, a tax haven? Is this what you voted for?
-
Interesting stuff from the (IMO extremely r-wing) Standard about a report on UK manufacturing.
The manufacturing sector is split into 5 categories according to vulnerability to Brexit of which the first 3 (the least vulnerable) are
1) Innovative producers with a genuine competetive edge (e.g. Rolls-Royce)
2) Strongly branded products with specific British connections (e.g Scotch & Burberry)
3) Locational producers which need to be close to their market (e.g. Food products)
However the 1st 2 provide only 9% and 5% of manufacturing jobs respectively.
Their conclusion - 64% of manufacturiing jobs are likely to be "wiped out".
-
I had to double check, but it seems the Economist is considered right wing.
However, they don't seem to like May or Trump (or Brexit) very much:
"A fact of the modern world, sadly overlooked in the referendum, is bringing itself to bear on Britain: control and autonomy are not the same thing. The country is party to some 700 treaties, member of myriad international organisations and spends tens of billions on a nuclear deterrent unusable without America (this week it transpired that, at Washington’s behest, Parliament had been kept in the dark when a missile went off course in a test). In each of these cases, Britain trades pure self-determination for real influence: the ability to shape its economic, security and environmental circumstances. Its membership of the EU is just one of many such deals. Leaving the club reinstates some control to Britain but requires it to trade away control in other ways. Will the result be a country any more able to chart its own course, as chosen by its own democratically elected leaders? Watch the prime minister’s excruciating embrace of Mr Trump and decide."
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715652-leaving-european-union-means-country-has-less-not-more-control-over-its?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/britainsexcruciatingembraceofdonaldtrumpshowshowlittleindependenceithasgainedfrombrexit
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I had to double check, but it seems the Economist is considered right wing.
In case it interests anyone.
"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
-- The Economist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/corbyn-to-impose-three-line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50-brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/corbyn-to-impose-three-line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50-brexit)
Labour lost its way a while ago.
Looks as though the Brexit vote will maybe cause St Jez a lot of problems.
Possibly enough to remove him, who knows maybe the bye election in Stoke might?
I don't understand Jez positioning, majority of Lab voted Remain.
If there was an early election (I know about the fix term bit) I would expect Lab wipe out.
Lots of family have been Lab members but have not renewed membership this time around.
-
Didn't Corbyn say quite recently something about British working people not being able to affoed withdrawal from the single market (obviously true) and I saw an interview with Umuna (about as anti-Corbyn as you can get) spouting some nonsense about voting for Article 50 but then opposing it later. Can anyone explain Labour's position I'm lost.
-
Didn't Corbyn say quite recently something about British working people not being able to affoed withdrawal from the single market (obviously true) and I saw an interview with Umuna (about as anti-Corbyn as you can get) spouting some nonsense about voting for Article 50 but then opposing it later. Can anyone explain Labour's position I'm lost.
The position is referred to as "flip-flop."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/608678/Labour-conference-2015-Jeremy-Corbyn-red-socks-sandals-speech-Twitter (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/608678/Labour-conference-2015-Jeremy-Corbyn-red-socks-sandals-speech-Twitter)
Shame from the express, forgive me...for I have sinned...
-
Shame from the express, forgive me...for I have sinned...
Indeed! Nicely juxtaposed with a climate change denial article. Thanks.
That wasn't a rhetorical question I actually want to find out.
-
Shame from the express, forgive me...for I have sinned...
Indeed! Nicely juxtaposed with a climate change denial article. Thanks.
That wasn't a rhetorical question I actually want to find out.
I asked myself the same thing the other day.
I went and had a look at the Labour Party website.
http://www.labour.org.uk (http://www.labour.org.uk)
It isn't very clear.
The main page concentrates on NHS and getting new members.
There are no really defined bullet point policies about Brexit, Trident etc.
Or links to deeper thinking about these issues.
All bits and bobs taken from twitter and facebook.
It looks a bit of a shambles to me.
-
Again, assuming this is based on intelligence and not just supposition, it must be alarming. The difference in taxation rates and labour laws, though, seem likely to be major barriers.
It does piss me off a tad, that the only thing that makes the UK attractive is lack of worker protection and low taxation (ie lack of social conscience); especially given these seem the most likely "rights" and "duties" to be eroded post Brexit.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715720-paris-frankfurt-and-dublin-all-hope-pick-up-some-post-brexit-business-firms-consider-upping?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/leaveorremainfirmsconsideruppingsticksfrombrexitboundbritainasforeigncapitalsmountacharmoffensive
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I went and had a look at the Labour Party website.
http://www.labour.org.uk (http://www.labour.org.uk)
It isn't very clear.
....It looks a bit of a shambles to me.
Yup - my membership is going to be cancelled soon...
-
I went and had a look at the Labour Party website.
http://www.labour.org.uk (http://www.labour.org.uk)
It isn't very clear.
....It looks a bit of a shambles to me.
Yup - my membership is going to be cancelled soon...
I'm hanging on in there for the time being but increasingly frustrated. I actually called them to say I'm thinking of leaving to try and get the message across. Not one but two officials slammed the phone down on me (after getting their facts wrong and saying I didn't make sense).
Utterly unprofessional.
-
I think we joined at the same time and for the same reason, TT.
It's clear to me that that battle has been lost but I'm reticent about cancelling my membership. a) because I doubt they let you back in once you've left; b) because I don't really want to give up hope that the Labour party can be the party of opposition.
I used to look at the news years ago and get cross but the events of the past year are on a new level. Alternative Facts reigning on both sides of the Atlantic. The Americans have elected a bona fide dictator who has already started to strip away the civil liberties of the poor foolish people who trusted him. The far right are on a roll; what can we do about it?
-
The far right are on a roll; what can we do about it?
If you find out please let me know!
-
The government revealed on Thursday that Brexit would involve the UK leaving Euratom, which promotes research into nuclear power and uniform safety standards. (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/27/uk-exit-eu-atomic-treaty-brexit-euratom-hinkley-point-c)
EDF, which is building two new reactors at Hinkley in Somerset and hopes to build other nuclear plants, has told MPs that “ideally” the UK would stay in the treaty, as it provides a framework for complying with international standards for handling nuclear material.
Without mentioning Hinkley, the French state-owned company has also warned that restrictions on movement of people because of Brexit could delay delivery of new energy infrastructure.
Antony Froggatt, a research fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, said: “Outside of Euratom and the single market, the movement of nuclear fuel, equipment and trained staff will be more complicated.”
:wall:
-
One wonders if "liberal Leavers" saw this one coming. Stay classy, Britain.
"The logic of a hard Brexit is that our trading links with our biggest trading partner will diminish. The only question is by how much.
"That gap will be filled – at least initially – with grubby deals with the likes of Turkey and the Gulf States. We’ll do those deals both because we need the markets and because domestic politics will need quick wins. And those are the quickest “wins” we’ll be able to pick up. The image of the “free trading, buccaneering global Britain” will give away to a reality of Britain as the despot’s friend."
https://medium.com/@DuncanWeldon/global-britain-the-despots-friend-73c2c8d4f17a#.7o4hy47z0
-
Beggars can't be choosers, that cliché so obviously applies now - and was always going to. It's not like we took a principled stand re Saudi when fully a part of the EU did we?
-
Beggars can't be choosers, that cliché so obviously applies now - and was always going to. It's not like we took a principled stand re Saudi when fully a part of the EU did we?
Yes just look at Theresa M cozying up to Turkish PM
UKIP/Cons were hot under the collar that Turkey would join EU.
Thinking there would be a great rush of migration to U.K.
Now happy enough to accept Turkish money but not workers.
The Uk could not trade with other countries while in eu, is an imaginary Brexit thinking.
I seem to remember BAE defence agreements with unsavoury gov around world, so obviously we couldn't do deals whilst part of EU.
For me this all harks back to Thatcher and Pinochet.
Will prop up dictators if the money's right, all very sad really.
-
Shit American food coming our way: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/29/britain-us-trade-deal-gm-food-eu-rules?CMP=share_btn_tw
Stay classy NFU.
-
Breakdown of BMW Group's worldwide automobile sales in FY 2015, by region
US 20.6%
China 18.1%
Germany 12.7%
UK 10.3%
France 3.5%
Italy 3.2%
Japan 3.1%
Other 28%
Was having a think about this as I drove past petrol station yesterday.
Since Christmas petrol seems to have gone up quite a bit maybe 20p.
So yes at the moment for BMW the U.K. is a player.
But if prices go up by 20% because of fall in £ these cars will become prohibitively expensive. This is without taking into consideration any traiffs that might be added on in the future, or if things get even worse for the £? So I would expect UK BMW sale share over time to fall. BMW will will plug gaps with emerging markets e.g. India, Russia, other countries not on the list.
In the future I can see myself riding round in a horse and cart post Brexit.
-
Who's got the Irony klaxon?
Give this Tit a blast in the earhole, please.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170129/07755f1fcbb72aed4e0012bcd50c933d.jpg)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Beggars can't be choosers, that cliché so obviously applies now - and was always going to. It's not like we took a principled stand re Saudi when fully a part of the EU did we?
No, but I always felt it was something most people were a bit ashamed of, like Britannia was a woman who struggled to make it through the month and ended up doing blow jobs behind the pub to make ends meet.
Making the point that we're going to have to do blow jobs at the start of the month rather than to bridge the gap is to try and combat the Leavers' sense of nobility about their decision, the framing of their narrative around freedom, self-determination, striking a blow. Nah, it's no such thing. It's going to make us a bit crappy and desperate - and that's out of choice. We've got to hammer it home.
-
Any in Academia care to comment on this?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/01/26/no-longer-welcome-the-eu-academics-in-britain-told-to-make-arrangements-to-leave/
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Too busy to read in full, so won't comment on it.
<anecdote>
A colleague from Italy who has been working here for two years handed in his resignation in December. He's got a job in Germany and cited uncertainty about Brexit as a major factor in his decision to leave.
</anecdote>
-
FWIW the majority of my colleagues of whatever nationality have already gone. There are 6 desks in my office. For years we have been under pressure to add a seventh. Now only 3 are occupied, 2 part-time until June.
-
Any in Academia care to comment on this?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/01/26/no-longer-welcome-the-eu-academics-in-britain-told-to-make-arrangements-to-leave/
That's a very odd blog headline issue. The home office letter, as he says, is clearly a mistake. The UK has in the last decade had a sudden surge of high quality EU research academics in a highly competitive staffing 'market' under REF (the main non-grant-based University research funding assessment), This is partly as things were bad in some EU states and partly as we don't train anything like enough UK research staff in shortage areas (notably STEM) to meet the current demographic bulge in retirements and partly as the junior research staff can be ruthlessly exploited (ie those we do train can get treated like shit on rolling fixed term researcher contracts often with risk of contracts being ended long after the 4 years in law when they should become full time (one at my place after 21 years of rolling contracts). If you like we have been cherry picking in someone else's garden whilst letting our own cherry trees wither.
The UCU survey evidence and talking to such staff shows clearly that many EU staff do feel worried about living in an increasingly xenophobic UK, especially those with families here. They are worried that their immigration status medium term is uncertain. Many staff (EU or UK) with EU resaerch collaborations have had problems (despite rules that says they shouldn't have unitl 2021). In my area we have lost two staff recently who cited brexit as a real issue in their decision (one Italian left for a job he might not have taken before, in Italy, one Brit working overseas declined an offer after interview). Yet the most important impact by far is going to be the stubborn inclusion by St Teresa of overseas students in the immigration figures, at a time the government desperately want to reduce immigration. This is a multi billion UK export market and the University profits from this prop-up for the underfunding of UK research (hardly anything in research grants is fully costed) and STEM teaching (the subject top ups to £9k fees don't meet the infrastructure investment requirements and things are getting worse in the funding model). We dont just cherry pick from the EU: have many newish high quality staff from non EU countries on tier 2 or similar visas who are a more worried about their futures than EU staff.
In contrast to EU citizens, the impact of the home office on non-EU citizens is severe. As an example, one of my PhD student, who is Libyan, had to find £35k for a 9 month visa extension for himself and immediate family in summer 2016, with only a months notice (he had major extenuating circumstances and missed his submission deadline by weeks under the old visa ...his home city is in a war zone...several family members have been hospitalised and nearly died ). The head of student support at the University said to me that it was impossible to help financially, directly due to anti money laundering legislation, and from emercency student hardship funds due to strict rules on those funds. Its pretty much impossible to transfer funds from that part of Libya, for obvious reasons, and although teaching part-time, at the limits allowed, his income and savings was way off meeting such a sudden need: the genoricity of the Muslim community in the UK that allowed him to acheive this without the help offered by his academic staff colleaques is impressive.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/i-had-a-screw-it-moment-says-mep-who-held-sign-up-behind-nigel-farage (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/i-had-a-screw-it-moment-says-mep-who-held-sign-up-behind-nigel-farage) :clap2:
-
The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union White Paper (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper)
May is deluded and arrogant if she thinks she has "The essential ingredient of our success. The strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen"
EDIT :
Shit never realised I was entitled to 14 weeks annual leave...
(http://i.imgur.com/1uSiean.png)
Could this be a little rushed? :-\
-
Who's going to try to spin a negative slant on the latest quarterly growth forecast from the Bank of England then.....?
'Economic disaster' Matt? Keep that tin hat on soldier (sailor, sorry ;) )
The variance in forecasts within just 9 months is startling.
Pre-referendum forecast in May 2016 - assuming a 'remain' vote: forecasting 2017 growth of 2.3%
Post-referedum forecast in August: 0.8%! Dire warning of recession
November forecast: up to 1.4% (almost a doubling of previous forecast)
February's forecast: up again to 2.0%! How is this possible, given a forecast of 0.8% just last August post-'leave'?!
Gaurdian take:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-uk-growth-forecast-economy-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-forecasts-mark-carney-brexit-vote
The Bank of England’s inflation report was supposed to be a dull affair. The City thought the quarterly health check of the UK economy would be a bit of a yawn.
Big misjudgment, as it happens.
The Bank dropped a bombshell by announcing rosy new forecasts showing that it expected the economy to grow by 2% in 2017. A growth upgrade by the Bank from November’s 1.4% forecast was anticipated following the strong performance of the economy in the second half of 2016. Such a big one was not.
The new forecasts are the latest embarrassment for the Bank. In August, it said the economy was likely to show virtually no growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. In fact, activity expanded by 0.6% in both and the momentum will carry over into the first half of 2017.
Last August, Threadneedle Street was pencilling in growth of just 0.8% in 2017 even after taking into account the impact of its emergency post-referendum cut in interest rates and the £60bn boost to quantitative easing. Now it says 2017’s growth will be only slightly slower than the 2.3% it was forecasting last May, when it assumed the referendum vote would go the other way.
-
The variance in forecasts within just 9 months is startling.
It would be useful if rather than just providing point estimates the also provided a measure of the variance (i.e. uncertainty) around it when making such forecasts.
-
They do. It's on or around page 37 of each quarterly growth forecast.
-
Got a link please?
Any harm in including them when posting them?
-
I would normally but was short of time befor had to leave the office. On phone. It's on the BofE website, downloadable pdfs for each quarterly inflation report.
-
Who's going to try to spin a negative slant on the latest quarterly growth forecast from the Bank of England then.....?
'Economic disaster' Matt? Keep that tin hat on soldier (sailor, sorry ;) )
The variance in forecasts within just 9 months is startling.
Pre-referendum forecast in May 2016 - assuming a 'remain' vote: forecasting 2017 growth of 2.3%
Post-referedum forecast in August: 0.8%! Dire warning of recession
November forecast: up to 1.4% (almost a doubling of previous forecast)
February's forecast: up again to 2.0%! How is this possible, given a forecast of 0.8% just last August post-'leave'?!
Gaurdian take:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-uk-growth-forecast-economy-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-forecasts-mark-carney-brexit-vote
The Bank of England’s inflation report was supposed to be a dull affair. The City thought the quarterly health check of the UK economy would be a bit of a yawn.
Big misjudgment, as it happens.
The Bank dropped a bombshell by announcing rosy new forecasts showing that it expected the economy to grow by 2% in 2017. A growth upgrade by the Bank from November’s 1.4% forecast was anticipated following the strong performance of the economy in the second half of 2016. Such a big one was not.
The new forecasts are the latest embarrassment for the Bank. In August, it said the economy was likely to show virtually no growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. In fact, activity expanded by 0.6% in both and the momentum will carry over into the first half of 2017.
Last August, Threadneedle Street was pencilling in growth of just 0.8% in 2017 even after taking into account the impact of its emergency post-referendum cut in interest rates and the £60bn boost to quantitative easing. Now it says 2017’s growth will be only slightly slower than the 2.3% it was forecasting last May, when it assumed the referendum vote would go the other way.
The growth forecasts are good, back to what they were estimating for 2017 pre referendum when they thought the country was going to remain. So the only negative thing you can say for Brexit so far is the collapse of the pound and the massive QE but they are positives anyway. Well not QE, obviously, nobody wants to spend billions to devalue their assets.
-
God Pete, if Brexit turns out to be the best thing ever, I shall be buying you a pint or 6 and grinning like a fucking loon.
But is that what this forecast means?
Is that what you're saying?
\_[emoji53]_/ maybe?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170202/46d2d6d5427bb376e7871c7233363742.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would normally but was short of time befor had to leave the office. On phone. It's on the BofE website, downloadable pdfs for each quarterly inflation report.
Thanks.
February 2017 (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx)
November 2016 (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2016/nov.aspx)
August 2016 (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2016/aug.aspx)
May 2016 (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2016/may.aspx)
February 2016 (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2016/feb.aspx)
February 2016 CPI
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/cpimktfeb16.gif)
February 2016 GDP
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/gdpmktfeb16.gif)
May 2016 CPI
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/cpimktmay16.gif)
May 2016 GDP
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/gdpmktmay16.gif)
August 2016 CPI
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/cpimktaug16.gif)
August 2016 GDP
(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/PublishingImages/inflationreport/gdpmktaug16.gif)
Quite a high degree of uncertainty in those predictions, I'm not surprised by the fluctuation in the quarterly revised point estimates.
-
Who's going to try to spin a negative slant on the latest quarterly growth forecast from the Bank of England then.....?
'Economic disaster' Matt? Keep that tin hat on soldier (sailor, sorry ;) )
The variance in forecasts within just 9 months is startling.
Pre-referendum forecast in May 2016 - assuming a 'remain' vote: forecasting 2017 growth of 2.3%
Post-referedum forecast in August: 0.8%! Dire warning of recession
November forecast: up to 1.4% (almost a doubling of previous forecast)
February's forecast: up again to 2.0%! How is this possible, given a forecast of 0.8% just last August post-'leave'?!
Gaurdian take:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-uk-growth-forecast-economy-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-forecasts-mark-carney-brexit-vote
The Bank of England’s inflation report was supposed to be a dull affair. The City thought the quarterly health check of the UK economy would be a bit of a yawn.
Big misjudgment, as it happens.
The Bank dropped a bombshell by announcing rosy new forecasts showing that it expected the economy to grow by 2% in 2017. A growth upgrade by the Bank from November’s 1.4% forecast was anticipated following the strong performance of the economy in the second half of 2016. Such a big one was not.
The new forecasts are the latest embarrassment for the Bank. In August, it said the economy was likely to show virtually no growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. In fact, activity expanded by 0.6% in both and the momentum will carry over into the first half of 2017.
Last August, Threadneedle Street was pencilling in growth of just 0.8% in 2017 even after taking into account the impact of its emergency post-referendum cut in interest rates and the £60bn boost to quantitative easing. Now it says 2017’s growth will be only slightly slower than the 2.3% it was forecasting last May, when it assumed the referendum vote would go the other way.
Go on then I will try to!
The strong growth forecasts are excellent and very welcome. It is pretty amazing that a rate rise is now possible (although unlikely) at some point later this year.
A negative slant or more precisely a possible issue worth noting is the extent to which the current growth is being fueled by cuts in savings and credit fueled consumer spending.
The BoE said that the savings ratio is expected to hit 4% (currently 5.6%), which would be the lowest in half a century. It appears that households are optimistic about the future, and are spending away.
This optimism is somewhat surprising to most economists, but given that alot of people got their wish to leave the EU, it is not surprising that they are feeling positive.
I assume while remainers are battoning down the hatches, the Brexiteers are out swimming in a storm, hence the strong consumer spending and borrowing figures.
Personally I didn't vote remain for economic reasons, but because I felt a responsibility to an EU which was founded in an effort to keep peace in Europe. The possibility of the UK leaving the EU somehow contributing to the disintegration of the EU was I felt too great a risk.
-
Slackers - perhaps unsurprising but the last two forecasts are unprecedented in their sharp rise from August's 0.8% forecast for 2017.
I'm not trying to gloat here, but it shouldn't be forgotten how much weight was placed on experts' forecasts of economic doom should we vote to leave the EU.
Then, when this event failed to materialise immediately, the consensus among a certain group was 'we haven't triggered article 50 yet, obviously'. Well it's as good as triggered now..
And, this 'wait for article 50' argument also convieniently used the leave vote, alone and without article 50 triggered, as being responsible for the fall in the pound, whilst saying we 'had to wait for the triggering of article 50' when the economy didn't struggle in the way forecasted. Double standards, moving of goalposts, and a fair amount of hypocrisy in my opinion.
It'll be telling to see now - with experts forecasting strong performance - whether people who used the BofE predictions as irrefutable proof of the economic folly of brexit will also accept it when the landscape doesn't fit their own mental map of how things should be.
-
Slackers - perhaps unsurprising but the last two forecasts are unprecedented in their sharp rise from August's 0.8% forecast for 2017.
I'm not trying to gloat here, but it shouldn't be forgotten how much weight was placed on experts' forecasts of economic doom should we vote to leave the EU.
Then, when this event failed to materialise immediately, the consensus among a certain group was 'we haven't triggered article 50 yet, obviously'. Well it's as good as triggered now..
And, this 'wait for article 50' argument also convieniently used the leave vote, alone and without article 50 triggered, as being responsible for the fall in the pound, whilst saying we 'had to wait for the triggering of article 50' when the economy didn't struggle in the way forecasted. Double standards, moving of goalposts, and a fair amount of hypocrisy in my opinion.
It'll be telling to see now - with experts forecasting strong performance - whether people who used the BofE predictions as irrefutable proof of the economic folly of brexit will also accept it when the landscape doesn't fit their own mental map of how things should be.
Whilst it's inevitably the case that growth is better than Brexiters will have expected and that Armageddon is a good way off it's disingenuous to try and claim that the fall in pound was not almost entirely down to the Brexit vote. The mechanics by which currencies and GDP move are so different that expecting them to be in lockstep is wrong. It's also worth bearing in mind that we're only back to where we where before. This doesn't prove that Brexit has been good, just that it hasn't had an immediate negative effect on the economy (and the Bank of England used tools at its disposal which may have helped counter any problems). A consumer led boom rarely ends well but I gues us merchants of gloom will have to keep our council for a while!
-
Well, I wasn't suggesting the fall in the pound wasn't linked.
I'm suggesting it's double standards to link sterling's fall to brexit (which was the trigger), but when the economy didn't also weaken as predicted the goalposts then moved to 'ah but wait, art 50 etc etc'. Conveniently forgetting that the vote result, without article 50, had clearly affected Stirling - so why wouldn't it also affect the economy? Saying 'wait for art 50' was a case of altering the landscape to make it fit the map people had drawn up.
It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.
-
Slackers - perhaps unsurprising but the last two forecasts are unprecedented in their sharp rise from August's 0.8% forecast for 2017.
First and foremost...I'm presuming the Bank of England revise their forecasts every three months because they know they are volatile in the short term and unlikely to be accurate and change a couple of months later, if not why not save yourself the hassle and just do it annually, or bi-annually or every five years?
I'm not particularly familiar with these forecasts and don't track them but is two consecutive forecast of +0.6%* really unprecedented?
<pedant>
I've spent 15 minutes (admittedly not long but I've got to work tomorrow) searching for historical datasets as the Bank of England helpfully only have the last year (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/default.aspx) available (perhaps because its convenient to forget?) and couldn't find anything in that time. Search terms such as "uk historical bank of england inflation forecast" and several variations thereof led to nothing**. Nowcasting.com (https://www.now-casting.com/countries/euro-area) is subscription only and the majority of what I've found is only about what actually happened (i.e. actual inflation rates of CPI, RPI, GDP etc.) there seems little record of the predictions that were made.
Are you familiar with where to find such records? I'd be interested to see if your claim of the rarity of such an event is backed up by the historical data (I'm guessing it is otherwise you wouldn't have written it, but data clears that up).
</pedant>
* 0.8% > 0.14% > 0.2%
** Did come across this assessment (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalin_Nikolov/publication/247789825_The_Bank_of_England_Quarterly_Model/links/0deec529ede8ba114b000000.pdf) of the Bank of England Quarterley Model but a quick scan didn't actually list a historical record of the forecasts, rather a comparison of them to what happened.
-
First and foremost...I'm presuming the Bank of England revise their forecasts every three months because they know they are volatile in the short term and unlikely to be accurate and change a couple of months later, if not why not save yourself the hassle and just do it annually, or bi-annually or every five years?
They produce it quarterly because they were asked to provide a regular update by the Chancellor in 1992... They are also now a precis of the data the MPC bases it's interest rate decisions on. The MPC meets 8x a year so they publish every 2nd set of information.
I'm not particularly familiar with these forecasts and don't track them but is two consecutive forecast of +0.6%* really unprecedented?
It's not 2 consecutive forecasts of 0.6%, it's 2 consecutive upgrades to the forecasts of 0.6%, ie from 0.8% to 1.4% and then to 2%. Given the newspaper financial editors use phrases like "dropped a bombshell" when describing the BoE's upgrade of growth forecast by 0.6% (Larry Elliott, Guardian) I think you can accept it is not normal.
I've spent 15 minutes (admittedly not long but I've got to work tomorrow) searching for historical datasets as the Bank of England helpfully only have the last year available (perhaps because its convenient to forget?) and couldn't find anything in that time.
Adjusting the filter on the BoE page found the inflation reports back to 2006 (45 documents), alternatively, googling bank of England inflation report with the required year brought up the individual pdfs on the BoE site.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/default.aspx
The reports back to 1993 are available here, also on the BoE site, oddly found by googling "bank of england inflation report 2004":
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Pages/digitalcontent/historicpubs/inflationreport.aspx
-
Slackers - perhaps unsurprising but the last two forecasts are unprecedented in their sharp rise from August's 0.8% forecast for 2017.
First and foremost...I'm presuming the Bank of England revise their forecasts every three months because they know they are volatile in the short term and unlikely to be accurate and change a couple of months later, if not why not save yourself the hassle and just do it annually, or bi-annually or every five years?
I'm not particularly familiar with these forecasts and don't track them but is two consecutive forecast of +0.6%* really unprecedented?
<pedant>
I've spent 15 minutes (admittedly not long but I've got to work tomorrow) searching for historical datasets as the Bank of England helpfully only have the last year (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/default.aspx) available (perhaps because its convenient to forget?) and couldn't find anything in that time. Search terms such as "uk historical bank of england inflation forecast" and several variations thereof led to nothing**. Nowcasting.com (https://www.now-casting.com/countries/euro-area) is subscription only and the majority of what I've found is only about what actually happened (i.e. actual inflation rates of CPI, RPI, GDP etc.) there seems little record of the predictions that were made.
Are you familiar with where to find such records? I'd be interested to see if your claim of the rarity of such an event is backed up by the historical data (I'm guessing it is otherwise you wouldn't have written it, but data clears that up).
</pedant>
* 0.8% > 0.14% > 0.2%
** Did come across this assessment (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalin_Nikolov/publication/247789825_The_Bank_of_England_Quarterly_Model/links/0deec529ede8ba114b000000.pdf) of the Bank of England Quarterley Model but a quick scan didn't actually list a historical record of the forecasts, rather a comparison of them to what happened.
I was going off the language being used in the media reporting. The BBC's economic editor says the rise is 'one of the most substantial increases it [the bank] has ever published'.
Here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38842721) The BBC, so unlikely to be pro-brexit hyperbole.
''Another upgrade like today's and the Bank of England will be more positive than it was about the British economy in May last year - its final Inflation Report before the referendum.
At that point it forecast growth for 2016 would be 2% (which turned out to be right), rising to 2.3% for 2017 and staying there for 2018.
It assumed that Britain would remain in the EU as that was official government policy.
Then came the referendum, Brexit and the Bank's August Inflation Report - which will go down in history as the point of maximum exit fear at Threadneedle Street, the Gloomflation Report.
The Bank slashed growth projections to 0.8% for 2017 and 1.8% for 2018, a huge downgrade which would have resulted - if the forecasts came to pass - in an economy billions of pounds smaller than previously projected.
Substantial
Since then, Mark Carney and the members of the Monetary Policy Committee have become much more chipper.
In November, the Bank upgraded its growth forecasts by 0.6% for 2017, one of the most substantial increases it has ever published.
Today that tone has continued, another substantial upgrade for this year and - as importantly - a small upgrade for next year which many believe will be the moment any negative Brexit effects actually start to crystallise as Britain enters the hard yards of the exit process.''
-
* 0.8% > 0.14% > 0.2%
Sorry, only noticed your footnote after typing, but the financial news normally seems to make a reasonable fuss over changes of ~0.2% in individual forecasts, so to have 2 consecutive revisions of 0.6% is, as the guardian puts it, embarrassing for the BoE.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-forecasts-mark-carney-brexit-vote
-
It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.
Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?
-
It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.
Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?
Pete, I didn't even move my lips!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
It's not 2 consecutive forecasts of 0.6%, it's 2 consecutive upgrades to the forecasts of 0.6%, ie from 0.8% to 1.4% and then to 2%.
I don't disagree, but you misinterpreted what I wrote, I used the '+' to indicate the change and a foot note (based on Pete's post) for clarity which you clearly didn't get to reading '* 0.8% > 0.14% > 0.2%'
Given the newspaper financial editors use phrases like "dropped a bombshell" when describing the BoE's upgrade of growth forecast by 0.6% (Larry Elliott, Guardian) I think you can accept it is not normal.
All newspapers use sensationalist phrases to sell papers.
Adjusting the filter on the BoE page found the inflation reports back to 2006 (45 documents), alternatively, googling bank of England inflation report with the required year brought up the individual pdfs on the BoE site.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/default.aspx
The reports back to 1993 are available here, also on the BoE site, oddly found by googling "bank of england inflation report 2004":
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Pages/digitalcontent/historicpubs/inflationreport.aspx
Thanks for digging those out. I'd looked under the "Statistics" section rather than the "Archive" as that was what I was after, statistics. Specifically what I was trying to find and couldn't was a single coherent data set or pre-packaged summary showing the predictions (or changes between them), along the lines of...
year-month,forecast_gdp,forecast_cpi,change_gdp,change_cpi
1994-02,1.1,1.4,NA,NA
1994-05,1.6,1.8,0.5,0.4
1994-08,1.9,1.2,0.3,-0.6
...
2016-11,1.4,1.3,0.6,0.5
2017-02,2.0,1.9,0.6,0.6
As that would allow you to look at the data and see how frequently such upgrades to the forecast occur (you could even work out, based on the data, how frequently you would expect such an event to occur). I can't find such a data set, and whilst it may be available across all of the historical documents I've not the time or inclination to dig it out (I'm working today).
I'm not trying to prove pete or yourself 'wrong', rather I'd like to see the data that substantiates the claim of it being unprecedented. I'm not the one making that claim, and openly admit to not being familiar with the data, if you are please do dig it out and summarise or plot it as a time series to convince me these are amazing times for forecast growth.
-
It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.
Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?
Yes didn't mark Carnegie remark that consumer debt was at a high and savings at a low.
Well - if ww3 comes along you can't take yer ££ with you can you!
-
I'm not trying to prove pete or yourself 'wrong', rather I'd like to see the data that substantiates the claim of it being unprecedented. I'm not the one making that claim, and openly admit to not being familiar with the data, if you are please do dig it out and summarise or plot it as a time series to convince me these are amazing times for forecast growth.
It's unlikely I'll be digging through that data Slackers, I'm assuming the BBC's economics editor knows his onions when he says about the recent forecasts 'one of the most substantial increases it has ever published'.
I am interested though, as always, to know if he's correct.
-
It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.
Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?
I think we can all share our concerns about that - same as it's ever been - without needing to divide into 'remain' or 'leave' camps to understand the reasons why.
-
I think we can all share our concerns about that - same as it's ever been - without needing to divide into remain or leave.
But if we don't divide ourselves and give each other labels, we won't have anyone to blame?
-
Who's going to try to spin a negative slant on the latest quarterly growth forecast from the Bank of England then.....?
Its great news... however some context.
It's measured in pounds which are worth a good bit less than before the vote.
Much of the extra growth is based on debt fuelled consumer spending.
We haven't left the EU yet. So from that...
The complexity of cutoms integration outside the customs union is just being ignored in the politcal domain (good on UKB for banging on about it). Costs of tarrifs under WTO are much less severe than formally meeting new regulatory requirements.
Ditto for law changes if we disentangle from the EU. As I see it these hated laws can only be adopted wholesale in the main, with maybe some tinkering to keep the rabid straight banana hounds at bay.
Even if we want a deal for access there will be costs (one off departure costs and some kind of annual access fees that will dwarf the 350 million).
We can't restrict immigration to any real extent without inflicting economic damage (from the impact on farm workers or care workers to Hospital consultants or University dons).
Then, as icing on the cake, the western world is looking increasingly unstable medium term due to stroppy voters buying in to popularist bollocks and potentially a good bit more protectionist (certainly in the US)... neither will be good for GDP if we even have a GDP (the slim chances of war or full economic collapse must surely have increased massively... Orwellian warnings about truth and population control)
-
Then, as icing on the cake, the western world is looking increasingly unstable medium term due to stroppy voters buying in to popularist bollocks
Far more worrying, for me, is that in order to get to the current stage we - the UK, have chucked 200 years of representative democracy in the bin and we have no idea what it's going to be replaced with and it isn't even being discussed.
-
I'm sorry, but I think this discussion around the latest GDP forecast is a bit silly. Not because I don't like the result (I voted Remain and clearly I'm glad that the economy hasn't tanked; we all need jobs and public services), and not because I have a problem with the forecasting (it's only a forecast, bear in mind even "actual" GDP figures get revised, etc). But more because it doesn't tell us much about where we're going.
It could simply be momentum. Or it could be a mass misreading of the situation we find ourselves in. Economists modelled the short term effects of the Leave vote on the assumption that it would be considered a shock, like the financial crisis, and so households would rein in their spending. Clearly a majority of households think no such thing, and have carried on spending. So on we go, and for how long no one knows.
But for long-term growth, clearly the effects of technological change, institutional change, etc take a really long time to filter through. Take the financial crisis. We still don't know whether we have had a decrease in the trend growth rate as a result of the crisis (or at least a decrease after the crisis). If we have, then bear in mind that the policy changes which made the crisis possible took place in the 1980s and 1990s (if my limited understanding is correct). So 20 years after the change in direction we still don't know the how that policy shift affected our growth rate.
So reading too much into one forecast... well, it passes the time.
-
I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.
-
I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.
Well that's my point: you're not celebrating good news.
-
Came across this piece in the Guardian by John Harris.
I really enjoy reading what he has got to say about politics at a local level.
I would recommend watching the video if you dont fancy the read.
It shows that for many EU workers in the UK the outlook is very bleak.
Also that if there are restrictions on immigration, it will effect many of the things we take for granted.
So yes the economy might be rosy now but it does rely on many unskilled EU workers to keep things ticking over.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/leavers-cheap-eu-labour-workers-brexiters (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/leavers-cheap-eu-labour-workers-brexiters)
-
I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.
Well that's my point: you're not celebrating good news.
'course not Sean. But if so, why are you glad?
-
bearing in mind that by definition a forecast is incorrect, it is just the best guess based on the information available at that time
-
Where were you (when we were shit) 70 pages ago when everyone was pointing out the folly of brexit according to the forecasts?
-
Where were you (when we were shit) 70 pages ago when everyone was pointing out the folly of brexit according to the forecasts?
It's the long term projections we're worried about, not next year. The concern is the future of our kids. It might be a fools game, to speculate so, but it's rather hard to ignore.
This is where I think I see the balance/majority of forecasts look somewhat bleak.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
we - the UK, have chucked 200 years of representative democracy in the bin
Have we?! This is news, when did that happen? Did the Queen abolish Parliament while we weren't looking? Or are you talking about the recent trend for decision making by referendum, bringing power to the people with ill thought questions and second rate campaigns on all sides...
-
At a GE less tha 2 years ago the people were offered the choice by UKIP of a "hard" Brexit.
Despite substantial media support this was oberwhelmingly rejected - UKIP won IIRC correctly exactly one seat. The vast majority of MPs were elected on a broadly pro-European platform.
Now , without any elections having taken place, UKIP are, in effect, the Govt.
Our elected representatives are, for whatever reason, voting for the policies that the electorate explicitly rejected and only getting that oportunity because a private individual took the govt to court. The system is clearly broken.
-
At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious the major parties have a lot of other policies, other than Europe, that people voted for - to label that as 'explicitly rejecting' is simply misleading. The fact that a one issue party such as UKIP won any seats is remarkable.
Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?
-
At a GE less tha 2 years ago the people were offered the choice by UKIP of a "hard" Brexit.
Despite substantial media support this was oberwhelmingly rejected - UKIP won IIRC correctly exactly one seat. The vast majority of MPs were elected on a broadly pro-European platform.
Now , without any elections having taken place, UKIP are, in effect, the Govt.
Our elected representatives are, for whatever reason, voting for the policies that the electorate explicitly rejected and only getting that oportunity because a private individual took the govt to court. The system is clearly broken.
This is a nonsense.
-
Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?
That's the point - there's been a half-assed attempt at direct democracy & as a result our elected representatives have stopped doing the job that is required of them under a representative democracy.
As for other policy areas - what is this not affecting. On the economy the Tories won (narrowly) the last election on the basis that Austerity would eventually start to workand lower the National debt. Immediately post the referendum & the internal coup that followed, that was ditched in favour of , to all intents & purposes the economic policy of the defeated Labour party. Foreign policy - again all out of the window now. Domestic policy - all constitutional agreements between Westminster & the devolved govts - ripped up.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/063f2a4733adba7e6b8acc3994cb3b24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/063f2a4733adba7e6b8acc3994cb3b24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/063f2a4733adba7e6b8acc3994cb3b24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/063f2a4733adba7e6b8acc3994cb3b24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What about those on the electoral register and not allowed to vote.
How many? I'm thinking about those working/living overseas but were not allowed to vote.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170203/063f2a4733adba7e6b8acc3994cb3b24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What about those on the electoral register and not allowed to vote.
How many? I'm thinking about those working overseas but were not allowed to vote.
I was thinking more about those who couldn't be bothered. Apathy in these matters is the scourge of democracy.
Who knows, now, what the "will of the people" is in reality. Ever the complaint of the losing side, as the winners have no need to ask...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?
That's the point - there's been a half-assed attempt at direct democracy & as a result our elected representatives have stopped doing the job that is required of them under a representative democracy.
As for other policy areas - what is this not affecting. On the economy the Tories won (narrowly) the last election on the basis that Austerity would eventually start to workand lower the National debt. Immediately post the referendum & the internal coup that followed, that was ditched in favour of , to all intents & purposes the economic policy of the defeated Labour party. Foreign policy - again all out of the window now. Domestic policy - all constitutional agreements between Westminster & the devolved govts - ripped up.
I completely agree and understand what you are saying here imunro.
It seems as though the old democratic ways have been hijacked.
I had a quick look at ed stone pledges and a glance at con manifesto contents page, didn't fancy reading it. The EU was not mentioned.
Although the manifestos aren't worth jack.
And there in lies the problem, it seems like a political class stitch up.
The referendum was advisory but is now gospel.
Teresa only consulting parliament after a legal challenge.
Judges labelled anti patriotic, they were only doing their job.
Labour (the opposition) supporting the Cons.
The leader of the Labour Party dysfunctional.
MPs who are pro remain "going against the will of the people."
It is almost like a one party state.
Concerned that Brexit will give Cons a blank cheque to rewrite policies, laws etc to favour themselves rather than ordinary joe pubLic. Why would the politicians be so generous to helps us out.
The language so far has been nationistic and with May, Bozzer and Fox looking at Trump for inspiration eerily like his. Stronger borders, red white and blue Brexit, control immigration, experts who needs experts etc.
As for economic forecasts, the only one that is accurate to any degree is tomorrow's weather forecast and even then it is sometimes wrong.
The John Harris piece shows how tough life can be in the uk.
We should be talking about improving inequality and making things better for all of us.
Regardless of were we come from.
-
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.
Is that representational democracy?
-
We should be talking about improving inequality
Can't see that catching on round here
-
I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.
Those 'Economic disaster' predictions from politicians were actually significant economic decline predictions and based on assuptions we would leave quicker (we haven't left yet). Even so, part of it came true as the pound is down about 15-20% which distorts our economic figures, GDP isn't as good as it looks nor especially is the FTSE 100 as so many companies list assets held in other countries and currencies. Debt is rising rapidly. We are still in complete denial about the complexity of what is to come. Academia is in terrible trouble as we prop up underfunding by recruiting overseas students included in the immigration stats we want to reduce, and we have scared the 16% of our academic staff from the EU and 12% from outside the EU.. Anyone who likes being European (irrespective of the crap from its beurocracy) has lots to cry over as well.
History gives some reasons for long term optimism but they are more based in unpredicted new developments from science than politics; a stable world without too much protectionism is helpful. History also shows the fall of many empires (the modern globalised economy could be regarded as that).
-
~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.
Is that representational democracy?
Are you saying that those who couldn't or couldn't be bothered to vote or have chosen not to be on the electoral role should be automatically counted as frustrated 'No' voters? Adopting a minimum threshold for participation might be desirable but all the referenda in the UK to date have been the basis of a simple majority only.
-
I am saying a little over one third of the electorate does not represent the majority view of the community. To initiate massive constitutional change off a minority view cannot sensibly be said to represent the 'will of the people' as nearly two thirds of the electorate have not expressed that view.
Constitutional change in many other countries has - quite sensibly I believe- a higher bar than FPTP.
-
We should be talking about improving inequality
Can't see that catching on round here
yes you are right, what I should have said was tackle/ or reduce inequality.
Not improve it :wall:
I hope most got the jist.
By the time I realised I couldn't modify, so just left it.
Shark should I redraft it beat poetry style...
-
We should be working to reduce inequality, but since UKIPs and the Tories are funded by millionaire taxdodgers and media barons don't expect a Brexit that does anything other than let the rich get off scot free whilst screwing over the poor and vulnerable.
-
What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for non binding monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.
Is that representational democracy?
-
We should be working to reduce inequality, but since UKIPs and the Tories are funded by millionaire taxdodgers and media barons don't expect a Brexit that does anything other than let the rich get off scot free whilst screwing over the poor and vulnerable.
You mean you can't trust popularist politicians to protect society from the arrogant and greedy bankers?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-dodd-frank-act-executive-order-financial-regulations
-
~37.4% of the eligible electorate voted for monumental constitutional change. Now adopted.
Is that representational democracy?
Are you saying that those who couldn't or couldn't be bothered to vote or have chosen not to be on the electoral role should be automatically counted as frustrated 'No' voters? Adopting a minimum threshold for participation might be desirable but all the referenda in the UK to date have been the basis of a simple majority only.
Sorry, just re-read your post. I am not suggesting that ineligible voters should be counted, quite the opposite: 37.4% of the electorate means 37.4% of those registered to vote.
There is nothing in my post about co-opting the eligible abstainers as 'remain' or second guessing their preferences. I said they didn't vote to leave and that 37.4% of the electorate did.
Surely that is not contentious? It is simply a matter of fact.
Edit-'abstainers', for clarity
-
Sorry, just re-read your post. I am not suggesting that ineligible voters should be counted, quite the opposite: 34.7% of the electorate means 34.7% of those registered to vote.
There is nothing in my post about co-opting the eligible abstainers as 'leave' or second guessing their preferences. I said they didn't vote to remain and that 34.7% of the electorate did.
Surely that is not contentious? It is simply a matter of fact.
I've turned your quote around (in bold) - because it isn't contentious the other way either.
-
Okay pjh, I'll explain it again.
37.4% voted to leave. The rest of the electorate didn't.
I think the bar should be set higher for constitutional change.
-
As a footnote- of course your reframing is not contentious, it's just a statistical relationship, you're just repeating my point back to me.
-
You don't need to explain.
So..
The turnout for the EU referendum was 72.2%. That's a very good turnout.
The only higher turnout in recent times is the Scottish Independence referendum with a turnout of 85%. I didn't hear anyone complain the result wasn't a fair representation.
How high a turnout would there need to be to meet your requirements?
And, I also haven't heard anybody complaining that the Scottish Referendum result - of 55% against independence and 45% for, on a turnout of 85% - was too close a margin to be conclusive. It is also a question a major constitutional change.
Where would you ''set the bar' differently, if 52% to 48%, on a turnout of 72%, isn't enough for you?
I'm assuming you must have figures in mind.
-
Hi Pete, your post seems a bit confused.
The vote in Scotland rejected constitutional change, it didn't enact it. Nor is a margin of 10% trivial. Or 8.5% of the electorate, if you prefer.
As to the bar's height and my having precise figures for you, sorry to disappoint.
I am not convinced a simple referendum is sufficient. Nor does the USA for example, with a system of congressional votes and state ratifications variously requiring majorities of two thirds or three quarters.
Australia makes voting compulsory and referenda are only called after both houses of voted for the change.
I think the issue important enough that it should be put to a vote by parliament as well as the country and that the mechanism itself should be arrived at with more sophisticated consultation than a few of posts on a forum.
I don't consider myself an expert on these mechanisms and don't feel I have 'the answer'. I don't believe rejecting an obviously unsatisfactory mechanism requires me to.
You are welcome to differ.
-
That isn't my point.
The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.
The UK parliament voted on 9th June 2015 to hold the EU referendum, remember. They voted 544 - 53 in favour. They didn't have to vote in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all in favour. The only party against (ironically) were the SNP.
You can hardly say parliament hasn't been involved in the process - it voted to start the process!
Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.
-
That isn't my point.
The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.
The UK parliament voted on 9th June 2015 to hold the EU referendum, remember. They voted 544 - 53 in favour. They didn't have to vote in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all in favour. The only party against (ironically) were the SNP.
You can hardly say parliament hasn't been involved in the process - it voted to start the process!
Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.
All correct but it was advisory, I am sure that MP's and Cameron would have been much more circumspect if the binding part had been tagged onto the referendum question in Parliament.
Farage admitted that it was advisory only.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html)
-
The point is that it was deemed suitable to hold a referendum that might have led to Scotland leaving the UK (major constitutional change as you put it ). The result doesn't matter - the act of agreeing to a referendum that could possibly lead to major change is what matters.
I think the result does matter. I believe that constitutional change should require a significant majority from the voting electorate (I'm afraid those who can't be bothered to vote deserve what they get). Staying with the status quo is just that, sticking with what we have got so a 50.5/49.5 'majority' for the status quo would be fine.
I don't think we should have referendums though.........
-
Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.
Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.
Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me? Grow up.
It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.
-
The pound now worthless (due possibly to Brexit), we can't even afford to keep important works of art/treasures here. The pound will soon be like Monopoly money, anything not nailed down will be sold off.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/06/national-gallerys-30m-pontormo-bid-rejected-due-to-sterling-slump (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/06/national-gallerys-30m-pontormo-bid-rejected-due-to-sterling-slump)
-
Even I think you're exaggerating a tad now...
[emoji12]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.
Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.
Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me? Grow up.
It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.
I don't think saying that your arguments come across as a case of sour grapes classifies as a proper ad hominem, but am happy to be proven wrong.
The 34.7 / 37.4 - that's just the stats!?
-
Your argument comes across as a severe case of sour grapes.
Dismissing an argument ad hominem, impressive.
Repeatedly I have explained why I think that the referendum result is unsound and each time your response focuses on something tangential or just silly -34.7% vs 37.4% to repeat my point back to me? Grow up.
It doesn't read like you have understood as well as you claim to.
I don't think saying that your arguments come across as a case of sour grapes classifies as a proper ad hominem, but am happy to be proven wrong.
The 34.7 / 37.4 - that's just the stats!?
i only check into this thread every now and then, but to see it's on page 78 and petejh is standing strong makes me want to give some points for just sticking it out
-
I reckon Pete actually voted remain but just loves arguing online. ;)
-
Oh no he doesn't!
-
Interesting -and critical- article in pro Remain Guardian about Brexit bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/08/the-guardian-view-on-parliament-and-brexit-mps-fail-their-first-test
Pjh 'sour grapes' - I take it that means you struggle to engage with arguments about the role of referenda, because you certainly haven't addressed the argument yet.
-
Or, apparently the even more pro-remain Independent...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-four-times-worse-uk-economy-eu-departure-mit-economists-john-van-reenen-trade-a7570016.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Funny how the "Lefty" media are so pro-remain, but Labour are all for it.
Hopefully this will end Labour's reign as the second party. I think they lost their way decades ago.
If only the Liberals could workout how to organise a piss-up in the current political brewery.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting -and critical- article in pro Remain Guardian about Brexit bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/08/the-guardian-view-on-parliament-and-brexit-mps-fail-their-first-test
Pjh 'sour grapes' - I take it that means you struggle to engage with arguments about the role of referenda, because you certainly haven't addressed the argument yet.
I see little to address - you don't think major changes should be left to referendum; I'm content that they are. You haven't changed my mind; I'm not trying to change yours. End of argument.
-
Funny how the "Lefty" media are so pro-remain...
I'm guessing you don't read the Morning Star (https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-1bff-Why-the-Morning-Star-supports-a-Leave-vote#.WJu6KBpBrIU).
...but Labour are all for it.
An abandonment of New Labour Blairism one hopes and, perhaps, a return to the ideals represented by giants of the Labour movement such as Dennis Skinner (https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-e4af-Beast-of-Bolsover-Im-voting-out), Tony Benn (https://semipartisansam.com/2016/03/03/tony-benn-and-the-left-wing-case-for-brexit/) and Michael Foot (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/17/leftwing-eurosceptics-eu-british-left). But sadly now, I fear, they're all just clueless career politicians who don't know where to turn and have no principles to fall back on.
In retrospect the 1983 Labour manifesto makes interesting reading. The Great Repeal Bill, negotiations with our European partners, a period of transition... all sounds rather familiar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh4yh95N4Jg&feature=youtu.be&t=17
-
What Nic(ola) said:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/06d2284cd9277444c776e33d1ae56038.jpg)
-
...sadly now, I fear, they're all just clueless career politicians who don't know where to turn and have no principles to fall back on.
I apply this as much to Corbyn as I do to single-issue Sturgeon, I assure you. Perhaps I'd have more respect for them if they didn't indulge in childish point-scoring on Twitter. Sad, that's the level of political debate in this day and age. Change the world in 140 characters or less!... or should that be fewer?!...
-
Ok tit for tat in a public forum isn't a great thing, but twitter / social media is a legitimate platform and IMO a good way for politicians to engage the younger (more tech savvy) generation.
-
"Britain is no longer a world power".
(Quite the insult, coming from the country currently run by a Psychotic Cheese Puff and the Looney Tune brigade).
May has failed to garner "Maggie" like respect outside of the UK...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/opinion/theresa-mays-empire-of-the-mind.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&referer
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/why-some-tories-fear-blood-on-the-streets?CMP=share_btn_fb
Ah, Sunday morning, Coffee, a couple of Choc-chip cookies, cartoons on the box and a lazy perusal of the latest prognostications of doom.
We'll get the bikes out after swimming lessons and enjoy the temporary lack of rain, y'know, before the world ends etc etc...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Serious looking customs problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/20/post-brexit-customs-gridlock-could-choke-uk-trade-experts-warn
-
A long period of falling wages followed by spralling food prices - historically the background for every violent revolution that I can think of. Chuck in a democracy that's ceased to function and a lot of public anger ...
-
Luckily the referendum wasn't all about immigration:
Davis said the country would struggle to fill vacancies with Brits alone.
“It will be years and years before we get British citizens to do those jobs,” Davis said, while on a visit to Estonia. “Don’t expect just because we’re changing who makes the decision on the policy, the door will suddenly shut. It won’t.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-keeps-door-ajar-to-low-skilled-workers-after-brexit/
Sovereignty innit. :blink:
-
Clearly.
Not about immigration at all.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/02/brexit-ministers-who-just-realised-reducing-immigration-problem-them
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well.. for me it wasn't. :shrug:
Who gets to decide policy on immigration (amongst other things) - the UK or Brussels, sure.
-
Well.. for me it wasn't. :shrug:
Who gets to decide policy on immigration (amongst other things) - the UK or Brussels, sure.
I know.
But it certainly was for a good many. I can see this going down like a lead balloon with the Daily Fail crowd...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Call me naive, but I don't really believe that people are actually as fuck-headed in real life as the media would have us believe. I imagine a great many of the daily fail crowd, when they stop to consider it in a quiet moment of reflection, do actually understand that some amount of immigration is essential to a healthy economy. But that sort of view doesn't make for good news stories in the Guardian when the imperative is to find some moronic half-thought out strawman instead and bayonet it to death.
-
Your naive. And underestimating the general populace's capabilities when it comes to fuckheadedness.
-
You are the general populace. So am I. Nobody on here is any wiser, on average, than the average joe or jill.
-
You are the general populace. So am I. Nobody on here is any wiser, on average, than the average joe or jill.
Well, that's a nice idea.
Though, on balance, I don't think I'll be letting the Bin man replace my GP anytime soon...
On another note.
Some strong feeling across the water. Stirring up that hornet's nest seems like a great plan.
Both, from security perspective and a financial one.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-drives-registration-of-100-000-uk-firms-in-ireland-1.2985509
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Binman? I'll see your GP and raise you an electrician, mechanic, fabricator/welder or steel erector. None of which he could do competently.
Also, your GP might be great at diagnosing medical conditions. It doesn't make him any more qualified than the binman to decide who he believes should govern him.
-
Binman? I'll see your GP and raise you an electrician, mechanic, fabricator/welder or steel erector. None of which he could do competently.
Also, your GP might be great at diagnosing medical conditions. It doesn't make him any more qualified than the binman to decide who he believes should govern him.
Yes - but in the flavour of democracy we live in different people are more qualified...
Notably politicians - we elect them so they can make decisions on our behalf (by assumption making them more qualified than us..).
-
Actually, your choice of words sums up my dislike of democracy, Pete.
You used the word "Believe".
All hail the coming Robot Overlords!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Call me naive, but I don't really believe that people are actually as fuck-headed in real life as the media would have us believe. I imagine a great many of the daily fail crowd, when they stop to consider it in a quiet moment of reflection, do actually understand that some amount of immigration is essential to a healthy economy. But that sort of view doesn't make for good news stories in the Guardian when the imperative is to find some moronic half-thought out strawman instead and bayonet it to death.
Your naive. Try talking more to some of these ordinary brexit voters. I come from a background that (outside my academic bubble) I know good people who voted brexit but normally it was more as a emotional response than any fully informed logic. It doesn't make them bad, it doesn't make the vote wrong but it sure wasnt informed by economic niceties. The Fail, Scum and Excess are symptoms of this, they shouldn't exist in the modern UK as three of the best selling newspapers. Sure some in the Grauniad are busy skewering strawmen but there is plenty of good fact based argument there too.
This fear of immigration issue is very real and the intents of a significant minority in the UK is they really dont want the current scale: the farms, hospitals and universities need to get over this and sort out a plan B. Its real because UKIP, The Fail and their ilk spread exaggeration and lies about immigrants for years and failed to highlight how dependant we are on them. Its dishonest, immoral, stupid economically but has sadly been very effective.
-
Did anybody see Trevor Phillip's documentary last night? A good argument, I thought, for where we liberals went wrong in not tolerating a debate on immigration.
Those students. Fucking hell.
-
Did anybody see Trevor Phillip's documentary last night? A good argument, I thought, for where we liberals went wrong in not tolerating a debate on immigration.
Those students. Fucking hell.
Yeah, I saw it from about 10 mins before the students...I'm surprised they've gone so far! I have been having a debate with a friend of my girlfriend who is an outspoken "freedom of speech" advocate about "no-platforming". I'm still not sure where the line should sit between perceived censorship on the basis of not causing undue offence and out-and-out inciting of racial/religious hatred. But as you say...those students....sheesh!
Did you notice how they didn't seem to want to engage the guy who was clearly thinking that banning Pocahontas costumes was ludicrous...they just shut him down. I do think there might be a growing problem with people like those students not equipping themselves with the skills to debate such issues.
-
Well they won't have time to entertain such thoughts when they're all enrolled on 2 year degrees..
-
Well they won't have time to entertain such thoughts when they're all enrolled on 2 year degrees..
Is it in any way cynical to suggest that 2 years degrees are purely cashflow related? I.e. £27k per student every 2 years instead of £27k over 3?
The more I see the way the English Higher Education system going, the more strongly I feel that it should remain free as it's better to have a well educated, debt free society that pays a little more tax, than a generation of debt-ridden youngsters who join the rat race to pay down loans.
-
OK - mods may want to split this here to 2 year HE debate or something..
2 year degrees has been on the cards as long as I've been lecturing. In the late 90's early 00's most Universities moved to semesters (rather than terms) which could be seen as a pre-cursor.
EG. S1 Oct > Jan, S2 Jan > June, S3 July > Sept etc...
This is also used in most 1 year masters courses - with teaching in S1 and S2 and Project/dissertation in S3 etc.. As long as degrees were heavily subsidised by they govt (cue debate about subsidy and its level - but ignoring that for now..) then in my view it was fairly easy for Universities to stick to the 3 year model. Now the funding is coming mostly from the students (via loans the have to take) there is a switch in the relationship whereby we have more of a provider <> client relationship, rather than academic <> student. So, for the same (or possibly less ££) students could ask/demand/wish to do the same course in 2 years rather than 3. I guess what I'm saying is that when the govt payed most of the ££ then the clients voice was smaller...
This - in turn - raises loads of issues.
1. Space/time to learn. For many (*not all) degrees I think people can only learn so fast, and they need time for knowledge - time to to learn, assimilate, research, process and interpret information. Sure you can ram some of it down peoples throats, but I think some, especially attitude to work, only comes with time and experience - as well as with growing older.
2. Research led teaching. Most universities pride themselves that the people teaching students are also engaged in top, world class research - and that this both inspires students and feeds into what they are taught. Our undergraduates are involved in world leading research that our department is carrying out (to greater and lesser degrees - but its there). We (academics) need time to do research - and the summer is when a bulk of this is done. Be this fieldwork, archive work, lab work - whatever. If we have to teach during the summer - this goes.
This will probably lead to a greater polarisation of staff between being a researcher or a teacher. Instead of a bit of both. Its already happening for ££ reasons (teaching academics are cheaper than research academics). For me it makes where I work a bit shitter. For students I think this will lead to a subtle but important de-valuing of the degree.
3. Another f*cking restructure... we've just had two - this would mean another.. I know, in many other fields you have one every other year - but it doesnt mean more...
4. Devaluing the degree. Not 100% of this - I think its quite possible to assess students on the same playing field - same level for 2 and 3 year courses. Some that do a 2 year course will be better than some doing a 3 year course. But, I think it means 2 yearers will have fewer opportunities and see point 1 above. For some courses (e.g. Geology) the summer is when students go off and do a long mapping project - trapesing the hills mapping outcrops etc.. - this will not be easy in a 3 yearer....
5. All the non academic stuff. Part of going to University is about living away - meeting a huge and DIVERSE range of people - and this experience is spread out over three years. How will it feel/work/be devalued over 2? Those who have been to University here - reflect on how you were at the end of your 1, 2 and 3rd year... how many of those changes were due to lectures, how many were due to growing up and living? How does that work if its squashed into 2 years?
Mild rant over.. we'll see what happens...
-
5. All the non academic stuff. Part of going to University is about living away - meeting a huge and DIVERSE range of people - and this experience is spread out over three years. How will it feel/work/be devalued over 2? Those who have been to University here - reflect on how you were at the end of your 1, 2 and 3rd year... how many of those changes were due to lectures, how many were due to growing up and living? How does that work if its squashed into 2 years?
Also :off:
What he said. Having led a largely sheltered life, most of the learning I did at University was about growing up. I only really did any academic work in the final year.
-
For some courses (e.g. Geology) the summer is when students go off and do a long mapping project - trapesing the hills mapping outcrops etc.. - this will not be easy in a 3 yearer....
The summer I spent mapping Cilan was one of the best of my life. That said, the first semester of my third year was the easiest schedule I've ever been on - a day and a half a week. Compared to A-levels at boarding school it felt like a holiday camp.
-
Those students. Fucking hell.
'Those students' have been around fighting the likes of racism and fascism from extreme left positions since well before you were born. Arguably they have never had so little effect. No Platform only ever succeeded when gutless UK University management closed the meetings on lame health and safety excuses.
-
Those students. Fucking hell.
'Those students' have been around fighting the likes of racism and fascism from extreme left positions since well before you were born.
Well they haven't because I'm clearly older than them. I was referring to the particular group of students in the documentary who support no platforming and banning various forms of fancy dress on their campus.
Their motivation is to make the Union more accessible to minorites which is laudable. However to try and stamp out any activity that could possibly cause offence is, in my view, over the top.
-
Those students. Fucking hell.
'Those students' have been around fighting the likes of racism and fascism from extreme left positions since well before you were born.
Well they haven't because I'm clearly older than them. I was referring to the particular group of students in the documentary who support no platforming and banning various forms of fancy dress on their campus.
Their motivation is to make the Union more accessible to minorites which is laudable. However to try and stamp out any activity that could possibly cause offence is, in my view, over the top.
God, I've known enough of them over the years. The buzz words change, as does the cause; but essentially they remain the same.
It's almost religious in levels of zeal and blinds them to the irony of their position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/01/lords-defeat-government-over-rights-of-eu-citizens-in-uk-brexit-bill (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/01/lords-defeat-government-over-rights-of-eu-citizens-in-uk-brexit-bill)
Oh shit a spanner in the works, going against the will of the people.
How unpatriotic, will they be tried for treason or simply shot at dawn.
Democracy definitely broken.
-
Three cheers for unelected elites.
-
Am I getting over cynical or does this look like the result of the following conversation
"Lord1 : We have to do something! Or we'll be included when they start decorating lampposts with politicians next year.
Lord2 : if we actually hold on this up though May will have us all out of a job by summer!
Lord3 : how about this then.... "
-
There was one of the upper house (Baroness Meacher) on the radio this morning saying.
That tories in the commons would vote for it on moral grounds "as tories are principled people" ....which made me chuckle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hd4ty#play
interview starts at 1:53:30
-
Worth a glance.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/03/post-2016-world-order-0?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
given that I don't have the skills to built robots and don't have enough resources to arrange the production of robots, my best option is to become a machine
Nibs? any tips?
-
Someone's got to maintain the robots?
-
Someone's got to maintain the robots?
They have robots for that...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Someone's got to maintain the robots?
They have robots for that...
But the maintenance robots need maintaining.. (you can see where this is going...)
-
Someone's got to maintain the robots?
They have robots for that...
But the maintenance robots need maintaining.. (you can see where this is going...)
Yep.
It's Turtles all the way down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Have any of you visited a car factory recently? Robots taking manufacturing jobs is a real trend but its incremental not revolutionary (the big step change already happened. The real protectionist/brexit issue is where we get all our workers from if we reduce migration. Apologies for the cut and paste from a post I made on the other channel but its very pertinent to this:
"I think people are just plain ignorant of what has happened in some sectors of the UK... in Universities non-British citizens now form 28% of academic posts... if you think of the speed this has risen we must be around half of all new appointments. This is accelerating as there is a demographic retirement bulge (with almost all brits) and added financial incentives to go before the early 2020s due to the way our pensions work in the background of austerity pay freezes (my pensionable salary is currently very much more than my actual salary and based on my pay in 2008 to 2010) and the very small proportion of UK citizens doing PhDs. These numbers parallel in other public sector and private sector professional classes (and most of the public sector has the same demographic and pension issues), as an example 25% of doctors in the NHS are non UK citizens. On minimum wage work, seasonal farm workers must be close to 100%; care and hotel work in some parts of the country not far behind. When May promises the british people to control our borders it is either expensive but pointless and meaningless (in terms of numbers changing) or the very unlikely alternative that alongside the extra expense she intends to inflict major economic damage or cripple vital state functions."
-
Anecdotally Brexit is already making substantial inroads into the number of EU citizens working in the UK. Most of my friends and colleagues ,with the exception of those approaching retirement and those with children, have either already left or are in the process of leaving the UK. I fail to see how an exodus of young affluent taxpayers can be a good thing.
-
Interesting point.
Strange to think that even if we deny these people residence, we'll still be paying their pensions for years to come.
I love how badly this this is thought out.
I really love how the idea of "Nationality " is, in reality, largely illusory in the modern world; even as the Nationalists scream their loudest.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/mar/05/martin-rowson-on-philip-hammond-and-the-post-brexit-workforce-cartoon (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/mar/05/martin-rowson-on-philip-hammond-and-the-post-brexit-workforce-cartoon)
Beautifully summing up the direction travel at the moment.
"A report in the Sunday Times claimed the budget would be used to build up £60bn in case of turbulence as the UK withdraws from the EU.
Hammond said he saw his role as ensuring “that we have got reserves in the tank, so as we embark on the journey that we will be taking over the next couple of years, we are confident that we have got enough gas in the tank to see us through that journey”.
BTL somebody wrote this
"I was once on a bus that ran out of fuel. A bus company director was aboard who went with the driver to look into the tank. He came back and announced to the passengers that the bus had NOT run out of fuel at all, there was fuel in the tank but because we were going uphill it had all run down to the back.
I think that has happened again."
Unbelievable, 60 billion no sweat.
So where are the reserves coming from? Behind the sofa, ukip donations?
The millionaires cabinet having a personal whip round each time they meet over the next two years?
I can hazard a good guess.
-
A down and dirty overview, but worth a read.
Fuel here in the Bay hit 123p/ltr on Diesel this week and we've just had to renew Energy contracts at work; no chance of fixing them without a hefty increase on the last 24month rates.
How goes things beyond Brizol?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/03/eurozone-economy-overtakes-uk-france-germany-accelerate/
-
Streets are paved with gold here in 'ull.
-
Streets are paved with gold here in 'ull.
Nice.
But..?
Isn't that a bit slippery when it rains?
-
(1) it doesnt rain much over the east side (5-600mm year of rainfall)
(2) the pavements and walkways are covered
:p
-
Streets are paved with gold here in 'ull.
I drove through 'ull last week. You got the colour right but are you sure it was gold?
-
Streets are paved with gold here in 'ull.
I drove through 'ull last week. You got the colour right but are you sure it was gold?
Could have been the tints on your ride..
-
Doooommmm!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/food-inflation-doubles-uk-shoppers-feel-pinch?CMP=share_btn_fb
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/peers-vote-in-favour-of-veto-over-final-outcome-of-brexit-negotiations (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/peers-vote-in-favour-of-veto-over-final-outcome-of-brexit-negotiations)
Why are the peers so peevish.
Having a laugh is one thing but preventing the will of the people twice in a week.
Well that is something else.
They are an undemocratic, unpatriotic bunch of wasters.
Theresa if you read this post can you do two things.
1) Have show trial for peers who are preventing will of people.
2) Send those guilty peers to gulags - Guantanamo will do.
Kind regards.
Mr Britshit
-
It is, of course, opinion; it does however reflect the same questions I had yesterday:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/03/shock-philip-hammond-seems-hint-brexit-problem
And:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/12-bits-brexit-bad-news-hidden-budget-2017
-
It is, of course, opinion; it does however reflect the same questions I had yesterday:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/03/shock-philip-hammond-seems-hint-brexit-problem
And:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/12-bits-brexit-bad-news-hidden-budget-2017
Matt, come on, you're forgetting some short term pain is worth it for gaining control of immigration and bringing sovereignty home and... and...
It's like having your feet stuck in slowly setting concrete with a juggernaut driven by Mayhem, with Hammond et all hanging off the side, bearing down on you at 2mph. Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh..........
-
It's like having your feet stuck in slowly setting concrete with a juggernaut driven by Mayhem, with Hammond et all hanging off the side, bearing down on you at 2mph. Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh..........
Much like the feeling of being a labour supporter right now I imagine, or perhaps sinking slowly into oblivion in the quicksand..
-
It's like having your feet stuck in slowly setting concrete with a juggernaut driven by Mayhem, with Hammond et all hanging off the side, bearing down on you at 2mph. Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhh..........
Much like the feeling of being a labour supporter right now I imagine, or perhaps sinking slowly into oblivion in the quicksand..
Whilst I sn**ger at the demise of the Green socked and sandalled Red-brigade, I don't see much to laud in the rise of the ignorant right...
-
I read the Torygraph most days (amongst others), I suppose it's a ritual for me; breakfast, coffee and the papers. Over the years I have slid from a light blue, to a fairly deep orange, with some redish/greenish edges and the odd blue patch.
(Which, as a painter, the voice in my head whispers; makes brown. The colour of politics, is brown. Don't even mention the smell).
I think I've watched the Torygraph begin a long, subtle, turn; which may (or may not) reverse it's course completely. It's happened over the last two months, taken with the rumours of certain donors threats to withdraw funding if May continues her current course and the possible cabinet rift over the Budget; seem indicative of a failing government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/12/lurking-disaster-could-mean-brexit-crashes-uk-economy/
-
Paywalled. Any chance you can summarise the gist of it?
-
"E
ver longer grows the list of potential disasters that lie ahead for Britain, thanks to Theresa May’s decision that, on leaving the EU, we should also leave its single market. But rumbling away now in the background is one that dwarfs them all, because it will affect every one of the 170,000 UK businesses that trade with the rest of the EU, and much else besides.
We are, of course, wearily familiar with the argument that, because the rest of the EU sells more to us than we do to them, they will happily concede us that “one-off deal” Mrs May wants, allowing us to continue trading much as we do now. But this relies on a complete failure to grasp the real nature of the regulatory system that is the essence of the single market, and what would be facing us if we leave it to become what it calls a “third country”.
We would be excluded from that fully computerised system which for 25 years has allowed us to trade with the rest of the EU without having to go through customs controls. Only our trade with the outside world has been governed by a system called CHIEF (Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight), designed to handle 50 million customs declarations a year.
As long ago as 2010, HMRC realised that this system would soon be hopelessly overstretched. By 2014, when they had already been working for four years on upgrading their software, it became clear that they would now need a new system to be compliant with the proposed new EU-wide Union Customs Code, covering 1,300 pages. An £87 million project to create a new Customs Declaration Service (CDS), capable of handling 90 million declarations a year, proved so tricky that this was unlikely to be in place before 2020.
But all this has now been totally changed by Mrs May’s decision that we are no longer to remain “within” the internal market as she earlier promised, and as we could have done, on leaving the EU, by remaining within the wider European Economic Area (EEA). As a “third country”, Britain will now have to create its own unique customs code from scratch, to cover not only trade with the outside world but that with the EU as well, And obviously work on this cannot seriously get under way until the details of Mrs May’s trade deal are finally agreed.
I asked HMRC how long this might take, since they have already spent three years in dealing with a very much smaller problem. Their reply notably failed to answer the question of how they are planning to face this colossal new challenge. Indeed, it is inconceivable that, on day one after leaving the EU, we could have in place our own wholly new system, which it is estimated would now have to handle 350 million or more customs declarations a year.
This would result in chaos on an unimaginable scale (much of which, of course, could have been avoided if Mrs May had not been talked into leaving the EEA by her fluffy-headed colleagues). The disruption to our trade, not least the 30 per cent of all our food that we import from the EU, would not just be a car crash or a train wreck, it would be a whole fleet of jumbo jets crashing down on our entire economy,
When the Prime Minister shortly confronts her 27 EU colleagues to trigger Article 50, they will be gazing at her in disbelief that she could be asking for anything so silly: that would be a catastrophe not just for Britain but for the rest of the EU as well. Margaret Thatcher in 2003 famously looked back on our decision to join “Europe” as having been “a political error of the first magnitude”. But entirely through our own ignorance and stupidity, it looks as though the way we are choosing to leave it could be even worse."
-
Cheers Matt.
-
Fancy a quote from an anonymous "senior government aide"?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170312/1f8d55fa68b6f73e38c80800c8035089.jpg)
Loving these guys. They fill me with confidence and a warm fuzzy feeling.
A bit like a combination of morphine and rabies, really.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Much like the feeling of being a labour supporter right now I imagine, or perhaps sinking slowly into oblivion in the quicksand..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support
An excellent piece of political commentary from Nick Cohen, which expands your point rather well.
-
I'm going to put it out there - I think I was wrong on Corbyn. I was wondering if the media's incessant attacks on him had ground my support down, but no, I follow a few of his most ardent supporters (Canary etc.) and I feel he really is just missing too many open goals. When even the Canary's gushing praise of him can be seen through for what it is, maybe it's time.
However, another attack from the right is not going to cut it - it will also (in my opinion) further the destruction of the party, as the Corbyn faction will call foul. I think what's required is a strong leader with good centre/left credentials, supported by Corbyn(istas) to succeed him, but one who can bring the whole part together and form an effective opposition. FFS it should be easy as fuck to destroy Theresa Mayhem every round of PM Qs - the SNP certainly seem to manage pretty well!
Right then, who's the new leadership candidate? :tumble:
-
I suspect the time for leadership change and a rescue of the party's standing has now passed - or is perilously close to passing...
-
Right then, who's the new leadership candidate? :tumble:
Alan Johnson - always has been
-
I'm going to put it out there - I think I was wrong on Corbyn. I was wondering if the media's incessant attacks on him had ground my support down, but no, I follow a few of his most ardent supporters (Canary etc.) and I feel he really is just missing too many open goals. When even the Canary's gushing praise of him can be seen through for what it is, maybe it's time.
However, another attack from the right is not going to cut it - it will also (in my opinion) further the destruction of the party, as the Corbyn faction will call foul. I think what's required is a strong leader with good centre/left credentials, supported by Corbyn(istas) to succeed him, but one who can bring the whole part together and form an effective opposition. FFS it should be easy as fuck to destroy Theresa Mayhem every round of PM Qs - the SNP certainly seem to manage pretty well!
Right then, who's the new leadership candidate? :tumble:
Agreed. My enthusiasm for the corbyn novelty lasted until his first pmqs i should think. Or perhaps until it became apparent that he was more concerned with keeping a vice like grip on the party he is destroying, that with providing any kind of meaningful opposition to the government.
David Milliband, but the family connection pretty much excludes him politically, and he's said he won't run many times. Even Ed is beginning to sound effective next to Corbyn. Come to that Blair at least sounds like a bloody politician, rather than a retired union rep.
-
The main problem we will have with ANY prospective labour leader is that they won't get in while the majority of the print media is controlled by Tory donors. The Murdoch/Dacres of this world dictated the last election, they dictated the vote on Brexit, and they are likely to dictate any future elections. ANY labour leader is going to have a constant stream of negative publicity and belittlement from the right wing press, including right-wing favouring political editors working in TV. Anything positive they do will be ignored or buried. Them looking funny eating a bacon sandwich will be front page news. Let's not forget the only reason Blair got in was that Murdoch backed him.
-
Let's not forget the only reason Blair got in was that Murdoch backed him.
Whilst Blair aligning the Murdoch press (but note not the daily mail/express/Torygraph) with New Labour is certainly a factor - its not the only reason... and not the main sole reason IMHO.
Its whoever takes the middle ground/vote in a GE that wins.. thats what Cameron did - thats what Blair did - thats what even Major did!
Cohens article is interesting - especially the last sentence which is full of anger - that I didnt expect to see.
Next year, as austerity grinds on, as we crash out of the EU to find ourselves with Donald Trump as our last ally, they will run candidates against Corbyn and ask for your support. That will be the moment when you need to look at your country and ask whether this was what you wanted when you first cheered “Jeremy” on.
In my respectful opinion, your only honourable response will be to stop being a fucking fool by changing your fucking mind.
-
Its whoever takes the middle ground/vote in a GE that wins.. thats what Cameron did - thats what Blair did - thats what even Major did!
Aye, and it's much easier to take that middle ground newspaper/media backing.
We now have a Tory MP and ex-chancellor inexplicably working as a newspaper editor (apparently being an MP in a safe seat is a part-time job now?). Probably got the most rightwing mainstream press in europe.
-
Not like he has nothing else to do
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/every-job-millionaire-george-osborne-10045939
Wonder how he afford to pay income tax on all that?
-
Re Murdoch and Dacre - I don't think either of them have made any donations in the UK. Murdoch has donated in the US to both sides.
Dacre was a big fan of Gordon Brown. I could quite easily him turning against a bloated big Tory majority after this increasingly likely snap general election in May.
And then Keir Starmer (and his haircut) can get on with rebuilding Labour.
Maybe...
-
If you think we've got it bad, have you been following the situation in Bongobongoland?
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/special-report-bongobongoland/
-
Brexit means Brexit. Which might mean the Welsh, who overwhelmingly voted for it, have royally shot themselves in the foot. http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-03-24/ukip-access-to-european-single-market-critical-for-welsh-farmers-post-brexit/
We didn't mention this before, nope, not at all...
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
MARK RECKLESS AM, CHAIR OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
I wonder if he marked his ballot paper recklessly?
-
Which might mean the Welsh...
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
I'm sorry I just have to check "A Ukip Welsh Assembly Member says rural communities must not lose out as a result of Brexit and access to the European single market is a "critical priority" once Britain leaves." that would be the same single-market that May has ruled out membership of then.
Am I seeing things or are these people just insane?
Having read further he's only talking about tariff-free trade so possibly not mad just very optimistic.
-
Which might mean the Welsh...
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
I'm sorry I just have to check "A Ukip Welsh Assembly Member says rural communities must not lose out as a result of Brexit and access to the European single market is a "critical priority" once Britain leaves." that would be the same single-market that May has ruled out membership of then.
Am I seeing things or are these people just insane?
Having read further he's only talking about tariff-free trade so possibly not mad just very optimistic.
"Let them eat cake!"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Let them eat gateaux.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170328/0cac82b8c67164dd96fa770c7f486300.jpg)
Indey ref #2 "The Krankies' Revenge".
-
I felt a ripple in the force yesterday, millions of voices going Noooooooo
-
I'm wondering if I can recoup some of the money this has cost me with a punt on how much more I'm going to lose today.
-
This has been put up in Witney
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8Cv8S-W4AIOD0U.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8Cv8S-W4AIOD0U.jpg)
Brexit going well, taken 9 months to write 6 page letter.
48 hours or something for it to be hand delivered.
Why couldn't it be simply emailed?
Lloyds moving offices to Brussels, first a trickle followed by an exodus.
Britshit negotiating positions
Plan a) make sure that we are no worse off than we are now, why bother.
Plan b) no deal definitely worse off than we are now.
-
I tried the "walking out" tactic with Mrs OMM, once.
Once.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/memo-my-select-committee-colleagues-you-cant-walk-out-brexit
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It would appear that DEFRA are no longer calling the Water Framework Directive the Water Framework Directive. They're calling it the Water Environment Improvement Fund.
Thank heavens we Took Back Control and can now exercise our sovereignty by adopting the same legislation as before and rebranding it.
-
Heaven forbid some of it was quite good and useful.
-
It would appear that DEFRA are no longer calling the Water Framework Directive the Water Framework Directive. They're calling it the Water Environment Improvement Fund.
Thank heavens we Took Back Control and can now exercise our sovereignty by adopting the same legislation as before and rebranding it.
Can't find any news on this Will..
-
News came through the internal channels. Someone at the EA telling someone at our place.
-
Brexit means Brexit. Which might mean the Welsh, who overwhelmingly voted for it, have royally shot themselves in the foot. http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-03-24/ukip-access-to-european-single-market-critical-for-welsh-farmers-post-brexit/
We didn't mention this before, nope, not at all...
Flip Flop Friday
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/06/farage-says-it-would-be-dishonourable-for-mark-reckless-to-quit-ukip
-
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/british-government-realises-brexit-is-a-mistake-official-says-1.3048046?mode=amp
[emoji52]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's a day for it, I guess.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/philip-hammonds-business-confidence-conference-marred-by-keynote-speakers-brexit-admission_uk_58ef4fede4b0b9e9848989aa?
-
Brexit plan all going well, when in doubt piss off fellow Europeans.
Mayhem, with the cheap shots, what a dick.
EU meddling in the General election, for f*cks sake you could make it up.
Strong and stable she doesn't give a rats ass.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/04/european-commission-dismisses-theresa-may-claims-as-electioneering (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/04/european-commission-dismisses-theresa-may-claims-as-electioneering)
-
There's votes in it, according to Lynton, so rat's ass indeed.
-
The Brexit ripples starting to spread out.
First a trickle of bad news, watch for the tsunami out on the horizon.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns)
-
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/psychology-and-the-eu-referendum-update/
-
The Brexit ripples starting to spread out.
First a trickle of bad news, watch for the tsunami out on the horizon.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns)
It seems to me when such University senior managent teams blame nearly everything, the real fault is closer to home. This restructure almost certainly has nothing to do with Brexit.
-
The Brexit ripples starting to spread out.
First a trickle of bad news, watch for the tsunami out on the horizon.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/university-of-manchester-to-axe-171-staff-amid-brexit-concerns)
It seems to me when such University senior managent teams blame nearly everything, the real fault is closer to home. This restructure almost certainly has nothing to do with Brexit.
Well, Manchester are normally pretty quick to trim things back if an area isn't recruiting/bringing in £££
But, the main areas hit are Medicine, Business and the Arts.
Medical research is heavily funded by EU/joint EU funding (IIRC its one of the research areas most likely to be hit hardest). Business may well see a drop off in EU students - not sure if they have an MBA (bet they do) and this is an area that in the past has been hit by changes in visa issues and external perception. Arts subjects... well many are in decline for student numbers, so I doubt this has much to do with EU stuff...
I suspect a good chunk are being made with Brexit considerations in mind - but also a good chunk are ones that would be made anyway. From management perspective it makes it easier to swing past staff/unions (not that they do anything in HE anyway..) than 'regular' cuts...
-
Manchesters financial position is currently quite healthy. It seems likely to me that this decision is based on models of future income. Those are basically educated guesses but will be heavily affected by post brexit assumptions, as are similar models at our uni.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can only speak to the business school side of the equation (MBS was the first business school in the UK and certainly has an MBA). The whole sector has a) been in a prolonged boom, which has probably reached bubble like proportions, and b) become extremely reliant on foreign students, especially from particular regions of the world (e.g. China). UK business schools are basically one huge export industry. But there are real question marks for the future. Like I said, it resembles a bubble (and if they generate a lot of revenue then they are also costly, students expect swanky facilities and faculty are better paid, often much better paid), given the reliance on foreign students changes to visa regulations hit business schools particularly hard, as does a general change in perceptions about how welcoming the whole country is. And viable alternatives are emerging, not least in China itself. Many potential students must be starting to ask themselves if its worth coming to the UK. Retrenchment is probably inevitable.
-
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/psychology-and-the-eu-referendum-update/
Interesting study Sean. Hehe you probably weren't expecting someone to have a graph of their big 5 traits but... because it's something that interests me I've been taking part in a study that tracks personality traits over time. So I can compare myself to that study and see that I don't fit their results.
Participants expressing an intent to vote to leave the EU reported significantly higher levels of authoritarianism and conscientiousness, and lower levels of openness and neuroticism than voters expressing an intent to vote to remain.
My results don't tally for Openness (I'm extremely high across time - higher than average for 'remainers'); or Conscientiousness (I'm lower than the study suggests for 'leavers') :shrug:
I did however have lower Neuroticism as per the study.
My personality traits graphed from between Nov 2015 - May 2017
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vzz2OZAZ42iaYJ6b-Mgd3MAlhXGfi_Pt1MBidQ_AdCPw7h0dFJXmRC-EUJqp_kp1L6HBG46MD2VI1oT0b2FM7lrVZP1cxfOIQBrVPsIT37O2nKXhG4X87afOXopwkcnOTO5i8F7jMl3zBCTLHSt_M6ixcI38CXIHJb6e3RAHqR3XKmJcUQmp4iEQD22FFxuzUVQyV8xtn78rqsqWNcf0SiAf6hpeRGctMvdonkfAKP-qQFi1f9Sah3cxhqzYeKeuH9GdtFdjRBYN8zuFOELEbsXd98D1zgltJQL3gJ90rkaw7THHFZeaYPuiR1DPvhKc7BsXL092VRsAPHPFrKzCK6Ysy-zQeMXpeROk_hif_OY0FYPqqNmEtUW9S1mdn0XyJk4sv7mOYqWCFlV26XVInq8Wd1KPSCB-BepcC1ybeEqiSwp_d7UDMQc8OK5hAPvc0GsgBrZeRW4AfpO-ddarDE2G473wBDBssOQg2bggUQFlzz9FPs5krchG_fFXE-0EtVGGl4ZEOckHRtbmj7WS9S-ifbZtP0oJG0erecNu1u5F_l02BJcNbMChkgnDJpgtzsVMlr6d2GjYuF5JWd8s9NjQZMC5spW1DG-1ZhUg1feSc_RD-Mb4=w900-h650-no)
Regards the reasoning result in that study, I took an IQ test in 2015 and scored 126 (+/- 8 iirc). Not sure whether that tallies with their results.. :shrug:
I'm happy to be the 'leave' outlier though. Interesting stuff anyways, thanks for sharing.
-
Manchesters financial position is currently quite healthy. It seems likely to me that this decision is based on models of future income. Those are basically educated guesses but will be heavily affected by post brexit assumptions, as are similar models at our uni.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its all on turnover... Our institute has been through 2 or 3 rounds of 'voluntary' leaving... despite there being a fuckton of £££ in the bank..... but we've been operating at a loss.
In the article they said Mancs has billions in the bank, but were only just in surplus last year and much healthier than this...
-
Torquay/Torbay is heavily reliant on language schools and foreign students (possibly partly why it voted so heavily for Brexit, the students are not liked). We cater to them (the schools) providing PE sessions and extra-curricula clubs etc. The biggest campus here being the EF International School (11-18 year olds). They took a hefty downturn in their Sept intake in 2016, many students opting for the US instead, at the last minute. The staff there are hopeful that will change with the Trump effect and perhaps there will be some recovery in 2017. It depends on where they feel the least welcome I suppose. Anyway, there was a marked change in the student ethnicity spread. The school usually ran at ~ 45% European and Scandinavian students, that has shifted significantly and it's now over 60% Chinese, which has caused huge staffing issues.
My personal assumption is that most of Europe and Scandinavia just up and decided UK English and Culture was no longer as desirable. If they opted to study in English, then the US was a more important place to do so. I know that is how I would feel if I had been a parent choosing an international school for my kids.
-
https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/822911786341044224
-
Well, Manchester are normally pretty quick to trim things back if an area isn't recruiting/bringing in £££
But, the main areas hit are Medicine, Business and the Arts.
Medical research is heavily funded by EU/joint EU funding (IIRC its one of the research areas most likely to be hit hardest). Business may well see a drop off in EU students - not sure if they have an MBA (bet they do) and this is an area that in the past has been hit by changes in visa issues and external perception. Arts subjects... well many are in decline for student numbers, so I doubt this has much to do with EU stuff...
I suspect a good chunk are being made with Brexit considerations in mind - but also a good chunk are ones that would be made anyway. From management perspective it makes it easier to swing past staff/unions (not that they do anything in HE anyway..) than 'regular' cuts...
The whole sector is facing pressures in overseas recruitment right now. 1/3 of our HE staff are in that category and the mad insistance of RoboMay to make such a fuss about ALL immigartion (they presumably want to focus on high value immigrants) and including students in their immigration numbers, was bound to have consequencies. That's a pre-brexit decision though and very much that of our PM.
Yes Manchester have always been keen to cut and run and many good people left as a result of this... when Universities remember they are more a collection of academic expertise in an international market than a corperate focussed business, trying to outdo local competition by building centralised highly disciplined admin armies, they will become more successful. How many of Manchester's problems are because they fail to supoort the 'coal face' or made bad business decisions (against academic staff advice); for instance, as a self described world leader in MBA delivery, why risk their international reputation by trumpetting cuts? My spies also tell me Manchester have real issues with TEF coming, in some sub areas, as their actual student support (as percieved by their students in NSS etc) doesn't always match their mission and their advertising.
We simply can't predict things like Medical research spend post brexit (much of which is charity based already) and all the parties have said they won't cut this anyhow. From my post '92 institution perspective we worry research money will consolidate more in institutions like Manchester (we have a big biomed research centre with many millions of charity funding on top of government funding, and top rated research outputs, so have lots to worry about if that happens). Almost all UK institutions are thoroughly dishonest with the way they treat research post docs as casualised staff, so can cut costs quickly by not renewing contracts.
-
Interesting study Sean. Hehe you probably weren't expecting someone to have a graph of their big 5 traits but... because it's something that interests me I've been taking part in a study that tracks personality traits over time. So I can compare myself to that study and see that I don't fit their results.
My results don't tally for Openness (I'm extremely high across time - higher than average for 'remainers'); or Conscientiousness (I'm lower than the study suggests for 'leavers') :shrug:
I did however have lower Neuroticism as per the study.
My personality traits graphed from between Nov 2015 - May 2017
Thanks Pete, that's really cool (tho the graphs do seem to have disappeared). Fwiw I imagine someone like Johnson or Hannan would score high on the "openness" scale too.
How long will you be involved in the study?
-
More on Manchester Uni restructure:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/13/manchester-university-accused-of-planning-clearout-of-senior-staff
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/manchester-blames-brexit-enormous-job-cuts
-
https://nyti.ms/2qttTv7
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Ummmm...
I was told this wouldn't happen, that it was all falling apart and depended entirely on our contributions and would sink instantly as soon as we decided to leave?
Did I miss-hear? I think I've still got the leaflet that that twat in the purple suit pushed though my letterbox.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eurozone-at-six-year-high-as-economy-turns-corner-sh5cqv93j
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The double standards of seeing you flag up this story is too funny. You could quote your post verbatim but applied to the supposed disaster for the UK economy post-brexit referendum. ::) ::) ::)
Good of course that everyone's doing ok.
-
The reality is that both sides made a number of more or less plausible - and often exaggerated - projections. But it is also the case that we are still in no position to begin to measure the full consequences of Brexit (assuming it happens) and probably won't be for a very long time. To argue otherwise is a nonsense.
-
Quite agree - if only you had been the communications manager for the remain campaign Andy then perhaps we wouldn't have suffered project fear from that campaign. The brexit campaign was similarly a load of cock and bull. At its worst it was two sides flinging the information equivalent of feces at each other.
-
The double standards of seeing you flag up this story is too funny. You could quote your post verbatim but applied to the supposed disaster for the UK economy post-brexit referendum. ::) ::) ::)
Good of course that everyone's doing ok.
[emoji12]
Good?
Heaven forfend! Let the world burn!
(All prognostications completely accurate and true, for a given value of true and an error value of accuracy of +/- 100%. The management accepts no responsibility for external factors affecting said prognostications (such as things not going the way we predicted)).
Have a nice day!
-
Up, down, left, right, in and out and turn about...
http://trib.al/hS4dFM6
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So, the Swiss newspapers are being quite charitable to British sensibilities...
(Not my introduction, words of the translator).
"This article in a Swiss newspaper today is so ruthlessly clear-sighted in its assessment of just how screwed we are that I just had to translate it for the non-German speakers. Hold on to your hats:
THE LAUGHING STOCK OF EUROPE
[Translation by Paula Kirby]
If it weren't so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country’s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country?
Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights. The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point.
In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers’ obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron’s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit.
The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Brexit campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem.
Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that’s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun. With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery.
Great Britain will end up leaving its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and brings the fewest possible economic disadvantages. It’s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn’t toe the line.
The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party – among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues – are already threatening rebellion. An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government.
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain’s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they’d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt.
British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties. Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long had a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand.
After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover."
-
Possibly a long shot but being put forward by someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-article-50-illusion-never-triggered-eu-counsel-magazine-barrister-david-wolchover-theresa-may-a7803596.html
-
Ummmm....?
Ok.
[emoji15]
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-dominic-cummings-vote-leave_uk_595b62bbe4b02734df33fbc0?td
-
Been a lot discussion at work the last few days about pay and conditions.
Over the last 8 years have had pay rises about 1% per year.
So not bad, but was told that low rises to do with austerity/banking crash.
Talk in papers etc about possibly increases in the pipeline.
But was told yesterday, that Brexshit will mean continued pegging back of raises.
So will 8 years of austerity be followed by 8 year Brexshit recession.
-
1% isn't bad if you don't mind an annual pay cut, just as CPI is a good measure if you don't have to pay for a home...
-
Wasn't the Torygraph rabidly pro-Brexit? Wasn't May their pin-up girl? Did we slip into an alternate universe over the Weekend?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/05/mays-absurd-brexit-plan-sacrifices-economy-stop-eu-migrants/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg
-
Worth 5 minutes and mildly amusing...
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-twitter-thread-political-analyst-european-union-united-kingdom-united-states-america-7834846
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cheers, I'd missed that and wasn't aware of quite a few items on his list.
-
Bloody experts (obviously a bit posh too, if he eats chocolate oranges):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/13/brexit-plans-fall-apart-chocolate-orange-auditor-general
-
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/19/charges-paying-card-banned-flights-tax-bills (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/19/charges-paying-card-banned-flights-tax-bills)
The pesky EU getting involved in how we run our country yet again. Why can't they keep their big beak out of our business.
Plus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/brexit-talks-uk-underprepared-david-davis-michel-barnier-eu (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/brexit-talks-uk-underprepared-david-davis-michel-barnier-eu)
A picture paints a thousand words. The pic of Brexit teams at the start of this article seems to sum up how unprepared the EU team and how seriously DD and the lads are taking things. Plan, what's that again.... we had all that blather about Mother Theresa and DD negotiating 24/7, yet DD this week could only fit in an hour.....
-
Huston/Brussels we have a problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html)
It simples init. :no:
-
Oh stop being so negative, how can you be down when this happened:
Trump: UK-US trade deal could be 'big and exciting'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40716317
We're quids in mate! The leader of the free world is gonna be our buddy!
(I do not mean anything I have written in this post).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Time to start stockpiling food, water and Toblerones?
If we do cliff edge I suspect there will be some shortages...
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Time to start stockpiling food, water and Toblerones?
If we do cliff edge I suspect there will be some shortages...
Agggh.
"The UK does not have its own capacity to do things like certify maintenance facilities if it leaves the European Aviation Safety Agency. Yes, you heard that right. The UK won’t be able to certify the people that fix the planes. As with so many of these issues, the UK will either have to negotiate to remain in the agency (which is within the dreaded European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction), or establish its own capacity to replace what it does from a standing start in only 20 months."
Can we not find an ad agency to boil all these messages down into pithy slogans, put them on the side of some buses and drive them into Brexitland so the dumb cunt knuckleheads people easily mislead by Brexit fantasy visions that voted for this shit show can get some sense of what is about to hit us.
I for one would happily pay a tenner for this. Maybe more.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Agggh.
"The UK does not have its own capacity to do things like certify maintenance facilities if it leaves the European Aviation Safety Agency. Yes, you heard that right. The UK won’t be able to certify the people that fix the planes. As with so many of these issues, the UK will either have to negotiate to remain in the agency (which is within the dreaded European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction), or establish its own capacity to replace what it does from a standing start in only 20 months."
Some further reading on the topic for those interested in a little more detail...
From the UK Civil Aviation Authority's website http://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About-us/Our-role/ (http://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About-us/Our-role/):
As the UK's specialist aviation regulator we work so that: the aviation industry meets the highest safety standards...
Our responsibilities... We regulate all UK airlines to ensure they comply with relevant international safety standards including European-wide safety regulations set by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)...
Areas outside of our responsibility... We do not have the legal power to determine the reliability or quality of service provided by airlines... Nor do we certify or approve the design and manufacture of different types of aircraft - this is done at European level by EASA...
From the Airline Basics website of engineer and aviation consultant Michael Swoboda (http://michalswoboda.com/about/) http://airlinebasics.com/brexit-in-aviation-will-the-uk-leave-easa-3-significant-topics-to-consider/ (http://airlinebasics.com/brexit-in-aviation-will-the-uk-leave-easa-3-significant-topics-to-consider/), an article written in June 2016 and worth reading in full:
It has to be clearly said that the UK CAA has had a magnificent impact on EASA rulemaking and also, and maybe foremost, on the “best practices” within a CAA, many of which have been adopted by the aviation authorities of other European member states. The British CAA was almost always the first to properly adapt to new regulations and has almost done this with a bang. If you could not find your answer somewhere else – you would go to the Brits. No matter from which country your need would originate...
I firmly believe that the UK will remain a member of EASA despite Brexit. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the UK chooses to leave EASA, all the companies will still quickly apply for European certification to get the business going and ensure smooth aircraft sales and aircraft transitions...
He concludes with the wisest words on the matter...
But the future is an unknown, so we are bound to see what happens...
It's worth noting that the EASA has only been fully functional since 2008 and has numerous Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements and Working Arrangements for co-operation and working with non-EU countries and CAAs of non-EU countries.
So why would the views of The Independent's op-ed writer and author of The Great British Moronathon Blog (https://thegreatbritishmoronathon.wordpress.com/) - "Articles and comments on the biggest f**k up in British political history" - differ so much from the considered, nuanced and much more balanced view on the subject expressed by the aviation expert?
From Steve Bullock's Twitter account (https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog?lang=en):
Steve Bullock @GuitarMoog
Immigrant, Musician, Sound Engineer, ex-negotiator for the UK in the EU, liberal, SNP, anti-Brexit, pro-EU campaigner.
Ah!...
-
Well, that will all be ok then.
However, aside from Indy opinion pieces being of s tabloid nature and, in fact, despite differences in the relative tone and style of each of the above articles; they remain opinion.
Of course, there exists the possibility that such regulation will not be the critical issue facing that industry. Ownership of airlines and their rights to fly might be trickier to deal with:
http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144673/airline-regulation-what-you-need-to-know-with-brexit-approaching
Aside from sensational headlines, there has been some apparent movement of this. That Rayan air tosser, for one, though he is possibly just being a cussed twat, as usual.
Or just blunt and unscrupulous. It's hard to argue against his business acumen, after all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A Jooser - I'd give up mate they don't want to hear it.
(Although can someone point jfdm in the direction of the R4 interview with the former UK diplomat, iirc might have been Sir Christopher Myer, on the day that 'paperwork' picture emerged)
If Michael O'Leary said good morning I'd double-check my watch.
-
A Jooser - I'd give up mate they don't want to hear it.
(Although can someone point jfdm in the direction of the R4 interview with the former UK diplomat, iirc might have been Sir Christopher Myer, on the day that 'paperwork' picture emerged)
If Michael O'Leary said good morning I'd double-check my watch.
Hey, hang on a minute, I thought we weren't supposed to be taking advice from experts. Those good for nothing experts. I'd rather fly by the seat of my pants..... Sir Chris can go and whistle...
-
:off:
From article linked by Oldmanmatt:
Conclusions
There can be no certainty on the issues discussed above until the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU are negotiated with its remaining members, a process which is expected to be slow and onerous...
Any views on the results of Brexit which include caveats such as this are worth consideration. Some similar ground on Open Skies and airline ownership (expressed with the same degree of uncertainty) was covered by Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the UK Civil Aviation Authority in his The future of open skies post-Brexit (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLitngwKfVAhWdHsAKHQ14CqgQFggtMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.co.uk%2FuploadedFiles%2FCAA%2FContent%2FNews%2FSpeeches_files%2FGADspeech_AndrewHaines_011216.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF4ZlnNe5HWVZWvQ2iK8wFqGhVyhg) speech in December 2016.
:off:
Re. my previous post...
...despite differences in the relative tone and style of each of the above articles; they remain opinion.
Indeed. However, I would suggest one is the informed, unbiased opinion of an expert in his field and the other is an agenda driven op-ed. But people can read both and draw their own conclusions on the quality of opinion.
I'd credited the Indy article with being little more than an opinion piece but on re-reading it I have some observations. I was drawn in by the heading of The Independent's article 'As a British EU negotiator, I can tell you that Brexit is going to be far worse than anyone could have guessed'; misled, I thought it might be by someone currently involved in the Brexit negotiations and therefore genuinely insightful. Of course it isn't. The headline should have said 'former British EU negotiator'. But at least it's all made plain at the bottom of the article...
Steve Bullock worked at the UK Representation to the EU from 2010-2014 where he negotiated several EU regulations for the UK in European Council working groups. He has also worked for the European Commission and the Department for International Development’s Europe Department. The UK in a Changing Europe assisted with the commissioning of this piece.
So it was written by a former British EU negotiator who has since worked for the European Commission (does he have an EU pension?) and paid for (commissioned) by a think-tank that publishes material highly critical of Britain leaving the EU - but which must be 'authoritative, non-partisan and impartial' because they tell us so. ::) And of course it was published on a website which is basically the polar opposite of the Daily Express.
None of that invalidates an author's opinion, the points may merit consideration, although I'd hope we can all understand what propaganda is.
A Jooser - I'd give up mate they don't want to hear it.
You couldn't possibly be suggesting that posters on this thread would have no interest in entertaining opinions that don't accord with their own, could you? ;)
-
So, this fella is no fan of Brexit.
Anyone come across reasonable refutation of his points?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/08/15/the-government-s-customs-union-plan-is-an-absolute-dog-s-bre
-
So, this fella is no fan of Brexit.
Anyone come across reasonable refutation of his points?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/08/15/the-government-s-customs-union-plan-is-an-absolute-dog-s-bre
No, but you might enjoy this anyhow:
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/what-position-papers-tell-us-about.html
-
Well Brexit going really well this week.
So well in fact that public money has been used to help with hard Brexit propaganda.
https://www.channel4.com/news/conservative-mp-suella-fernandes-warns-theresa-may-not-to-keep-britain-in-single-market (https://www.channel4.com/news/conservative-mp-suella-fernandes-warns-theresa-may-not-to-keep-britain-in-single-market)
Suella is the embodiment of Brexit, when things are scrutinised, they seem to wilt.
Brexit a rip roaring success.
Just had a look at wiki page about suella, daughter of immigrants, worked hard done well for herself. Why doesn't she want to give the same benefits she has grasped to other families looking to move to the uk in the near future.
-
Well Brexit going really well this week.
So well in fact that public money has been used to help with hard Brexit propaganda.
https://www.channel4.com/news/conservative-mp-suella-fernandes-warns-theresa-may-not-to-keep-britain-in-single-market (https://www.channel4.com/news/conservative-mp-suella-fernandes-warns-theresa-may-not-to-keep-britain-in-single-market)
Suella is the embodiment of Brexit, when things are scrutinised, they seem to wilt.
Brexit a rip roaring success.
Just had a look at wiki page about suella, daughter of immigrants, worked hard done well for herself. Why doesn't she want to give the same benefits she has grasped to other families looking to move to the uk in the near future.
Revealed: The Tory MPs using taxpayers’ cash to fund a secretive hard-Brexit group (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/james-cusick-adam-ramsay-crina-boros/revealed-tory-mps-using-taxpayers-cash-to-fund-sec)
This only thickens the plot.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/oct/03/anywhere-but-westminster-in-brexit-heartland-of-kent-fruit-is-rotting-for-want-of-pickers-video
I wish everone who voted leave would watch this video with an open mind.......massive optimist warning!
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/oct/03/anywhere-but-westminster-in-brexit-heartland-of-kent-fruit-is-rotting-for-want-of-pickers-video
I wish everone who voted leave would watch this video with an open mind.......massive optimist warning!
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
I really like Jon Harris's videos but he seems adept at going to run down city centres in the middle of the day where inevitably he meets some fairly extreme Brexit voters. But surely most Brexit voters aren't like that, 70% of Tory voters voted Leave but maybe they wouldn't make as good viewing...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/oct/03/anywhere-but-westminster-in-brexit-heartland-of-kent-fruit-is-rotting-for-want-of-pickers-video
I wish everone who voted leave would watch this video with an open mind.......massive optimist warning!
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
I really like Jon Harris's videos but he seems adept at going to run down city centres in the middle of the day where inevitably he meets some fairly extreme Brexit voters. But surely most Brexit voters aren't like that, 70% of Tory voters voted Leave but maybe they wouldn't make as good viewing...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/oct/03/anywhere-but-westminster-in-brexit-heartland-of-kent-fruit-is-rotting-for-want-of-pickers-video
I wish everone who voted leave would watch this video with an open mind.......massive optimist warning!
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
I really like Jon Harris's videos but he seems adept at going to run down city centres in the middle of the day where inevitably he meets some fairly extreme Brexit voters. But surely most Brexit voters aren't like that, 70% of Tory voters voted Leave but maybe they wouldn't make as good viewing...
Are you suggesting the interviewees are not representative of 70% of the Tory voters?
Sure?
-
Intrigued as to whether our resident Brexiteers are happy with recent direction? Would a 'no-deal' outcome be acceptable?
-
Intrigued as to whether our resident Brexiteers are happy with recent direction? Would a 'no-deal' outcome be acceptable?
I suspect this is representative, though I’d be interested in the “horse’s mouth” version:
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html?m=1
-
Saw that piece earlier in the week. It made me quite angry.
-
Whoever the guy who wrote that blog is, he's a moronic c*nt
-
Intrigued as to whether our resident Brexiteers are happy with recent direction? Would a 'no-deal' outcome be acceptable?
Who said there isn't going to be a deal? That might be the fear but it isn't the reality, at least yet. Or is it wishful thinking on the part of the resident remainers on here? A bit of Schadenfreude rearing its head?
The language changed dramatically today from that of the past two weeks, all of a sudden Michel Barnier is talking about 'no deal' being out of the question and of 'not being made aware' of the consequences of 'no deal'. May is talking of the 'possibility' of the payment rising to 60 billion. Juncker is now saying he 'hates' the thought of no deal '. Merkel is talking about 'zero indication of brexit talk will fail'. Tusk - 'the deadlock has been exaggerated'.
It's clear there's a shared purpose behind the scenes.
All just another day in politics-land.
-
I'm aware of that, but it's also been talked about a lot and I'm curious as to whether you think no deal would still be better than remaining?
-
Renee is a lovely girl. We should follow her example and just........
-
I'm aware of that, but it's also been talked about a lot and I'm curious as to whether you think no deal would still be better than remaining?
I doubt if either you or me is qualified to know objectively what that would really mean 2 months, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years down the line. Just as we aren't for remaining, although there are more knowns than unknowns for this. I'm interested in listening to the opinions of forecasters, from wildly pessimist to wildly optimistic, while bearing in mind the consistent inaccuracy and margin of error of forecasters - not just in brexit but in economics generally.
But subjectively yes I'd rather we left and you'd rather we remained.
-
Any good links to these forecasts? All I see that we don't seem to have made any progress on even the most basic thing like the Irish border.
-
How long have you got. You could start with the Bank of England circa 2016 including subsequent revisions.
-
Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....
@JolyonMaugham QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!! (https://storify.com/enilkcals/jo-maugham-qc-on-a-hm-treasury-brexshit-report)
-
Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....
@JolyonMaugham QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!! (https://storify.com/enilkcals/jo-maugham-qc-on-a-hm-treasury-brexshit-report)
Thanks Slackers, can always rely on you for links!
That'll be the same treasury that predicted 4 quarters of recession immediately following a brexit vote:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
“The Treasury said there would be four quarters of recession, we have had six months since the Brexit vote, we should have been in recession by now, but we are not. Things are maybe a bit delayed but the whole succession of investment announcements we have had from Nissan, Microsoft and others suggests that companies are taking a much more sanguine view of this than the Treasury and others have suggested.''
The above is from a Cambridge University report published in Jan 2017: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-report-on-macro-economic-impact-of-brexit-questions-treasury-forecasts
We can all post links, most of them will be partisan, doesn't prove much.
I do recommend anyone who's interested in getting a clearer understanding to listen to the podcast featuring the authors of the above report, where they outline the 5 distinct options post brexit, and give their forecast to go into the mix..
-
Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....
@JolyonMaugham QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!! (https://storify.com/enilkcals/jo-maugham-qc-on-a-hm-treasury-brexshit-report)
Thanks Slackers, can always rely on you for links!
That'll be the same treasury that predicted 4 quarters of recession immediately following a brexit vote:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
"Following a brexit vote" != "leaving the eu"
The forecast/predictions of the impact of Brexit are as yet untested....the UK hasn't yet left the EU. I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things. There are plenty of other reasons to remain in the EU but I won't be repeating myself and typing them out again.
-
I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things.
Couldn't agree more. This would have made a nice preface to that treasury forecast you posted two posts ago...
-
This would have made a nice preface to that treasury forecast you posted two posts ago...
As would avoiding conflating predictions about events that have not happened with hindsight as you posted three posts ago...
-
Charming: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Of course, he has absolutely no authority to demand any such information and to a large extent I would be very much more concerned by those institutions that acquiesced to the request; if any.
-
Doesn't he, in fact, have every legal right to such information? Perhaps he'll just need to tell them to consider his letter a Freedom of Information Request. This raises two questions in my mind: why are the University of Worcester (https://www.worcester.ac.uk/informationassurance/freedom-of-information.html) and the LSE (http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/Legal%20Team/FOI/Home.aspx) avoiding their FOI obligations? And why are the media not challenging the Universities on their lack of FOI compliance?
-
FOI applies to public authorities only. In the case of universities it is the governing body which is the public authority, not the university itself.
Edit: just clicked through to the links there. The university's own information seems to conflict with that of the ICO.
-
Doesn't he, in fact, have every legal right to such information? Perhaps he'll just need to tell them to consider his letter a Freedom of Information Request. This raises two questions in my mind: why are the University of Worcester (https://www.worcester.ac.uk/informationassurance/freedom-of-information.html) and the LSE (http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/Legal%20Team/FOI/Home.aspx) avoiding their FOI obligations? And why are the media not challenging the Universities on their lack of FOI compliance?
I would suspect they would argue that the request is Vexatious as a legitimate grounds for refusal, provided for within the act. However, that position could be challenged and the appropriate authority would be asked to rule (isn’t that “the Chancelor of the Dutchy of something or other” or something equally arcane?) on the requests merit, etc etc.
Basically, the request can be deflected almost ad infinitum if there is the slightest hint of Vexation?
I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:
Under section 14(1) of the Act, public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test. Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances. Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it. Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious. In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.
Edit:
Oh and the “Round Robin” nature of the request can also be taken into the context of the request, I believe?
-
I was going to ask if you were sure about that Will.
The following document is on Worcester Uni's page
https://www.worcester.ac.uk/informationassurance/documents/FREEDOM_OF_INFORMATION_ACT_POLICY.pdf
1.1 Any individual or organisation has the right:
- To access information in the University's Publication Scheme, which details all information that the University routinely makes available to the public.
- To request any information held by the University; regardless of when it was created, by whom, or the form in which it is now held.
It's not as if syllabuses and faculty lists are not routinely published, no doubt the MP could find them himself if he put a little effort in. Nevertheless his polite request is entitled to a polite reply pointing him in the direction of the information he's looking for.
Anyway, I'm glad to see Universities finally standing up for free speech - makes a change from all the 'no platforming'. Must go now as the new forum layout is making my eyes hurt :blink: and I had to let my avatar go as I couldn't stand to see it squashed!
P.S. Matt, I'm sure you're right 'vexatious' is usually the way people choose to get round these things, it's more often used when an individual makes repeated requests of a similar nature, I believe (though the text you posted would seem to contradict this). The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives (this much your text seems to support). As I said, he can probably find what he's looking for himself without too much trouble.
Really must go and be :sick: now...
-
The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
get a grip
-
Brexit car crash, is now growing into a motorway style pile up.
Today has been a classic for Brexshit plans.
Jacob Rees-Mogg - Radio 5 Live has been broadcasting an interview he conducted with Emma Barnett. In it he described the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, as an “enemy” of Brexit.
Double D - Mr Brexit, during Brexit committee exchange happened between Lab Mp and Double D.
Davis says parliament may not get vote on final Brexit deal until after Brexit happens
BrexitPete so much for parliament taking back control, sovereignty etc.
DD also stated that he dislikes mathematical modelling as it was always incorrect.
But would not publish Brexit impact assessments, presumably these are incorrect.
So much for making informed decisions, transparency etc.
Hours later PM clarifies Brexit timing, apparently Double d was shooting from the hip
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/oct/25/theresa-may-confident-that-parliament-will-have-vote-on-final-brexit-deal-video (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/oct/25/theresa-may-confident-that-parliament-will-have-vote-on-final-brexit-deal-video)
Dominic Grieve - former attorney general
"If govt try to do it [leave EU without vote on deal] there would be a serious risk of legal challenge"
In other news
The head of HM Revenue and Customs has said the tax authorities would need up to £450m in extra funding and up to 5,000 extra staff to deal with the impact of Britain leaving the European Union without a deal.
Ivan Rodgers - former chief gov advisor on brexit - no Brexit deal, we would end up being like Venezuela.
In a nut shell Brexit a shit shambles.
It’s like the Thick of It but simply the sad reality of the situation.
-
The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
get a grip
I was replying directly to OMM's points re. vexatious FOI requests...
I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:
...Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it...
i.e. any motives the individual may have in submitting a request are immaterial.
Bit surprised that needs explaining.
Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. As an aside, my sources suggest legal advice at Liverpool University is to treat the letter as an FOI request.
-
The request seems reasonable enough to me as no judgement can be made about this chap's motives
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
get a grip
I was replying directly to OMM's points re. vexatious FOI requests...
I had a quick gander at section 14 of FOIA and pinched the overview:
...Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it...
i.e. any motives the individual may have in submitting a request are immaterial.
Bit surprised that needs explaining.
Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. As an aside, my sources suggest legal advice at Liverpool University is to treat the letter as an FOI request.
I think, the relevant part of section 14 is the “context” of the request, the “Round Robin” nature (that is to say the request was made to numerous institutions) and that it requests information already publicly available (in large part).
I was closer to Will’s impression of a University’s status with regard to being public body.
I had imagined they would have delineated for purposes of protecting intellectual property. Entirely an assumption, of course, not being an academic.
I assume there must be some mechanism in place? Or can I just rock up and demand any research I fancy?
You know, it would save a fair bit in journal subscriptions...
That was an ironic comment, but I wonder how you distinguish between the IP of a lecture or syllabus (which should be unique and proprietary to the institution, surely?), against the IP of research? One informs the other, no?
Whilst copyright might prevent me using IP, it wouldn’t prevent me being informed by it and modifing my own research etc based on information obtained.
Where I going here, is that I suspect that whilst the Syllabus might be subject to FOIA, the content, notes and sundry ought to be protected somehow?
Or can I just FOI myself any Uni course I want?
-
Anyway, I heard Bo-Jo's brother on the radio this morning say it was something to do with research for a book on 'attitudes to the EU'. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.
My guess? He's just wants to find out a bit more about the topic since the government minister David Jones confirmed in August that the 50 sector impact analysis papers conducted by the government were not going to be published. Probably just wants to be a bit better educated and suspects FOI will get nowhere with this administration.
Jooser, your comment no judgement can be made about... motives
is quite endearing in its naivety. Bless.
-
Matt, an FOI request being made to numerous institutions cannot be reason to consider it vexatious, otherwise journalists contacting every council in the country to ask what cladding they use on their tower blocks wouldn't be possible. But I agree with you that institutions can and do use any means they can imagine to deny requests. You are quite right; eventually it goes round in circles until it becomes 'vexatious'. All very much against the spirit and intention of the Act.
As for the rest of your points, I've no idea. But we might get a better understanding after the statutory 20 working days.
I'm going to leave these here; I think it will be fun to look back on them latter...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/teaching_of_european_affairs#incoming-1058957
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/european_affairs#incoming-1058959
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_vice_chancellors_corresponde#incoming-1058425
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
...and my favourite...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_from_chris_heaton#incoming-1058952
:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :lol:
-
I'm afraid that
Prof Julian Petley Brunel University London
Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos Brunel University London
Prof Andrew Choo City University London
Prof Bernardine Evaristo Brunel University London
Scott Crosby-Kremlers Advocate and assistant professor, Vesalius College, Brussels
Josie Welland Solicitor
Roger Casale CEO, New Europeans
Prof David Rosen (Hon) Darlingtons solicitors LLP
Prof Valsamis Mitsilegas Queen Mary University London
Prof Arad Reisberg Brunel University London
Jessica Corsi Brunel University London
Prof Paul Roberts University of Nottingham
Dr Maria Kotsovili Brunel University London
George Hatziioannou Former diplomat
Prof Benjamin Zephaniah Brunel University London
Dr Stelios Andreadakis Brunel University London
Dr Jurgita Malinauskaite Brunel University London
Prof Ed Cape University of the West of England
Dr Ermioni Xanthopoulou Hertfordshire Law School
Dr Adrienne Yong City University London
Prof Iyiola Solanke University of Leeds
aren't so at ease with this chap's comments, describing his behaviour as
quite clearly designed to intimidate academics who voted to remain, [...]McCarthyite and a disgraceful assault on academic freedom.
Shame they don't share your sangfroid.
-
Matt, an FOI request being made to numerous institutions cannot be reason to consider it vexatious, otherwise journalists contacting every council in the country to ask what cladding they use on their tower blocks wouldn't be possible. But I agree with you that institutions can and do use any means they can imagine to deny requests. You are quite right; eventually it goes round in circles until it becomes 'vexatious'. All very much against the spirit and intention of the Act.
As for the rest of your points, I've no idea. But we might get a better understanding after the statutory 20 working days.
I'm going to leave these here; I think it will be fun to look back on them latter...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/teaching_of_european_affairs#incoming-1058957
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/european_affairs#incoming-1058959
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_vice_chancellors_corresponde#incoming-1058425
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
...and my favourite...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_from_chris_heaton#incoming-1058952
:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :lol:
Ah, now straight off, I would describe the reqests as vexatious where they ask the authority to merely collate information already in the public domain.
But that’s just a first reflex.
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf)
-
Good morning!
Cheery reading to boost the Halloween spirt!
Mwu-ha-ha-haaaa!
https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/925049692685205504 (https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/925049692685205504)
-
Oofff...!
That’s going to smart.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-studies-economic-damage-vote-mps-force-latest-a8032311.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-studies-economic-damage-vote-mps-force-latest-a8032311.html)
-
Tax + Brexit they maybe linked? Not a surprise really.
Seems as though the clouds are parting and the truth is coming out as to why big players want brexshit.
Comment from BTL from Guardian politics page.
"Truly a disgusting show of hypocrisy to hear the British parliament and government claiming disgrace when they have utterly failed to tackle tax avoidance for decades, this is a culture permeated within the slime oiling the revolving doors surrounding governments, layers and finances.
To truly tackle tax avoidance of the scale of the panama and paradise papers requires transnational cooperations to close loopholes and fiscal paradises, the British government have been one of the biggest obstacles for meaningful action by the EU:
EU’s Efforts to Clamp Down on Tax Avoidance Strategies Swiftly Advance
http://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0A7BLI/hktdc-research/EU%E2%80%99s-Efforts-to-Clamp-Down-on-Tax-Avoidance-Strategies-Swiftly-Advance (http://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0A7BLI/hktdc-research/EU%E2%80%99s-Efforts-to-Clamp-Down-on-Tax-Avoidance-Strategies-Swiftly-Advance)
EU targets lawyers and accountants in tax-avoidance clampdown
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/30/eu-targets-lawyers-and-accountants-in-tax-avoidance-clampdown (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/30/eu-targets-lawyers-and-accountants-in-tax-avoidance-clampdown)
This has been the UK government attitude:
UK to reject EU plans to combat multinational tax avoidance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/uk-reject-eu-plans-combat-multinational-tax-avoidance
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/uk-reject-eu-plans-combat-multinational-tax-avoidance)
This is why:
How many Brexit financers have money to lose if this happens?
UK overseas territories could be affected by EU tax crackdown
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/uk-overseas-territories-eu-tax-crackdown-economic-sanctions
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/uk-overseas-territories-eu-tax-crackdown-economic-sanctions)
-
Some pre-referendum forecasting from HM Treasury....
@JolyonMaugham QC on HM Treasury report on effects of #brexshit written BEFORE referendum!!! (https://storify.com/enilkcals/jo-maugham-qc-on-a-hm-treasury-brexshit-report)
Thanks Slackers, can always rely on you for links!
That'll be the same treasury that predicted 4 quarters of recession immediately following a brexit vote:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
"Following a brexit vote" != "leaving the eu"
The forecast/predictions of the impact of Brexit are as yet untested....the UK hasn't yet left the EU. I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things. There are plenty of other reasons to remain in the EU but I won't be repeating myself and typing them out again.
So, I get your position on GDP.
What about earnings?
Because...
Budget 2017: Stagnant earnings forecast 'astonishing' (http://Budget 2017: Stagnant earnings forecast 'astonishing')
-
As a supporter of Brexit, whose stated position on the negotiations was that I was sanguine that the political posturing would come to an end and the negotiations to leave would be carried out in a professional manner by reasonable people ending in a fair deal for all sides, I'd like to publically don the hair shirt, cry mea culpa and ask for a second referendum to abandon Brexit on the grounds that we can see through the smoke of the pre-referendum campaigns to the real-politik of life after Brexit.
There is no end to the political posturing, there is no negotiation, the EU's position is do what we say or else. There is no compromise on the other side of the table. May's absurd failed gamble with the general election has left her government as a frightened rabbit in the headlights of a steam-roller. I no longer believe it's possible to negotiate a reasonable exit and rather than no deal being better than a bad deal, no Brexit is better than a f*cking awful Brexit where we are bound by all the negatives with none of the benefits and still tied in with of the freedom we were promised.
-
There is no end to the political posturing, there is no negotiation, the EU's position is do what we say or else. There is no compromise on the other side of the table.
Fuck me it's almost as if the stronger party in the negotiation can dictate the terms, no-one saw that coming!
-
I had this naïve belief that reasonable people would get round a table and have a reasonable discussion about the best way forward. What can I say...?
-
Think there will be a lot of people out shopping for hair shirts and birch flails at this rate, unfortunately with the line of the Labour whip and the Lib Dems nowhere, I can't see a mechanism for us to get out of this mess.
Unless Labour are playing a blinder, waiting for the post Brexit future to get suitably bleak-looking, and then having an about turn in position...
-
there is no negotiation, the EU's position is do what we say or else. There is no compromise on the other side of the table.
This is nonsense. It was made clear before the referendum that the EU's position was that this 2 year period was simply about sortling out the terms of exit and also that it is a very short time to do that.
It was also made clear that negotiating a trade-deal with the EU is a long process - 5 - 7 years was given as an average on many occasions.
The EU has compromised by agreeing to start discussions on a trade deal early - a compromise that I suspect they might now be regretting.
They have compromised by allowing
-
At this point, I don't see how the EU can be expected to negotiate with such a shambolic, incoherent, irrational, and incompetent government.
For some time I've had two questions I wanted ask Brexit supporters: are you satisfied with the preparation and planning for Brexit that were made before the referendum, and are you satisfied with the progress of the negotiations thus far? I am genuinely interested in hearing answers. I got to try them out on someone yesterday; in short, their answers were that they didn't think more planning could have been done, they aren't satisfied with the negotiations but aren't surprised, but were still sanguine that sense would prevail and a good deal would be reached. It must be nice to be so optimistic.
-
David Davis admission that there is no analysis - no sector reports is gob smacking.
That he lied about it was largely expected but his brazen-ness is quite amazing...
To me the most horrendous take out from his statements to the commons select committee are that reports and forecasts are worthless - so decisions on brexit are being made on qualitative judgements. In effect hunches, ideas, feelings - rather than looking at the evidence and making a balanced judgement based on that.
I expect DD to be biased. I did not expect him to be a complete fucking idiot.
How. On. Earth. Is this being allowed to happen and is this man still in a job?
-
Parliamentary privilege Tom - lying in pursuit of your goals is not something people turn a blind eye to but rather actively support by voting the miscreants into power.
It's only Thursday and the political news this week, home and abroad, has been ludicrous in the extreme. Roll on the Friday scandal.
-
I always thought he was a bit dense but - oh - how can we have our negotiations being run by this clueless clown (sorry clowns)...
Its Trump esque...
-
As a supporter of Brexit, whose stated position on the negotiations was that I was sanguine that the political posturing would come to an end and the negotiations to leave would be carried out in a professional manner by reasonable people ending in a fair deal for all sides, I'd like to publically don the hair shirt, cry mea culpa and ask for a second referendum to abandon Brexit on the grounds that we can see through the smoke of the pre-referendum campaigns to the real-politik of life after Brexit.
This just popped up on my Yahoo front page as went to log into emai...
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/half-britons-now-believe-uk-will-get-bad-brexit-deal-103537825.html
perhaps they read UKb for the latest..
-
Its Trump esque...
No, the people around Trump actually have a plan.
-
I’m surprised anyone has anything left to say. Surprised that anyone can find the outrage and indignation of the remainer or the tub-thumping-jingoistic delusions of the Brexiteer.
Reality is way too depressing and harsh, for either end of the spectrum to keep up their passions, surely?
-
The two turning points for me was first a quote from I think the Spanish foreign minister, where he said bluntly (from memory so some paraphrasing) "We talk to David Davis, Michel Barnier talks to David Davis, we listen to his proposal and we say "We'll see what we can do" and he takes it positively that we will consider what he says and change our position. But it is a British misunderstanding, we are just saying it to be polite and we don't change anything".
The second was reading the quotes from government ministers scrolling across the bottom of the news after the DUP understandably torpedoed the border deal yesterday "We will have a deal with the Irish very soon", "We will not have any special arrangement for Northern Ireland, the whole of the UK will be in the same system" and "We will leave the single market and customs union". Clearly you can't have all three of these given the Irish position is basically that Northern Ireland stays in the customs union!
Intransigence on one side and incompetence on the other.
-
Intransigence on one side and incompetence on the other.
We turned up to the negotiating table and made demands that would undermine the whole structure of the EU. How is the refusal to do something which the EU judges as more damaging than losing some trade with the UK intransigence?
-
Wow.
The Beeb is usually somewhat pro-Tory, I thought.
I’ve had my head in the annual accounts for two days, finally putting them to bed around 16:30 today; not paying attention.
Fark me bendy! This is pants!
Impact assessments of Brexit on the UK 'don't exist' (http://Impact assessments of Brexit on the UK 'don't exist')
-
We turned up to the negotiating table and made demands that would undermine the whole structure of the EU. How is the refusal to do something which the EU judges as more damaging than losing some trade with the UK intransigence?
I'm not sure that's true. As far as I can make out the only concrete thing that's been asked by the U.K. is to start talks on a free-trade deal before leaving and the EU agreed to that - with conditions.
The important/valuable stuff that we could hav like remaining in the single-market we didn't even ask for.
-
This makes for thoroughly depressing reading given the complete incompetence at being able to negotiate demonstrated by the twats in charge, like being in a train crash in slow motion that could be avoided if those at the controls flipped the tracks but are steadfastly refusing to do so...
parliament.uk European Union Committee - Brexit: deal or no deal (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/46/4602.htm)
Read it, think about it, share it with everyone you know, particularly those who are pro-Brexit / pro-No Deal....
The British Food Importers & Distributors Association said that no deal would lead to a lack of availability of key food products on supermarket shelves. Falling back on WTO rules could also lead to food prices rising by over 20%.
:-\ :( :no:
-
At this point, I don't see how the EU can be expected to negotiate with such a shambolic, incoherent, irrational, and incompetent government.
For some time I've had two questions I wanted ask Brexit supporters: are you satisfied with the preparation and planning for Brexit that were made before the referendum, and are you satisfied with the progress of the negotiations thus far? I am genuinely interested in hearing answers. I got to try them out on someone yesterday; in short, their answers were that they didn't think more planning could have been done, they aren't satisfied with the negotiations but aren't surprised, but were still sanguine that sense would prevail and a good deal would be reached. It must be nice to be so optimistic.
Firstly, it has to be said - why on earth would a leave supporter want to come on here to answer your questions. This forum does a very good impression of being an echo chamber full of 'haters' - using the Taylor Swift interpretation of 'haters' here.. not the national front's.
But.. sucker that I am for being subjected to the views of righteous people who vehemently disagree with what I believe..
1. ''Are you satisfied with the preparation and planning for Brexit that were made before the referendum?''
Satisfied, no - things could nearly always be better and I have mild issues with perfectionism. But I don't believe a great deal of preparation and planning could realistically have been done before the referendum, given real-world constraints on time and resources. Also it was a vote which could have gone either way, not a moon landing or a new bridge construction.
2. ''And are you satisfied with the progress of the negotiations thus far?''
If you'd asked me this in June 2016 I'd have hoped for more; but am I surprised, no. I'm not entirely dissatisfied nor entirely satisfied. As someone who didn't vote for reasons to do with 'stopping all immigration' or 'cutting all ties', I'm sanguine around the direction in which the negotiations are heading.
-
Well, looks like Pete’s satisfaction is not shared broadly, across the population.
When an abusive partner Gaslights an unwilling partner into a suicide pact, and drags both into a spiralling hell; it is termed “Murder Suicide “, not democracy.
The split is not clear.
Democracy is not served.
The referendum, was wrong, nothing more than a snapshot of that days feeling and biased by false propaganda from political opportunists for their own gain (almost entirely leavers).
-
Oops: link didn’t paste.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/half-britons-now-want-stay-eu-poll-finds-biggest-gap-since-referendum/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/half-britons-now-want-stay-eu-poll-finds-biggest-gap-since-referendum/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook)
-
Rolls eyes. 'Gaslights into a suicide pact', 'spiraling hell', 'murder suicide'. Are you having another of your melodramatic Sunday morning moments?
Link-wars. About all this thread has served up.
I'll see your 'political propaganda by opportunists', and raise you this quote from today's grauniad (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/weaponised-social-media-isnt-brexit-smoking-gun):
''It seems obvious now that the weaponisation of social media played some role in both the Brexit referendum and the US election. What’s much less clear, however, is whether it was critical in determining the outcome. Personally, I’m sceptical. Our current obsession with digital technology as the trigger for these political earthquakes may actually be a kind of displacement activity. What we’re overlooking is that none of this would have happened if our ruling elites had noticed what four decades of globalisation and neoliberal economics had done to the life chances of many of our fellow citizens.''
-
Thanks for taking the time Pete. Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in understanding differing viewpoints.
-
Thanks for taking the time Pete. Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in understanding differing viewpoints.
Yep. Absolutely.
Till waiting to a coherent argument pro-Brexit mind you.
The fact that people assume being a remainer makes you a rabid Europhile is irritating though...
Sorry Pete, it’s coming on two years of various models and economic predictions from all corners of the globe, not one of which puts us (our living standards) better off because of this and the vast majority predict significantly lower. All because it felt right on the day.
I’ve said it before, I’ll be first in the queue to buy you a pint and pat your back, if life for kids is improved by this. Because that’s the essence of critical thinking.
If not, if it my children's live harder and smaller, if it diminishes this nation; the Leavers have a huge guilt to carry and will deserve all the riddicule they will undoubtedly recieve.
I happen to feel the evidence is pointing to the latter.
You have failed, repeatedly, to offer up anything more than hopeful jingoism as evidence to support you position.
It is not good enough.
I hope the consequences of this are minor or wonderful, since we have to be dragged along behind the right-wing, nationalists and out-and-out Nazi’s because of it (FFS, the DUP are suddenly a hugely important polital force and frankley they’re fucking nuts).
I really do hope you’re right (along with all the others, call it a “Royal You” if you will).
But, the vast majority of the world and (apparently) a slim majority of this country, don’t share your confidence.
At the risk of strawman (and desperately trying to avoid ad-hominem), the whole “But no one can pedict what will happen, it’s never been tried” thing is a pile of shite too.
I mean most of us have reasonable confidence that “Murphy” has that sewn up. If it can go wrong, it will.
But, hey! Fluffy blankets, kittens and tea on the Green. Sugar and spice and all things nice; (we are told to believe) Brexit is made of.
If this turns out to be a negative move, that deminishes our nation etc etc, will you be buying me a pint (assuming any of us can afford such a luxury, ten years from now)?
PS: I’m smiling as I type.
Really, I think this will be a disaster and at some point in the next 15-20 years we will rejoin a different EU and Globalsation will march forward regardless. The EU will necessarily evolve, as it has already. The US is unlikely to emerge from it’s current tumult as the power it was. I would put money on (Firstly and then in order) China, Europe, Russia and India being the driving force for the next fifty years.
Genuinely, I think Brexit will sideline us from that change and not in a good way. I think we stand to lose an entire generation of progress and will be forced to rejoin the game from a position of weakness. Losing influence in how it changes in the short term.
When you storm out of the club committee, claiming you will be better off playing at other clubs; you simply lose any ability to influence ANY clubs rules. You are just a punter. This must be a mistake, strategically speaking.
The (strong) possibility that this might also affect my children, in a negative way, and my own prosperity, is a genuine and valid concern, too. I think “Leavers” in their various hues, have been incredibly blas’e on that front; the more influential the more blas’e. There should be some consequence for these people, should they be proved wrong, beyond simple ridicule.
I read a story once, author long forgotten, that told of an end to war. The premise being that any “Parliament” that voted for war, would immediately be dissolved and the members shipped to service as private soldiers in the front line of their war.
Now, if our Brexiteers were tied to some similar raft, I’d be happy to fall in line and believe...
Maybe.
-
I don't feel any need to 'offer up' anything - you aren't some online arbiter. If you ever met me in person I'd gladly sit down over a drink and discuss it amicably with you - hopefully you'd find me open-minded and reasonable. As per earlier, why on earth would I try to explain my position on here to be shouted down by a 90% who disagree? The internet being what it is there isn't much scope for nuanced discussion and finding points of agreement.
I'm not sure why you mentioned 'halting the march of globalisation'? Nothing about the referendum for me was about wanting to 'halt globalisation'.
Your point about 'yours and your kids future wealth' is impossible to know. Do you have a personal economic forecast for the OMM family spanning the next 1,3,5,10 and 20 years? And if you did would it be accurate? What are you going to do - extrapolate an economic institute's model down to individual level and then track to compare what it predicted in 2017 to how you're doing in 2027? I'm sure that will be accurate and meaningful in the real world.. As more than one poster on this thread has pointed out, economic forecasts - especially ones involving GDP - are a) usually wrong and b) quite meaningless on a personal level.
Brexit or no brexit, in life you'l probably do well if you work hard, seek to develop yourself and have a good attitude. Combined with a slice of good luck and grabbing opportunities where you can. The same as it's always been. (Along with that great guarantee of future prosperity - being born into wealth).
Beyond that: mass unemployment, recession, out-of-control inflation, depreciation, economic crashes, the next bubble; no-one knows.
-
Brexit or no brexit, in life you'l probably do well if you work hard, seek to develop yourself and have a good attitude. Combined with a slice of good luck and grabbing opportunities where you can. The same as it's always been. (Along with that great guarantee of future prosperity - being born into wealth).
I agree that this is the reality of life and it applies to people from the UK, Japan, Cambodia or Burundi. The difference being that doing okay as a working class man on a Burundian level doesn't get you too far on the world stage and whilst Matt may have tried to make to make the arguments for and against Brexit about his children - of late, it's really about the UKs financial standing on the world stage surely? And it's pretty hard to ignore all the forecasts flying around saying it'll be crap for the UK despite almost all of the media being proBrexit.
In my mind you quite rightly said - "As more than one poster on this thread has pointed out, economic forecasts - especially ones involving GDP - are a) usually wrong and b) quite meaningless on a personal level." but on a national scale are they so meaningless? If the AAA rating gets lost, that means something, it has an effect and if the rest of the world sees Brexit as bad news on a national level, will that be any different?
And if Brexit turns out bad for the country in general, that does affect me personally, no matter how meaningless economic projections are on a personal level. I've spent on average 4 months a year climbing in Europe, I only earn 11k a year so adverse exchange rates play havoc with what I have to spend - normally as a Brit, you'd feel quite well off except in Swizzy and even that's not so bad. Now I have to watch what I spend, even in Spain.
-
The UK lost it's AAA rating over a year ago, in June 2016. 'For the first time since 1978', according to the BBC.
The UK also lost it's AAA rating in 2013. Also 'for the first time since 1978', according to the BBC...
And if Brexit turns out bad for the country in general, that does affect me personally, no matter how meaningless economic projections are on a personal level. I've spent on average 4 months a year climbing in Europe, I only earn 11k a year so adverse exchange rates play havoc with what I have to spend - normally as a Brit, you'd feel quite well off except in Swizzy and even that's not so bad. Now I have to watch what I spend, even in Spain.
Where's my violin.. :lol: Get a proper job! Next Barrows will be moaning about how he can now only afford to take 5 months off per year instead of 6. Yeah, the great depression it isn't.
-
I don't think I blamed the AAA rating loss on Brexit anywhere, nor made any suggestion that it was.
You can keep the violins in their cases - you'll not meet a happier and more satisfied person than me but that doesn't change the fact that what happens on a national scale does affect me as an individual. Or are we just going to ignore that fact because hey, I'm the privileged white guy choosing to be a climbing bum?
-
Not been on theses hallowed boards for a bit. Since they went from blue to white things have gone tits up at work. We are in the middle of a pay and benefits review, looking fowards to 2018 already.
We have been told that pay and benefits needs reviewing for many reasons but the one that crops up is Brexit.
Brexit is simply the elephant in the room.
Simply put, draft pay scales show experienced staff to lose up £4K a year. So Brexit is already having an affect for me personally and we haven't even exited.
All we have had are just talks about talks.. Things won't get better just progressively worse.
Employers using Brexit as leverage against the ordinary Joes of the world.
Absolutely madness...
Take back control, EU remote government, making are own laws. Back to the fucking dark ages we are going...
-
Next Barrows will be moaning about how he can now only afford to take 5 months off per year instead of 6. Yeah, the great depression it isn't.
Hey, I have a real job!! Five days a week and all.
-
Brexit minister David Davis’ sectoral impact assessments - Groningen style (https://www.rug.nl/feb/blog/blog-12-12-2017-brexit-minister-david-davis-sectoral-impact-assessments-groningen-style)
The elasticities that need to be fed into computable general equilibrium models can only be estimated on the basis of historical data, but we have never experienced disintegration of this dramatic type. Still, analyses of good quantitative data about the current economic structure of the UK and the links of its sectors to EU countries might well lead to relevant insights.
I am amazed that certain people are unable to make the link between a countries overall productivity and economic viability, quantified by for example GDP, and its ability to care for those who fall on hard times. Statistics are properties of populations, and it is very hard to determine who might hit a rough patch and need support (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/hunger-in-wirral-truth-tale-tory-mp-cry-frank-field-heidi-allen)....
Four years ago, they delivered 70 hampers. “This year we are doing 3,000,” said Ema Wilkes, who runs the Neo community cafe and social supermarket in Rock Ferry, one of the most deprived wards in Wirral. “People look at this and say: ‘Isn’t it brilliant what you’re doing?’ But I get really upset: this project should be getting smaller, not bigger.”
Even if the economic forecasts are over-estimates, if they are in the right direction* then "austerity" measures will continue as there will not be enough money in the coughers to fund support and the cracks in the welfare system will widen and more will fall into them (actually since the government deficit reduction has not gone to plan they still have a lot of ground to make up on Osbornes aim in 2010 to eliminate the deficit by 2015 (https://fullfact.org/economy/did-george-osborne-promise-eliminate-deficit-year/) so I'd expect "austerity" will continue even if there is immediate economic growth, which I very much doubt there will be even in the long term of 20 years or so). Being industrious and having a "can do" attitude certainly helps individuals improve their lot but sometimes situations conspire against you and you do need help (loved ones being ill/dying, your own physical or mental health problems, redundancies and the need to retrain and so on). Having moved recently the MP for where I now live, Louise Haigh (https://twitter.com/louhaigh) is as shadow Home Secretery highlighting the problems the police are dealing with as a consequence of cuts in funding to their services and indirectly those the NHS has been experiencing. One of the biggest increases has been a dramatic rise in the amount of mental health issues the police, rather than the NHS are having to deal with, a stark and obvious consequence of "austerity" (read through her linked Twatter stream for more on this if you care to). Compassionate civilised societies (and individuals) recognise that sometimes some people need some help, its why the Welfare system and NHS exists. I think its a shame some individuals posting in this thread don't seem to understand or agree with this, I hope they never fall on hard times and have to experience it first hand.
This sort of myopic inability to see a bigger picture and recognise that underneath the statistics are real people has cropped up before in the discussion of the NHS (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,21748.msg522592.html#msg522592) (never did get a response to what I wrote there, strange) and that is what has put me off engaging in conversation here, not that my views are challenged.
* Things seem to be looking worse every day, Michel Barnier’s stark declaration quashes hopes for a bespoke trade deal to include financial services (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/uk-cannot-have-a-special-deal-for-the-city-says-eu-brexit-negotiator-barnier).
-
I am amazed that certain people are unable to make the link between a countries overall productivity and economic viability, quantified by for example GDP, and its ability to care for those who fall on hard times. Statistics are properties of populations, and it is very hard to determine who might hit a rough patch and need support (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/hunger-in-wirral-truth-tale-tory-mp-cry-frank-field-heidi-allen)....
Productivity in the UK has flatlined for the last decade since the financial crash. It isn't a new phenomenon caused by brexit.
And it's illuminating to read your previous opinion on forecasts/GDP and how they relate to the individual. You're just adept at arguing in whichever way suits your political ideology as the next person, and not the objective stat-bot you're made out to be:
I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things.
Compassionate civilised societies (and individuals) recognise that sometimes some people need some help, its why the Welfare system and NHS exists. I think its a shame some individuals posting in this thread don't seem to understand or agree with this, I hope they never fall on hard times and have to experience it first hand.
This sort of myopic inability to see a bigger picture and recognise that underneath the statistics are real people has cropped up before in the discussion of the NHS (never did get a response to what I wrote there, strange) and that is what has put me off engaging in conversation here, not that my views are challenged.
That's some absolutely massive assumptions you make there in a particulalry righteous post. You don't have a monopoly on giving a shit.
-
I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.
-
I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.
I know, right!
Just look at all those tossers that waste all that time and energy and money; negotiating Trade Deals over and above the WTO!
Total Muppets! Am I right?
...
...
?
-
Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.
I don't know very much about trading under WTO agreements but from the little I do know, there is nothing straight-forward about it at all.
Firstly, the UK entered the WTO agreement as part of the EU and its rights under the WTO agreements will not continue if we leave the EU. The UK would remain a member, but one without any rights.
Secondly, even once agreement has been reached under which we could trade under WTO rules, the rules only cover tariffs and not other regulatory blockages to trade. They would need to be negotiated separately. This not only covers our trade with the EU, but all other states for which we have agreements to trade only by virtue of our EU membership.
Now it's not that all this can't be sorted out, given time. Renegotiation of the WTO rights would need to take place before we could trade under WTO rules. This would likely take a long time, but no one really knows how long as there is no formal process about how this might even be done. It is an unprecedented situation, as has been admitted by the head of the WTO. No talks with the WTO have been started and the likely scenario is that the government won't even start to consider them unless a no-deal looks likely.
My counting might be out, but we currently trade with 24 countries under the WTO agreement we have by virtue of being in the EU, a further 68 by virtue of trade agreements we are party to by being in the EU, and then the EU its self. None of these agreements will continue with a no-deal brexit.
-
I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.
I know, right!
Just look at all those tossers that waste all that time and energy and money; negotiating Trade Deals over and above the WTO!
Total Muppets! Am I right?
...
...
?
Hang about!
Thought I’d have a quick scooby, like, and check my assumption was correct.
‘Parently not:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334/full)
Who knew? Right?
I mean, it stands to reason, you’d have thought.
-
I must swap my dusty old ice axe for a white stick. I am blinded by the science. I wonder how much of the funding was from the EU?
-
I must swap my dusty old ice axe for a white stick. I am blinded by the science. I wonder how much of the funding was from the EU?
Yeah! Hadn’t thought of that.
Shills! Big EU buying off the experts!
Bet Dave Wolf knows the truth!
-
Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.
I don't know very much about trading under WTO agreements but from the little I do know, there is nothing straight-forward about it at all.
Firstly, the UK entered the WTO agreement as part of the EU and its rights under the WTO agreements will not continue if we leave the EU. The UK would remain a member, but one without any rights.
Secondly, even once agreement has been reached under which we could trade under WTO rules, the rules only cover tariffs and not other regulatory blockages to trade. They would need to be negotiated separately. This not only covers our trade with the EU, but all other states for which we have agreements to trade only by virtue of our EU membership.
Now it's not that all this can't be sorted out, given time. Renegotiation of the WTO rights would need to take place before we could trade under WTO rules. This would likely take a long time, but no one really knows how long as there is no formal process about how this might even be done. It is an unprecedented situation, as has been admitted by the head of the WTO. No talks with the WTO have been started and the likely scenario is that the government won't even start to consider them unless a no-deal looks likely.
My counting might be out, but we currently trade with 24 countries under the WTO agreement we have by virtue of being in the EU, a further 68 by virtue of trade agreements we are party to by being in the EU, and then the EU its self. None of these agreements will continue with a no-deal brexit.
A search of The Institute for Government site (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/10-things-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto) gives clear answers to the points in your post Ru. To your point about 'agreements not applying', in the immediate period following exit in the worst-case scenario of a 'no deal' see points 2,3, 4 and 8.
For the longer term scenario see points 9 and 10.
Hopefully it won't come to 'no deal' and WTO. But if it does, then it looks like a certain amount of common sense - rather than the kind of catastrophic thinking displayed on internet forums - will be needed on both sides of the channel.
1. The WTO sets the global rules of trade.
The WTO currently has 164 members which between them are responsible for 95% of world trade. It is a negotiating forum for its members to create international trade rules, and an organisation to oversee how they put the rules into practice. For example, WTO agreements place limits on tariffs (which tax imports) and prevent the spread of disease by establishing sanitary standards on agricultural products.
2. The UK is already a WTO member but will need to extricate itself from the European Union (EU) ‘schedules’.
The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right, having cofounded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO’s predecessor, with other 22 countries in 1948. It does not have to reapply to join the WTO once it leaves the EU.
But at present the UK operates in the WTO under the EU’s set of ‘schedules’ – a list of commitments that sets the terms of the EU’s tariffs, its quotas and its limits on subsidies. The UK will need to agree its own set of schedules at the WTO.
3. The UK aims to ‘copy and paste’ its EU schedules into new UK schedules.
The Government says that it plans “to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules”. This is a sensible approach. It involves minimal disruption and so reduces the scope for other WTO members to object to the UK’s new schedules. For tariff levels in particular, copying and pasting should be straightforward.
But the copying and pasting approach will not work for all aspects of the schedules. There are some areas, notably on quotas and subsidy limits, where the UK must reach an agreement on what share of the EU figure it takes. This will in truth be a three-way negotiation, between the UK, the EU and other WTO members, because it will also lead to a reduction in the EU’s quotas and subsidy limits (covered in more detail below).
4. Copying and pasting EU tariffs means that the UK will have the same, or lower, tariffs as it does now.
The EU’s schedules contain the ‘ceiling’ for tariffs on a range of goods, such as 10% on cars or 3.7% on Christmas trees. Once the UK has copied across these tariff ceilings, it could apply lower (but not higher) tariffs rates in the future.
5. If the EU and UK cannot agree a deal, both will have to place tariffs on the other.
A key principle of the WTO is that countries do not discriminate against one another. If the UK does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, the EU will have to treat the UK in the same way that it treats all other WTO members in that position, such as Russia, the US or Brazil. This means that EU tariffs would have to apply to the UK. It would be WTO-illegal for the EU not to place tariffs on the UK after Brexit if there was no FTA.
The same is true on the UK side. If it wants to apply any tariffs on any country, these will also have to apply to the EU if there is no deal.
6. Quotas will be difficult, because a divided quota is worth less than the sum of its parts.
Dividing the quotas in the EU’s schedule between the UK and the EU is not straightforward. For example, New Zealand is currently able to export just under 230,000 tonnes of sheep meat into the EU each year without any tariff, as compared to the 57% tariff, which includes a specific duty, for exporters that aren’t part of the quota. The UK and the EU would need to decide how to divide up this quota.
Countries that currently benefit from quotas will not want to see their quotas simply divided between the EU and the UK, as this will reduce their flexibility about which market they can sell to. If UK demand falls, it is useful for New Zealand to simply shift its sales to the continent, and vice versa. It is therefore likely that the UK will offer quotas that are slightly larger than the share of the EU quota that it currently consumes.
7. And subsidies may be difficult to divide if the UK does not inherit the EU’s generous, bespoke arrangements on agriculture.
The WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) limits agricultural subsidies. It caps trade-distorting agricultural subsidies at 5% of the country’s total agricultural production.
The EU, however, has negotiated a bespoke, larger subsidy cap at the WTO that amounts to €72.4bn. Some people have raised questions about whether the UK could inherit a share of this bespoke subsidy cap. If it does not, there is a risk that its current level of subsidy paid to farmers in the UK could breach the WTO’s rules.
8. Once the UK has a draft of its schedules, it can declare them and start trading.
Once the UK has a draft of its schedules, and once it has left the EU, it can start trading off them. The WTO does have a formal process for approving schedules – known as ‘certification’ – which requires unanimous approval from every WTO member, i.e. 164 countries.
However, WTO members can still trade off schedules that have not been certified. The EU, for instance, has not certified its schedules since 2004, but in the meantime, has altered its schedules to reflect successive waves of enlargement.
At some point the UK will want to certify its schedules, requiring the consensus of all WTO members. But the certification process does not pose an immediate threat to the UK’s ability to trade post-Brexit. We can trade without certification.
9. Other WTO members might challenge the UK schedules, but these challenges would take time to process.
Once the UK has declared its schedules and started trading, other countries in the WTO may object, particularly if they can demonstrate that the UK has in some way reduced the level of market access on offer.
If there are challenges, these could be lengthy and expensive for the UK to contest. However, the disputes are likely to take several years to resolve, during which time the UK would be able to continue trading off its schedules (whether or not they have been certified). This means that potential disputes are a medium- or long-term challenge to the UK at the WTO, and not an immediate threat to our post-Brexit trading arrangements.
10. When the UK does move to certify its schedules, this will not be straightforward.
Other countries’ willingness to certify the UK’s schedules will be driven by several different factors.
Countries that have recently joined the WTO have had to place tougher limits on tariffs than the UK currently does as an EU member. For example, Russia had to limit itself to a 6.5% agricultural tariff, whereas the EU sets higher tariffs on most agricultural goods. Countries like Russia may not be content to see the UK get a more favourable deal than they achieved. Other factors (such as international political disputes or powerful domestic interests) may affect the willingness of countries to agree new UK schedules. Certifying the UK’s schedules is likely to take years.
-
Ah yes, common sense.
That always prevails, doesn’t it.
It’s not like nation states ever behave like petulant toddlers with a loaded firearm...
Oh!
Hang on...
Umm.
-
And yet we somehow have built a world, in the 'west' at least, that doesn't just collapse into complete catastrophe and overt aggression whenever nations have differing agendas. Even the US under fucknuts still has sensible checks and balances.
-
"3. The UK aims to ‘copy and paste’ its EU schedules into new UK schedules."
Hmmmmm
-
And yet we somehow have built a world, in the 'west' at least, that doesn't just collapse into complete catastrophe and overt aggression whenever nations have differing agendas. Even the US under fucknuts still has sensible checks and balances.
And the award for “most selective memory” goes to...
😝
The truth is, I think we probably both read pretty extensively, don’t we.
And probably both realise the truth of our future lies somewhere between the poles of this debate.
My “real” point is, that the future is unlikely to be “better” because of this and probably “not as good as it would have been” had it not happened.
I could have cited/linked as much “Pro” as I have “Con” and (to a certain extent) it’s a simple choice on my part to not do so.
(Partly, for the same reason I like to comma link sentences into veritable word carnivals. That is, I know it grips the piss of every grammar pedant that trawls through it).
But, mainly, I choose not to cite it, because it is generally less convincing and appears more “selective” in it’s composition.
I might be flippant or even a little hyperbolic, but that’s only to illustrate, in the same way a Cartoonist might, Lampoon, if you will.
(Ooh, that was some good comma action).
I’ve read both sides, up and down like a whore’s drawers on bankholiday in De Wallen and the “Con” is way more convincing. We will be worse off because of this, than we would have been without it.
And the risk of abject disaster, is very real, if improbable.
As to your “Western Civilisation” thingy point. Didn’t we just stumble out of a low intensity Civil war? I know it might be politically expedient to call it an insurgency or Terrorist campaign, but it was a Civil war; and it threatens to re-erupt because of this.
I must have been dreaming that thing in Barcelona, too. You remember? The one that seems to have ended up with Political prisoners and simmering anger that might just burst out in more violence?
Isn’t there an entire European nation without a functioning government, at the moment? Some sort of language/cultural/(dare I say) racial thingy? Might even host the EU capital iirc?
I mean, ffs, it was only a couple of years back my ‘ol Granddad was telling me the tale of how his one room hovel in a Coventry terrace was a bit battered by some Germanic high-jinks. I know the old fella has shuffled off now, but that was only six years before my Dad was born.
And...
On and on.
Ignoring the bulk of forcasts and hoping for the best, is just making an excuse for being too lazy carry an umbrella and just assuming some celestial being will pop-up with a snazzy Goretex when you need it.
-
If you're going to deal in metaphors.. It isn't being too lazy to carry an umbrella it's accepting that rainfall is a part of the world we live in, and sometimes it does you good to dance in it.
-
If you're going to deal in metaphors.. It isn't being too lazy to carry an umbrella it's accepting that rainfall is a part of the world we live in, and sometimes it does you good to dance in it.
I know Gene seemed to enjoy singing and dancing in the rain, but he had a brolly.
And a shiny Macintosh too (not one with a half eaten apple on it either).
I think a good deal of the forcasts seem to indicate a prolonged Shit storm with Arctic blasts and a chance of heavy Golden showers. I have a feeling this might over stretch most people’s immune system and people who have substantial, offshore, tornado cellars (as described elsewhere in the forum) might be taking the “Golden shower” when telling everyone else that “into every life a liitle rain must fall” or “it’s good for you. Character building! Chin up! Mustn’t grumble! “
I could probably stretch this metaphor to several pages of A3, but I think I covered the basics.
-
Do you know, it’s just occurred to me, but I actually like arguing with Pete.
It helps me review my own positions, greatly.
He just hasn’t found the lever to crack this foundation. Not that he is obligated to, of course.
Definitely come closer than anyone else I’ve debated with.
Don’t let my sarcasm overly irritate, just a little rain, which you dance in quite well.
-
Or 52% of the (mainly old and/or less qualified) population have decided that umbrellas are going to be outlawed before having any sort of plan for alternative rain protection.
:p
-
Can I indulge in one last metaphor?
I remembered something after Moose’s Toccata and Fugue comment on the Aphantasia thread.
Why is it better to be part of the club? Even when other menbers of the club do things differently? Even when you’re pretty good at your own thing?
https://youtu.be/TRktavB7KRQ (https://youtu.be/TRktavB7KRQ)
-
A search of The Institute for Government site (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/10-things-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto) gives clear answers to the points in your post Ru.
The answers contain assumptions that have been contradicted by the WTO itself.
By and large it seems to agree with what I wrote - namely that the current agreements will need to be renegotiated. It then says that the government intends to cut and paste them. Maybe they can, but when the Director General of the WTO Roberto Azevêdo has said that a cut and paste agreement is impossible and has raised significant concerns about the time it would take to renegotiate, I look at the government's blind optimism with a healthy degree of scepticism.
And then you still have the problem WTO only covers tariffs.
The point is that none of this is "straightforward."
-
Anyone care to answer this one.
Regulatory alignment/divergance. What are the regulations that we are worried about aligning/diverging? It's constantly talked about on the news but I can't picture what it actually means and how it affects me/business/gov etc.
My experience of regulatory compliance is CE marking electronics products. Which is slightly painful process but has many advantages; for example you know what you're buying conforms to a level of performance/safety. We sell products to the EU, so we're not going to be suddenly able to save loads of money because we've diverged now. We have to comply with other regulations when we sell to other markets so that's not going to change. Is the expected benefit that someone only selling into the UK (either from within or outside the UK) might not have to comply with an irksome regulation anymore? The only things I can think of are things that ought to wanted by the majority - working hours directive or environmental protection for example.
I'd like a good example of a benefit diverging from EU regulations but I can't find anything.
For reference I've read these two (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/586742/European-Union-barmy-decisions-rules-regulations-Britain-EU) articles (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-15-eu-laws-we-will-miss-in-britain-a7103031.html)but they are mainly bonkers.
-
I thought the regulatory convergence/divergence issue was more to do with potentially maintaining 'frictionless' cross border trading, especially with the Republic of Ireland. It could be anything, but for example our animal welfare and meat production rules are currently aligned; if we wanted to relax our standards to allow the oft cited chlorination of chicken carcasses (as per the USA), then we would be out of alignment, and there would have to be additional processes put in place to assure that the exports to the republic were of a sufficient quality.
I've stopped paying so much attention, but part of the border deal with the Republic was regulatory alignment last time I checked (before double D said the agreement didn't really mean anything); this would leave us with EU regulations, but with no say in changing them.
-
The current concerns regarding regulatory alignment are mostly about customs and border procedures. Goods that pass between two countries with a shared regulatory system can pass without inspection - a "soft" border. Goods that pass between countries that do not share a regulatory system need to be inspected at the border to ensure that they comply with the inbound country's regulations - a "hard" border. The UK currently has soft borders with the EU and hard borders with everywhere else. The problems this creates depend on the product type. A particular issue is with food/agricultural products/medicine/other biological products that pose a possible public health risk. Currently, for instance, animal products (which includes anything of animal origin, e.g. powdered milk) that come into the UK from the EU have a much greater flexibility about where they enter the country than imports that come from third countries (outside of the EU). Third country imports of these products can only be imported through designated ports with border inspection posts, manned with "official veterinary surgeons" and require health certificates and other importation documents. In addition the date and time of the importation must be notified in advance so that the load can be inspected and that date and time can be varied at the convenience of the inspecting officer. So it costs a lot more in time/organisation/resources/risk to import animal products from outside the EU than from inside. If we have regulatory divergence from the EU that would create a hard border for all products (and there would be a similar one for exported products to the EU).
-
The current concerns regarding regulatory alignment are mostly about customs and border procedures. Goods that pass between two countries with a shared regulatory system can pass without inspection - a "soft" border. Goods that pass between countries that do not share a regulatory system need to be inspected at the border to ensure that they comply - a "hard" border. The UK currently has soft borders with the EU and hard borders with everywhere else. The problems this creates depend on the product type. A particular issue is with food/agricultural products/medicine/other biological products whereby there is a possible public health risk. Currently, for instance, animal products (which includes anything of animal origin, i.e. powdered milk) that come into the UK from the EU have a much greater flexibility about where they enter the country than imports that come from third countries (outside of the EU). Third country imports of these products can only be imported through designated ports with border inspection posts, manned with "official veterinary surgeons" and require health certificates and other importation documents. In addition the date and time of the importation must be notified in advance so that the load can be inspected and that date and time can be varied at the convenience of the inspecting officer. So it costs a lot more in time/organisation/resources/risk to import animal products from outside the EU than from inside.
Yes.
One of the more irritating aspects of this debate, is that everyone seems to have forgotten how awful this process was (and probably will be again).
Possibly , spending a significant portion of my adult life living in “3rd Countries” and trying to organise shipments of spares/parts/consumables/food and stores etc, to ships in obscure ports; has given me an almost PTSD type reaction to customs regimes...
Again, it all seems rather pointless. Pretty sure we will end up having to conform to EU regs, with no influence on those regs.
-
Thanks Tee and Ru.
So one benefit you mention is we can reduce regulation and therefore have lower quality but cheaper chicken. Would this be imported or UK origin or both? Apart from chicken what might these great new non-conforming imports be?
The other is that because we aren't in the EU we don't have to check imports from outside the EU so carefully/rigerously because we don't comply with their rules anymore therefore saving time/money on imports. Which I guess oldman will be pleased to hear.
As I understand it May is still talking about diverging more over time. There must be some significant benefit that divergence gives us right? or is there some other reason for desiring it?
-
Sorry - your losing me, you keep mentioning less regulation as a benefit.
I cant see why poisonous chicken and hazardous electrical goods are beneficial.
:shrug:
-
So one benefit is...
The other is that because we aren't in the EU we don't have to check imports from outside the EU so carefully/rigerously because we don't comply with their rules anymore therefore saving time/money on imports. Which I guess oldman will be pleased to hear.
No, it's not the case that regulatory divergence means you don't have to check imports, it's the opposite. You would have to check every import from anywhere. Even if you relax regulations you still need to check goods for compliance when they come in, unless you have regulatory alignment with the country they come in from. If we relax regulation about chlorinated chicken for example, that would not create regulatory alignment with the USA on all food and animal products, it would just be one regulation out of thousands, so goods would still need to be inspected at the borders.
-
There must be some significant benefit that divergence gives us right? or is there some other reason for desiring it?
Taking Back Control TM
Removing ourselves from the tyranny of the EU telling us what shape our bananas need to be, how clean our rivers should be and what employment rights you should have.
-
I think you are right tim.
Reading (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/890138/Brexit-news-European-Union-EU-Richard-Wellings-UK-deal-latest-Theresa-May) about (http://www.cityam.com/277802/there-can-no-brexit-without-absolute-divergence-eu) I think I understand better. If we "diverge" we can do away with "red tape" and that will save businesses lots of money.
What I find frustrating is I would like specific examples of how brexit might benefit us/me. But I just move from one catch phrase to the next but I don't know what they actually mean. "diverge", "red tape", "take back control", "brexit means brexit"
-
So one benefit is...
The other is that because we aren't in the EU we don't have to check imports from outside the EU so carefully/rigerously because we don't comply with their rules anymore therefore saving time/money on imports. Which I guess oldman will be pleased to hear.
No, it's not the case that regulatory divergence means you don't have to check imports, it's the opposite. You now have to check every import from anywhere. Even if you relax regulations you still need to check goods for compliance when they come in, unless you have regulatory alignment with the country they come in from. If we relax regulation about chlorinated chicken for example, that would not create regulatory alignment with the USA on all food and animal products, it would just be one regulation out of thousands, so goods would still need to be inspected at the borders.
Erm, yes.
I think Highrepute is grabbing the wrong end of my stick. (An uncomfortable analogy, makes my eyes water).
I DON’T want things to return to the way they were, pre-customs union. I remember how it was and have experience of how bad it can be in Third Countries and dealing with the EU.
Christ, it was bad enough invoicing Swiss companies (when I was still consulting) and they had a “special” tax harmonisation with the EU and picking up goods, often meant “popping” down to Gibraltar/North Africa etc.
A very superficial skim of the difficulty, actually.
-
If we "diverge" we can do away with "red tape" and that will save businesses lots of money.
What I find frustrating is I would like specific examples of how brexit might benefit us/me.
Here's a reasonable rule of thumb test:
Do you own a business or a lot of shares in a business that would make more money from relaxed regulation? Would you like to have more money?
If the answer to both questions is yes, relaxed regulation post brexit will probably benefit you. If the answer to either question is no, it probably won't.
-
We buy and sell from/ to Europe every week. There is no hassle involved. Last week we sold some equipment to the Middle East. The hassle was beyond belief - no wonder no one else would do it.
Climbing gear is a good example - do you want to be able to change/lower our standards so we can buy gear from China that doesn't meet EN standards? Standards are expensive things to draw up and expensive to meet. Unless the standard applies across a big market it isn't worth doing.
-
Personally, I’m looking forward to not having to follow the EU standard for Artificial Climbing Structures. Matting is really expensive, so maybe I’ll just switch to 50mm of foam over some old cardboard. And 4.5mtrs over the mats max height? Pussy height, more like! I can squeeze in another couple of meters. And fall zones? What’s that shit about?
I have no doubt we will be able to adopt/adapt/ create replacements for all these standards instantly. Even obscure ones like Artificial Climbing structures. I’m sure we can just adopt any EU reg or standard and not encounter and Copyright, intellectual property or licensing issues.
I remember how that went in the UAE. The EU was absolutely fine about the whole thing...ish.
We are not going to end up with less regulation, immediately. Our plan is to enshine thecurrent into UK law. Divergence will come as/when/if we fail to follow future changes to EU law.
Of course, divergence would be a setious hinderance to trade, so is highly unlikely.
AKA: We leave the club committee, lose member rights, but end up having to follow the rules anyway.
Actually, this is a full “Hotel California” and one of the biggest complaints Remainers keep coming back to. This is pointless, we can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.
-
Actually, typed that when I sat down for a tea break. Before I finished the cuppa, there’s a ping and a little red badge pops up on the Groanniard app...
You can’t escape the gloomy news, it far outweighs the positive forecasting (The Torygraph has been silent, which usually means they don’t like the news today).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/20/imf-christine-lagarde-brexit-forecasts-growth-uk-economy?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/20/imf-christine-lagarde-brexit-forecasts-growth-uk-economy?CMP=fb_gu)
Incidentally, on a different but related topic.
Did anyone else choke on their Espresso, reading that bit about the Yank rep at the UN telling the rest of the world that Trump was “Taking names” of everyone that voted against recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? That it was “Personal”?
I so look forward to being even more closely aligned with that bunch of ...
-
I’ve been busy, today.
It’s half term, took the kids trampolining. Just rocked up at work, got the squad training kicked off and sat down with a coffee to catch up on the papers (Valentines this morning, so no reading allowed).
Started with the Times...
Hmmm.
Fucking Johnson.
Pop on to the Torygraph, that’ll give it a positive s
Ant and not merely focus on his gaffes, right?
Aarrghh!
The “O-so-pious” Groanyarse, that will at least be an amusing take.
Aaaarrrgghhhhh!
Independent? (indeschmendent, Oi Veh).
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr(urk, cough)ggggghhh!
Coffee now cold.
Squad members staring at me in youthful bemusement as I realise I’m actually muttering outloud:
“Carrots? Fucking Carrots? I’ll fucking make your fucking Carrots Organic you fucking mopheaded twat monkey!”
-
:lol:
.
.
.
:'(
-
<profanity alert>
I can't believe that Johnson gets the airtime...
The fucking wanker steps out of a red bus every day for a month peddling a LIE about UK EU contributions - and now has the fucking brass neck to say - don't be angry - every one get together - it'll be alright....
So we should believe you this time right? Tool.
Shame on you Johnson - I hope history remembers you as the attention grabbing Machiavellian fool that I consider you to be.
</profanity alert>
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/84f2bef4a768280d63fc15bf2105427a320359dc/1855_0_2595_1556/master/2595.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=c348453bb2787bc1c81d174cea6590cf)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/populist-italy-europe-eu-countries-european-brexit
An interesting development? Lore interested to hear your thoughts....
-
Not a thought but a feeling of profound depression.
-
Really worthwhile watch, not short, but revealing.
So far, that which they mention, which I then fact-check; checks out.
Can anyone spot any flaws?
Three Blokes in a pub:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4AF-3Rd44 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4AF-3Rd44)
-
Can anyone spot any flaws?
Boring cunt #3s ADR manual is 7 years out of date. 2011 version ::)
-
So...
All bollocks then?
-
I've no idea, I listened to approx 2 mins of three people talking about how terrible they thought everything was before turning off. I can listen to pessimistic cunts for real anytime I want to, I don't need to youtube them.
-
It’s quite encouraging in a perverse way. No deal is such a colossal fuck up that it won’t be allowed to happen - or after 3 months of food shortages then everything costing 40% more the govt would be toast and we’d go back.
You should persevere Pete - for sure it’s three people against the idea - but they have some really interesting insight into how import export works - and how trade deals work.
-
I've no idea, I listened to approx 2 mins of three people talking about how terrible they thought everything was before turning off. I can listen to pessimistic cunts for real anytime I want to, I don't need to youtube them.
And yet, it was considerably more than two minutes in that the book appeared...
You really do care, don’t you? You old softy you.
Y’know, what with the speed of your response n’all...
You better be careful, you might find yourself voting Lib-Dem and volunteering at the soup kitchen soon.
Edit:
Oh, and you forgot to mention the hat on Boring guy #1, which clearly invalidates any subsequent statments or information he may make or relay.
-
It was something like 50 mins in, I slid the time bar along and noticed BG3 put a book on the table so I stopped to watch what it was. No, I really don't care Matt. They're saying the same things people have been saying for the last 2.5 years, it isn't new info from what I can tell.
-
I found this a good, personal and very sad story of what’s happening in the UK. Maybe it’s nothing new, but so what? There’s nothing new because the morons running this shit show have simply no idea how to proceed. In the meantime, a slow draining of talent and hope, all in return for the ability to decide that our regulations on vacuum cleaners will be... exactly the same as the EU’s!
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/aug/02/auf-wedersehen-britain-brexit-forcing-my-german-family-leave-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Actually, and I suppose I shouldn’t mention it yet, but I’m about 75% certain that I shall be buggering off to a sunnier clime and returning to Engineering, this Autumn.
Entirely possible that it might all fall through, or take longer than hoped, but they approached me so...
But (and this is the main reason for saying this), I can.
What about all those who can’t just up and go. What ever happens, if it goes ahead, this country will be poorer for it and people will suffer for a pointless pile of day dreams.
(Sorry Pete) Even the Brexiteer kings and queens conceded that would be the case (even the most deluded, has switched from “10 years of struggle” to “50 years and we might see some benefit”, without actually stating what benefit he’s thinking of).
Meanwhile, the experts continue to hammer away at the alarm bells, industry heads are lighting the Beacons and calling for aid and that slimy little Gollum Boris is desperately trying to jam a cursed ring on his knob (and act that would, if accomplished, end any hope of this nation ever being taken seriously again).
And...
You know what Pete? For someone who doesn’t care, you do seem keen to read threads, follow links and render opinion.
I mean, there is at least, a Prima Facie case for your lingering empathy for the common person...
:whistle:
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle. I only replied to be mildly facetious to your 'any flaws' comment for a cheap giggle. Beyond that, I'm not interested in engaging with you on UKB about brexit Matt.
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle. I only replied to be mildly facetious to your 'any flaws' comment for a cheap giggle. Beyond that, I'm not interested in engaging with you on UKB about brexit Matt.
Me?
Who said anything about me?
-
I thought this was a pretty interesting point of view from Gisela Stuart where she discusses why she changed her mind about the EU and was one of the leaders of the leave campaign. Personally I found it interesting that I could agree with all of her points and arguments and yet come to a different conclusion!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bbr7xd
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle. I only replied to be mildly facetious to your 'any flaws' comment for a cheap giggle. Beyond that, I'm not interested in engaging with you on UKB about brexit Matt.
You don't get to post and then say "no, no" I don't want to engage. Either be quiet or say what you mean and expect to be challenged (or perhaps agreed with, you never know). Sorry Pete, but you've come across as an arsehole on this.
-
I have always been Pete’s sole supporter. I am cheered by the growing talk, on many sides, even Brussels, of the possibility of a nice clean Brexit next March. This should leave us with an immediate £39bn to mitigate short term problems and the certainty for firms of the well known, widely used WTO structures. I do however worry about the impact of widespread STIs on care homes across our land. I await the fusillade.
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle.
I've got to say, I'm with Pete all the way on this. All I see in Brexit now is people on either side of the argument enjoying whatever evidence they can that they had it right all along.
-
Although my belief has been sorely tested over the last 18 months it's becoming pretty clear now that, as I said in the beginning, Brexit will not happen because it is fundamentally unworkable. 40 years of cooperative progress has built the society we live in and cannot be simply undone.
The best analogy I think is the internet. It's been built by an international cooperative effort, but is now unmanageable in many ways and has become pervasive and detrimental in unexpected places. But only an old and very deluded person would think we could turn the national connection off next March because 'we did fine without it in the seventies'.
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle.
I've got to say, I'm with Pete all the way on this. All I see in Brexit now is people on either side of the argument enjoying whatever evidence they can that they had it right all along.
I don’t know. I can see why it looks like that, but speaking for myself, I’ve actually spent hours (days now) hunting for the up side; looking for an edge, if you like.
I’m exasperated, and it shows. Despite the hyperbole of my posting, I don’t fundamentally believe people like Mogg are idiots or some sort of fifth-column saboteurs, intent on wrecking the country.
But, it doesn’t stack up. Every time I dig into any Leave promise or claim, I find it lacking in foundations (often, also lacking walls, floors or roof and actually being a mere skim of render, in the shape of a house).
So, Personally, I’m preparing to seek income from overseas, whilst desperately hoping I don’t need it.
Honestly, I swear, if I could find a silver lining in this, I’d be raving over it. I haven’t found it yet.
-
I've not been taking much notice of this thread for a long time, because it's a regular round of the same people saying the same things to each other, round in a circle.
I've got to say, I'm with Pete all the way on this. All I see in Brexit now is people on either side of the argument enjoying whatever evidence they can that they had it right all along.
I don’t know. I can see why it looks like that, but speaking for myself, I’ve actually spent hours (days now) hunting for the up side; looking for an edge, if you like.
I’m exasperated, and it shows. Despite the hyperbole of my posting, I don’t fundamentally believe people like Mogg are idiots or some sort of fifth-column saboteurs, intent on wrecking the country.
But, it doesn’t stack up. Every time I dig into any Leave promise or claim, I find it lacking in foundations (often, also lacking walls, floors or roof and actually being a mere skim of render, in the shape of a house).
So, Personally, I’m preparing to seek income from overseas, whilst desperately hoping I don’t need it.
Honestly, I swear, if I could find a silver lining in this, I’d be raving over it. I haven’t found it yet.
If you're looking at the same evidence as somebody else and coming to a different conclusion, it's probably because you hold different values to your opposite number. To Mogg and co, arguments around national sovereignty (however they choose to define that) and the preservation of traditional values are going to be more compelling than those around maintaining a world leading science and research industry, for instance.
-
If you're looking at the same evidence as somebody else and coming to a different conclusion, it's probably because you hold different values to your opposite number. To Mogg and co, arguments around national sovereignty (however they choose to define that) and the preservation of traditional values are going to be more compelling than those around maintaining a world leading science and research industry, for instance.
That would be acceptable as long as Mogg is being completely honest about his motives. Even if he is being homest he is not sticking to those issues but lying about the impacts Brexit
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being. I don't think Brexit supporters are necessarily stupid, deluded or racist - the point you make Will about worldview shaping conclusions is very pertinent. Until a few years ago I did youth work with people from the most deprived parts of Sheffield and Rotherham. I feel this has given me a pretty good insight into some of the reasons Brexit has happened, particularly in the investment starved North.
My biggest fear above and beyond the economic effects of Brexit is that the social problems and inequalities which lead to it, including the discussions we really need to have about immigration but shy away from (particularly on the left) are going to get worse because almost none of them have been addressed and all our energy will now be spent managing with the transition process. We've also totally stuffed our chances of influencing the EU from the inside, which I felt was our best option for shaping our immediate neighbourhood to our liking.
For anyone looking forward to us trading under WTO rules, I admire your optimism. If they are so good, why does every developed country spend so much time arranging free trade deals?
-
But, what are these traditional values and sovereignty stuff they speak of?
By now, you lot probably realise I consume articles and esoteric writtings like some krill harvesting leviathan and recently had a revealing discussion about “Millennials” and “Violent Yoofs” and how they were destroying most of those nebulous things mentioned in the opening sentence.
I was pointed in the direction of some articles about the crime rates in WW2 Britain.
Now, if you have (like me) grown up through the 70’s and 80’s on a diet of Sunday afternoon War films and Remembrance parades; the fact that that “War time spirit” never existed (except as government propaganda) comes as a bit pf a shock.
Teenage gangs, looting and murdering.
Rape and robbery in the public shelters.
The number of executions of servicemen for rape, both Brit and Yank.
Millions of weapons stolen and funneled to the IRA and gangs.
And so on.
So, knowing this, when I hear that jingoistic “Keep calm and carry on”, “Dig for victory” and any other “we had it worse in the war” type shit, I nigh-on crack my teeth from grinding them so hard.
Particularly since the vast majority of those spouting the crap, were too young to know what was happening or not there at all. The hypocrisy of those who actually spent the Sixties stoned out of their tiny gourds, essentially losing an entire decade, before heading off to decimate the education system, government and (basically) the whole fucking planet...
Well.
Twats basically.
(Yes, hyperbole, again, that’s just for my own amusement and a little humour. I’m aware not everyone fits the described twat and that there really were heroes and sacrifices etc etc).
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
-
On the occasions I've heard Rees-Mogg speak I've actually found myself quite impressed by him. Eloquent, articulate, thoughtful. That doesn't mean I agree with him, but I don't think he's evil.
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
To quote Rick Graham, one of my heroes - "I choose my words with care". If I thought that Mogg's motives were for the best, albeit based on a totally different worldview, fair enough. But there is little evidence of that. What there is evidence of is that he personally stands to gain substantially from Brexit. To be clear, I don't believe in evil, and I don't believe in hating anybody. Contempt? Yes, that I can do, and in this case I think it's fully deserved.
-
I have not looked into his policy position as (like you) I find him entirely disagreeable, but I had assumed that he would be in favour of lower taxes and deregulation, etc. as in his mind that’s what will drive the country on to glory? (With the almost accidental side effect of healthily lining his pockets of course)
-
When Theresa May retires hurt or is voted down we shall have new hands on the reins and a new direction of travel. Olly will be back on the skatepark.
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
The problem is, with some of the high profile 'Leave' campaigners, one highly suspects their motives as being mainly to do with enhancing their own careers and personal power, rather than being based on ideological belief that something is best for the country. For me Boris is the prime example of this but JRM seems to be well in this camp. How do you describe someone who, while claiming to be trying to do the best for all, evidences behaviour that suggests they are very focused on doing the best for themselves and getting as much power as possible? Disingenuous? Dangerous? Despicable?
That's different from the ground level where ordinary people are trying to work out what this all means and taking up positions that reflect their beliefs. Of course it's harmful to debate to simply label someone who disagrees with you as 'evil' or 'stupid' or 'misguided'. Brexit is just showing fracture lines in our society that already existed.
The weird thing is it's different from the historical dichotomy between Cavalier/Roundhead, Anglican/Dissenter, Conservative/Liberal that have perpetuated since the Civil War and largely reflect modern voting preferences (in terms of regions). And that we have kind of internally resolved in the warp and weft of the national identity.
The Brexit split to me seems to be between people who think that Britain has improved over the last c.40 years (at least partly due to engagement in the EU) and is now a better place to live than it used to be, and people who think that it has got worse and needs a shake up.
How you arrive at this conclusion depends on your background, your current situation in life and outlook, and your education. And then put this through the tribal lens of politics. The trouble is it sort of ends up entrenched as a belief and then we end up in a simplified debate where it becomes about what team you support.
Because we've all already voted on this it's hard for us to look at the evidence presented by the other side and take it seriously. Cognitive biases etc. I'm like Matt and can't see any evidence that Brexit will leave us at all better off, but I suspect it's because I've already made up my mind.
I guess I have some sympathy with people who think that Britain is worse than it used to be. There seems to be heightened inequality, mainly with the mega rich getting richer. House prices are ridiculous and past generations seem to have benefited from this leaving younger people stuffed on this front. This makes it seem like the poor are worse off than ever before. The trouble is, I think the evidence generally would tend to show that this isn't true, and actually things could be (and have been) a lot worse. There's a generational divide too, with people who grew up before the EU and people who've never known anything but. Some people feel alienated by the way things are going, with 'political correctness gone mad' - for some people it's normal and anything else would be a sexist, racist backwards step. Some people see the cameras that watch us everywhere as an intrusion inserted unnecessarily into life, some people have never known anything better and presume it keeps us safe. Some people are not comfortable with the internet, other people's working and social lives depend on it entirely.
How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.
-
I have not looked into his policy position as (like you) I find him entirely disagreeable, but I had assumed that he would be in favour of lower taxes and deregulation, etc. as in his mind that’s what will drive the country on to glory? (With the almost accidental side effect of healthily lining his pockets of course)
It goes beyond choosing the best path to prosperity for all. His (and most Tories) voting record is one of someone actively denying provision for those most in need even when there is minimal /negligible cost to the rest of us/the economy. Why do that unless you are a massive cunt? Occam's Razor, innit?
-
I have always been Pete’s sole supporter. I am cheered by the growing talk, on many sides, even Brussels, of the possibility of a nice clean Brexit next March. This should leave us with an immediate £39bn to mitigate short term problems and the certainty for firms of the well known, widely used WTO structures. I do however worry about the impact of widespread STIs on care homes across our land. I await the fusillade.
I'll bite.
1. There is no 39 billion. It's a promise to pay future instalments funded by future tax receipts.
2. There will be no "widely used WTO structures" after Brexit that the UK can use. It has no agreed WTO membership terms.
When Theresa May retires hurt or is voted down we shall have new hands on the reins and a new direction of travel. Olly will be back on the skatepark.
There is no new direction of travel. David Davis' current best effort is to pay a commercial law firm to try and cobble together a trade offer based on bits of other agreements, Gove has given up and seems to be trying to persuade people behind the scenes to remain in the single market, Johnson's plan is to shout louder and I'm intrigued to know how Rees-Mogg could take up any ministerial position to do with Brexit without being in breach of the ministerial code due to his interest in Somerset Capital. Might be why none of them seem too keen to make a leadership bid or suggest any other tangible options despite TM being in the weakest position of any PM ever.
-
The U.K. has been a member of WTO since 1995. Some minor re-jigging may be needed but we on the inside looking out .
With Parliament in recess a no confidence vote cannot be held. I await September with interest.
-
We are a member but we have no membership terms because we currently piggyback on the EU's terms, which we cannot do after Brexit. "Minor rejigging" and "we are on the inside looking out" are legally meaningless. Tell me what it takes to agree new trading terms and how that process can be achieved before April next year and I might reconsider my opinion. Notably, the leader of the WTO has said he doesn't know either although that was now a couple of years ago and hopefully he's been thinking about it a bit since then. Or maybe he hasn't.
Maybe there will be a leadership contest after the recess, but so far there are not enough letters to trigger a leadership contest and there has been plenty of time before the recess with nothing to show for it. And its doesn't change the fact that there's no other plan suggested, by anyone. Nearly two years since the Brexit vote, absolutely no-one has come up with any meaningful plan.
-
Isn't also the case that we will owe some or all of the £39 billion regardless as it is for existing commitments rather than a bribe for a future deal? Obviously in a no deal scenario we could walk away but brand Britain would take a knock, and the next time we try to buy a sofa on HP we'll find we need to go to Brighthouse instead
-
On the occasions I've heard Rees-Mogg speak I've actually found myself quite impressed by him. Eloquent, articulate, thoughtful. That doesn't mean I agree with him, but I don't think he's evil.
I am given to understand, Joe Stalin was affable (to the point of jovial), articulate and so on...
-
Isn't also the case that we will owe some or all of the £39 billion regardless as it is for existing commitments rather than a bribe for a future deal? Obviously in a no deal scenario we could walk away but brand Britain would take a knock, and the next time we try to buy a sofa on HP we'll find we need to go to Brighthouse instead
We have existing obligations to pay sums to the EU as part of our membership. The agreements to pay those sums are contingent on membership and likely silent about what happens in the event of Brexit. The EU would argue that it is implicit that they are payable anyway. In acceptance of that position we (the UK) has agreed to pay a sum, touted as 39 billion, in instalments as part of the terms of the withdrawal agreement. I don't know how much of the agreement will survive a failure to agree all terms of the withdrawal agreement - I don't believe that the terms have been made public. What would likely happen in the event of no agreement and the UK reneging on any agreement to pay up is that the matter would be decided by the International Court of Arbitrage in litigation lasting, probably, many years. As the full amount would likely end up payable in the end, in a lump sum, the money may have to be held in the equivalent of escrow or at least ring-fenced, meaning that it would be unusable anyway.
-
With regards leadership of the Tory party, can anybody think of a shitter job to be landed with at the moment? I can't really see anybody with anything to loose throwing their hat into the ring (step forward, Boris Johnson).
Come to think of it, Boris as PM would be bloody interesting. Save face and go all out for Brexit, or do a U-turn and preserve the party? Decisions decisions.
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.
Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?
-
I have not looked into his policy position as (like you) I find him entirely disagreeable, but I had assumed that he would be in favour of lower taxes and deregulation, etc. as in his mind that’s what will drive the country on to glory? (With the almost accidental side effect of healthily lining his pockets of course)
It goes beyond choosing the best path to prosperity for all. His (and most Tories) voting record is one of someone actively denying provision for those most in need even when there is minimal /negligible cost to the rest of us/the economy. Why do that unless you are a massive cunt? Occam's Razor, innit?
Can I posit “Just World syndrome” on that one?
I feel like my general observation of those Authoritarian Conservatives I’ve come across, is their espoused piety. From May to JRM, they wear their “FAITH” as badge of utter integrity, assume divine guidance and (however secretly or even subconsciously) believe those less fortunate “brought it on themselves”. They reap their just reward, whilst the unworthy are punished.
Religion, ultimately, precludes the possibility of random chance, everything is part of a plan.
(This is true of almost any spiritual belief system).
Ergo, what ever they desire, is born of God’s will and beyond question. They see themselves as right, to a degree any Athiest or Agnostic or, even, doubting Thomas; would find inconceivable.
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.
Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?
Everyone forgets that one.
Bit tricky, what with us being an “Occupying power” type thingy (I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, just that whichever way you slice it, we invaded Ireland and took the land by force. Whether or not the now long established population of the North deserve their current status or not, is a question I have no ability to answer. Though my sympathies lie with those from this side of the water, who died or suffered to preserve their “freedom”).
Of course, we appear to be heading for a rerun of that conflict. It’s already heating up, throw in some awkward border issues and tough economic conditions and the current trend for violent rhetoric/fake news and...
Whoomph!
-
...
2. There will be no "widely used WTO structures" after Brexit that the UK can use. It has no agreed WTO membership terms.
... Tell me what it takes to agree new trading terms and how that process can be achieved before April next year... the leader of the WTO has said he doesn't know either...
It takes Britain’s 719-page draft 'schedule', which replicates the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as part of the EU today, being circulated as one of two confidential draft membership agreements among the WTO’s 164 members. The schedule will be considered to be approved if there are no objections from other members. It may be done and dusted in three months.
The process started a little over a week ago...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-wto/britain-and-eu-formally-start-splitting-wto-membership-agreements-idUKKBN1KE2LJ (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-wto/britain-and-eu-formally-start-splitting-wto-membership-agreements-idUKKBN1KE2LJ)
From what I've seen, the leader of the WTO has always been clear there would be no 'gap' in the UK's membership of it after leaving the EU and the ease of negotiating a new schedule would rest on the approach taken. This video from early last year...
https://youtu.be/FKi4ccjwiYY
-
I do however worry about the impact of widespread STIs on care homes across our land.
STIs? Sexually Transmitted Infections?! Someone needs to educate residents about the forms of prophylactic protection available. :lets_do_it_wild:
-
It takes Britain’s 719-page draft 'schedule', which replicates the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as part of the EU today, being circulated as one of two confidential draft membership agreements among the WTO’s 164 members. The schedule will be considered to be approved if there are no objections from other members. It may be done and dusted in three months.
Yes, the EU and the UK agreed to split the current quotas with objections raised by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil and the USA. The EU then disagreed with the transitional arrangements the UK was proposing in terms of self representation in the WTO. New Zealand have insinuated that they will not agree the quotas until the final terms of the withdrawal agreement are reached with the EU, which obviously creates a difficulty for us using WTO terms to mitigate against no-deal. The official New Zealand government response also takes the position that the UK will still be in the customs union until 2020 and therefore there is no urgency to negotiations. The USA and Canada want to renegotiate UK food standards as part of any agreement on quotas which cannot be done until after the end of a transitional period if a withdrawal agreement is reached, may take primary legislation to achieve and is contrary to the UK's withdrawal bill. As far as I'm aware, and I would be very relieved to be corrected if I'm wrong, the WTO has no internal arbitration process that covers this scenario and there are no precedents for reaching agreements in these circumstances. 3 months to resolve that lot is a little optimistic in my view.
Also interesting, isn't it, that many of these objections require agreement to be made on things that probably can't be achieved in that time frame or put the UK into a catch 22 situation. It's almost as if all the countries that we hope to rescue us with free trade agreements after Brexit are using the opportunity to back us into un-winnable negotiations.
-
In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.
I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.
How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.
Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?
Everyone forgets that one.
Bit tricky, what with us being an “Occupying power” type thingy (I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, just that whichever way you slice it, we invaded Ireland and took the land by force. Whether or not the now long established population of the North deserve their current status or not, is a question I have no ability to answer. Though my sympathies lie with those from this side of the water, who died or suffered to preserve their “freedom”).
Of course, we appear to be heading for a rerun of that conflict. It’s already heating up, throw in some awkward border issues and tough economic conditions and the current trend for violent rhetoric/fake news and...
Whoomph!
Rightly or wrongly I just didn't consider The Troubles as a Civil War, despite being of Irish descent.
A quick Wikipedia tells me.c.3500 people died over the course of The Troubles.
Yugoslav war caused 135,000 deaths.
Obviously things get much worse if you look a little further back to Spanish Civil War with 500,000 deaths.
Civilization is only a thin veneer over savagery I feel- I guess I'm saying we should all bear that in mind and try to treat opposing views with a due sense of proportion.
-
True, it wasn’t and isn’t as intense as the others you mentioned.
However, you are forgetting the War for Indepenence and the ensuing Irish Civil war, which doubles your quoted number.
But, the casualties (killed and wounded) from “The Troubles”(ie after 68) are closer to 50K iirc.
Not trying to be a dick, but considering how small that province is, it’s had a disproportionatly negative impact on the UK as a whole and seems likely to continue on current impressions (with the Good Friday agreement looking something akin to the 1918 Armistice with Germany, to future historians? I hope not, but..,).
Sadly, this is not even off topic, as it is at real risk of being reignited as a result of Brexit negotiation failure.
-
Yes, the EU and the UK agreed to split the current quotas with objections raised by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil and the USA...
Ru, what you say may be correct, but I can't find any news reports from the past week showing there is any major issue with the progress of the UK's draft WTO schedule and as far as I can tell the objections of most of the countries you mentioned were raised months ago, prior to the drafts being submitted. Perhaps the objections have already been taken into account by the UK?
As I understand it post-Brexit both the UK and the EU will be trading at the WTO under new schedules requiring TWO draft schedules to be submitted. It's how the quotas have been split up between the UK and the EU that's the problem. As far as I can tell from these New Zealand news reports https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/07/31/173095/govt-warns-of-potential-retaliation-over-brexit-tariff-plans (https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/07/31/173095/govt-warns-of-potential-retaliation-over-brexit-tariff-plans) & https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105859499/new-zealand-government-pushes-out-warning-of-brexit-trade-war-risk (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105859499/new-zealand-government-pushes-out-warning-of-brexit-trade-war-risk) it is the quotas in the EU's draft schedules which Kiwi's are unhappy about not necessarily the UK's. It seems the EU have used it as an opportunity to change its quota commitments. The criticism in the reports is clearly leveled at the EU with barely a mention of the UK.
If any country objects to the UK's draft schedule it doesn't seem a big deal as far as I can tell; I found a very good thread on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1023488987170828288 (https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1023488987170828288) ) about the matter by a former WTO negotiator from Australia who says: "...what does it mean for the UK? It's annoying but not apocalyptic. Any WTO Member can block certification of a draft schedule forever, but the UK can trade just fine with an uncertified schedule."
All I can say is, if this was really as problematic as you suggest I would expect to see multiple negative articles and op-eds about it in the likes of The Guardian, the Evening Standard, Independent, etc. There aren't any. I really don't see Tregiffian's confidence in the WTO arrangements as misplaced.
-
But what are we going to sell under WTO terms?
Why would anyone buy anything from us instead of from an EU country - where they have a cheaper (and easier to administer) alternative (for example?). As in Matts video - are we going to ship Quashqi’s from Sunderland to Australia??
-
The point is that no-one knows how problematic it will be but commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems. It has also been asserted that the WTO option is straightforward and well understood, which is not true. This is the legal position:
The WTO agreement is silent on whether a member can assert its rights before its schedules have been agreed. On a strict interpretation the UK can therefore assert WTO rights in any event, however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties if importing countries are forced to trade in accordance with settled schedules when the UK does not. I suppose the UK could unilaterally offer to trade using draft or even reduced volumes in the short term to mitigate this. Longer term the schedules need to be agreed. Where schedule commitments dont clash with EU volumes of goods the UK can transpose the EU terms, but where they do clash disagreements inevitably arise as the total aggregate volumes need to be renegotiated. There is no precedent for resolving these disagreements and no arbitration process within the WTO agreement. It is also unclear whether the other WTO members have any veto. The agreements do not cover the UKs situation but there are provisions for renegotiation under GATT and GATS and one of the articles (IV?) of the WTO agreement which might be applicable.
The spectre in the background is that some members use WTO schedule disagreements as a lever to reopen other aspects of trade, such as standards, as appears to be happening with the US and Canada.
So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.
The fact that mainstream press has not published articles about this doesn’t mean that everything is fine, it means that currently there’s no drama.
Posting on my phone so apologies for errors.
-
I’m really starting to miss the days of Dead fit girls who go climbing...
-
You don't get to post and then say "no, no" I don't want to engage. Either be quiet or say what you mean and expect to be challenged (or perhaps agreed with, you never know). Sorry Pete, but you've come across as an arsehole on this.
?? Bit uncalled for. I thought I made it clear I only posted in reply to Matt's asking 'any flaws', to make a witty retort (aka unfunny joke). Not any engagement in any so-called 'debate'.
Some people need to chill out. No need to be a dick just because the world seems to be falling apart. It's always been so.
-
The point is that no-one knows how problematic it will be but commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems.
On a strict interpretation the UK can therefore assert WTO rights in any event, however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties if importing countries are forced to trade in accordance with settled schedules when the UK does not.
So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.
'Commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems.'
I don't know what media channels you follwo Ru but this is simply untrue. There are endless commentators predicitng problems ahead.
'.. however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties'
Haha.. just apply this sentance to Brexit, full stop. In fact you can probably apply it to anything in life - from your household dynamic to geopolitics - that requires a change from a status quo that someone would prefer remained unchanged.
'So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.'
See 'life'.
-
Rightly or wrongly I just didn't consider The Troubles as a Civil War, despite being of Irish descent.
I was directly involved in both (NI 1993 - 2001), Bosnia (1995). They were both civil wars imo.
-
I confess to being the standard Leave voter, older (70+), poorly educated (red brick BA General Studies - how low can you go?). I am privileged to have assistance both in this matter and occasionally over the years on the cliff from a young hotshot who did the spadework on his day off. Cheers A Jooser.
-
'Commentators continue to assert that there wbe no problems.'
I don't know what media channels you follwo Ru but this is simply untrue. There are endless commentators predicitng problems ahead.
It was just a diplomatic way of referring to to the WTO option is fine crowd in general. There have been many articles in the Telegraph and Express that espouse this view with zero understanding. I wind myself up by reading them. There is a peach on the Express site today that suggests that the UK would be better off under WTO if we could remove all the other barriers to trade. Which is true, but no more helpful than suggesting that someone would be better off not working if they could remove all the barriers to someone giving them a million quid.
'.. however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties'
Haha.. just apply this sentance to Brexit, full stop. In fact you can probably apply it to anything in life - from your household dynamic to geopolitics - that requires a change from a status quo that someone would prefer remained unchanged.
'So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.'
See 'life'.
Generally I try and avoid potential problems before they happen unless the alternative is demonstrably worse. Whilst everything you say is true it exhibits a degree of fatalistic nihilism that I don’t share.
-
Not fatalistic nihilism Ru, though I can perhaps see how that label is easier to quickly be dismissive of than the label of ‘optimist’.
I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers.
Aptly you mention it, because to me it actually seems more fatalistic to remain in the EU and accept situation normal no change - i.e. an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction. The EU is a fine idea and institution. I just don’t believe they should ever have been allowed the power to govern member states to the extent they now do. Better as mostly a free trade organisation - trade, standards, harmonisation all good things and came out of a desire to avoid future major conflicts.
-
I didn’t say you were nihilistic, I said your statement exhibited a degree of it. But if it helps, I’m equally dismissive of optimism.
I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
-
Optimism.
Hmmm.
Whas’dat den?
Is that, like, thinking that the vast majority of people (anywhere) are actually good at heart, will band together for the common good and the impression that most are absolute fuck-nuggets is false?
No, nobody could believe that; surely?
-
I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
Which is fine. I accept that argument completely. IMO there isn’t much more to the whole debate than that really.
Matt, that picture is reductionist. There can be a world full of in your words fuck-nuggets and still be good outcomes. I don’t see the two - ‘majority of fuck-nuggetry’ and ‘positive outcomes’ - as being necessarily exclusive.
Although I agree FNs are annoying but someone has to do it.
-
I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
Well the risks are very clear and huge and there is also a very clear and very large cost.
By cost I mean things we know, with certainty, that we will lose and are already paying in terms of lost jobs, collapsing currency falling immigration. I have yet to hear of any benefits, potential or otherwise and would be very happy to do so.
-
We would have considerable sums of money to spend on nurses, research projects and other good things rather than helping the EU parliament to move from Brussels to Strasbourg every other week. Oh, and topping up some monster pension pots.
-
According to a leaked government assessment of Brexit's likely impact on the British economy, Britain's economic growth is predicted to be lower over the next 15 years than current expectations. With no deal, growth would be reduced by 8%; with a free trade agreement, it would be 5%; and 2% if the UK remained a member of the European Economic Area.
This means less money to "spend on nurses, research projects and other good things". Don't believe everything you see on the sides of big, red buses.
-
The cost of Brexit to the UK economy is already £40bn and counting, according to the Governor of the Bank of England. This was the figure he quoted in May 2018.
I'm a huge fan of irony and this would be hilarious -- if it wasn't so fucking depressing.
-
We would have considerable sums of money to spend on nurses, research projects and other good things rather than helping the EU parliament to move from Brussels to Strasbourg every other week. Oh, and topping up some monster pension pots.
Hilarious that you mention research. I had been working in scientific research for the last 20 years until Brexit killed my job. The group I was working in is now down to about 6 people from an average of 25-ish over my time there. From what I'm hearing it's much worse outside the Russell group universities. Now none of those jobs were particularly well paid but they all paid tax & were predominantly young & healthy so that's a lot less money for e.g. nurses - any serious suggestions?
-
A quick Google shows that net immigration from the EU has dropped by 75,000 since the referendum.
Let's guesstimate that each of those would have been paying £6,000 a year in tax & NI
I make that 450 Million in lost tax receipts (just from the vote result).
Apparently https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216
the U.K. pays £8.4 Mill to the EU so that's 442 Million lost just from that .
-
Sorry got lost in decimal places the U.K. Contribution should have read 8.4 Billion.
-
According to a leaked government assessment of Brexit's likely impact on the British economy, Britain's economic growth is predicted to be lower over the next 15 years than current expectations. With no deal, growth would be reduced by 8%; with a free trade agreement, it would be 5%; and 2% if the UK remained a member of the European Economic Area.
This means less money to "spend on nurses, research projects and other good things". Don't believe everything you see on the sides of big, red buses.
Britain's economic growth was predicted to have fallen off a cliff and be in recession. (If Slackers was still contributing, right about now he'd point out that we haven't left yet).
Out of interest have you ever gone back through the monetary policy committee's economic forecasts quarter by quarter and year on year, and compared them to what actually happened to see how accurate each of them turned out to be? And have you looked into the margin of error involved in their - and every economic forecaster's - forecasts? Or are you doing what we all do and just taking their forecast and assuming it'll be the reality. Don't believe everything you read in economic forecasts.
-
True, it might be a fuckload worse than the forecast.
-
And how accurate, historically, has the fingers-in-ears-going-na-na technique been in forecasting economic performance?
True, it might be a fuckload worse than the forecast.
Exactly! that's how forecasts work.
-
As I read somewhere: 'the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable'.
What's your star sign?
-
Here it is.. from The Economist
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/01/09/a-mean-feat
''Forecasts of all sorts are especially bad at predicting downturns. Over the period, there were 220 instances in which an economy grew in one year before shrinking in the next. In its April forecasts the IMF never once foresaw the contraction looming in the next year. Even in October of the year in question, the IMF predicted that a recession had begun only half the time. To be fair, an average-growth prediction also misses 100% of recessions. One model does better, though. Our random-number generator correctly forecast the start of a recession 18% of the time.''
-
It wasnt that forecasters got the effects of Brexit on growth wrong it that they got the forecasts of the growth for the rest of the world wrong. No one expected the Western economies of the world to be so bouyant. UK GDP growth has suffered, we are now bottom of the growth tables for the G7 whereas for the best part of the decade we've been at or near the top. If you look at any graph the change comes very sharply in mid 2016. I can't prove one caused the other but it's difficult to explain otherwise
-
(https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/OECD_graph.PNG)
Maybe someone made America great again! :lol:
Seriously though, no one can deny the UK's GDP growth has been on a steady downward trend since the final quarter of 2014.
*Modified to include the word 'growth'. GDP isn't actually on a downward trend [can't find slaps forehead emoticon]; low growth's still growth init.
-
We see what we want to see. I see 7 countries having an upturn in 2016 and 1 country continuing down.
-
It wasnt that forecasters got the effects of Brexit on growth wrong it that they got the forecasts of the growth for the rest of the world wrong. No one expected the Western economies of the world to be so bouyant. UK GDP growth has suffered, we are now bottom of the growth tables for the G7 whereas for the best part of the decade we've been at or near the top. If you look at any graph the change comes very sharply in mid 2016. I can't prove one caused the other but it's difficult to explain otherwise
They did get it (very) wrong. But that's another debate.
I don't really get what point you're trying to make (other than I told you so.?). No-one should be surprised the UK's economy has taken a hit since voting to leave- that was always the presumption wasn't it? Uncertainty is the driver. It just hasn't taken as much of a hit as virtually everyone forecasted, yet. You can look at that positively or negatively. In that we have all this uncertainty, which forecastors predicted would send us into recession, but the economy's still growing against forecasts. And we're heading towards having certainty one way or another.
It's also very short-term. No-one can forecast accurately 12 months ahead. 10 years ahead... may as well find an astrologist.
-
According to a leaked government assessment of Brexit's likely impact on the British economy, Britain's economic growth is predicted to be lower over the next 15 years than current expectations. With no deal, growth would be reduced by 8%; with a free trade agreement, it would be 5%; and 2% if the UK remained a member of the European Economic Area.
This means less money to "spend on nurses, research projects and other good things". Don't believe everything you see on the sides of big, red buses.
Britain's economic growth was predicted to have fallen off a cliff and be in recession. (If Slackers was still contributing, right about now he'd point out that we haven't left yet).
Out of interest have you ever gone back through the monetary policy committee's economic forecasts quarter by quarter and year on year, and compared them to what actually happened to see how accurate each of them turned out to be? And have you looked into the margin of error involved in their - and every economic forecaster's - forecasts? Or are you doing what we all do and just taking their forecast and assuming it'll be the reality. Don't believe everything you read in economic forecasts.
I found this post annoying - it feels like you've twisted the information to confirm with your views (but don't we all do that) - although on second reading I see your comment on the MPC is separate from your statement on the report.
The report was a leaked government report not the monetary policy committee. If you don't trust the report or the MPC then do you also not trust the government? or do you trust them to deliver a good Brexit but not predict it's affects?
This article asks how useful such reports are in way pleasing to remainers (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/13/how-useful-are-the-estimates-of-the-economic-consequences-of-brexit/).
Read or ignore as you wish. The headline argument is "Brexit will reduce trade and investment, therefore directly harming the economy." do leavers disagree with this statement?
-
We see what we want to see...
See Canada, what's going on there? We need to be drinking what they're drinking, seems in 2017 they really take off, hey!
https://youtu.be/1PAe4KzypHY
-
It wasnt that forecasters got the effects of Brexit on growth wrong it that they got the forecasts of the growth for the rest of the world wrong. [...]
They did get it (very) wrong. But that's another debate.
I don't really get what point you're trying to make (other than I told you so.?). [...]
His point is that they made a UK forecast based on a Rest of World forecast as an underlying trend. They may have got the UK part quite right, but with the underlying RoW forecast too pessimistic. I'm not familiar with the forecasts they made, but it's an entirely plausible explanation looking at that graph.
No-one should be surprised the UK's economy has taken a hit since voting to leave- that was always the presumption wasn't it?...
In that we have all this uncertainty, which forecastors predicted would send us into recession...
It's also very short-term. No-one can forecast accurately 12 months ahead...
In the first part quoted you basically say that the forecast of an economic hit was obvious. In the second part other people make a forecast along similar lines. In the third part you say forecasts are useless. :-\
-
Read or ignore as you wish. The headline argument is "Brexit will reduce trade and investment, therefore directly harming the economy." do leavers disagree with this statement?
No I completely agree with that. It's inevitable that the economy's going to take a hit. What? Leave a trade union you've been a member of for 40 years and take an unprecedented step into a new landscape that no-one is 100% certain about how it will look? And no impact at all on the economy? :-\
But so far it the economic impact hasn't panned out anywhere near as badly as many forecasted before (and in some cases after) the referendum, has it. That much is certain.
The difference is, like you say, in how you choose to view things. I don't view this as being the start of the end of the world. Necessity can be a powerful force for all sorts of beneficial change. Or it can be a harbinger of doom and destruction.
-
In the first part quoted you basically say that the forecast of an economic hit was obvious. In the second part other people make a forecast along similar lines. In the third part you say forecasts are useless. :-\
Well they aren't much of a sound basis for your reason for either doing or not doing something, are they. They are merely one small and relatively inconsequential (in the long run) piece of inaccurate prediction. Skewed by bias. Used for political purposes. Viewed through tinted lenses.
-
Not fatalistic nihilism Ru, though I can perhaps see how that label is easier to quickly be dismissive of than the label of ‘optimist’.
I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers.
Aptly you mention it, because to me it actually seems more fatalistic to remain in the EU and accept situation normal no change - i.e. an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction. The EU is a fine idea and institution. I just don’t believe they should ever have been allowed the power to govern member states to the extent they now do. Better as mostly a free trade organisation - trade, standards, harmonisation all good things and came out of a desire to avoid future major conflicts.
I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
Pete that's a very nice articulation of what this debate is all about. I agree with Ru though.
Trouble is because each side has staked out their position before it's clear what the risks or benefits actually might really be, as and when evidence emerges that supports one or the other, people spend more time trying to rubbish the evidence than engage with it. Lots of confirmation bias.
Which is why I can't remember seeing anything that suggested any concrete benefits that might emerge from 'being in control of our own destiny', and why Leavers can't see that any of the risks have any substance.
How do Leavers on this thread feel about a second referendum once it's clear what we're getting from whatever deal is negotiated?
My feeling is that this would be fair? I've drawn an analogy before between this and a small island with 15 people where 8 voted one way and 7 the other. My feeling is that in this situation everyone would try to reconcile rather than saying put up and shut up. It's only easy to do that because most of the opposition seem faceless and anonymous. Or are annoying figurehead politicos.
-
Economic policy has been likened to driving a car using only the rear view mirror. Both the brake and the accelerator take 6 to 12 months to have any significant effect the extent of which is uncertain.
-
Well they aren't much of a sound basis for your reason for either doing or not doing something, are they.
We do pretty much everything that we do on the basis of our forecasts of what the outcomes will be. Climbing moves. Job choices. Lifestyle choices. Purchasing choices. Why did you vote for Brexit if not on the basis of your own internal forecast of the likely outcomes?
-
I'm specifically talking about economic forecasts, as that's what's being discussed above.
And yes of course we make choices based somewhat on internal forecasts of likely outcomes - forecasts which are often based in instinct, intuition, gut feeling, superstition, incomplete evidence (always), religious belief, blind hope.
-
So what internal forecast made you vote Brexit, if not an economic one (genuinely interested, I didn't bother with the first 500 million posts on here so missed you reasoning somewhat)?
I guess my point is that if we're all making forecasts, I'd most like to listen to the forecasts of those who understand the area thoroughly, even if their forecasting record is mediocre. A random number generator might, almost intuitively, have more success at predicting unforeseen events, but less at predicting the directional impacts of known events, onto which we then superimpose the unforseen onces which will inevitably occur
-
Rocksteady my gut reaction to the second referendum idea is that I'm against it. I'm against it for a few different reasons -
1. I honestly don't see it coming up with a result that was any clearer than the first referendum. What if the result is 50.1% for the proposed deal / 49.9% percent against. I think it would result in as much or more chaos and confusion as the first time. So then what?
2. I believe there comes a point where you need to let government govern and this is one of those points. To put that the other way - if we'd voted to remain and the result had been 52/48 I wouldn't be wanting another referendum.
3. You use the term 'try to reconcile'. In this case - leaving or not leaving he EU - I see very little room for reconciliation on the main point voted for by the 52% i.e. not wanting to be a part of the EU. I see attempts at having national referendum on a proposed deal as thinly disguised attempts at getting the decision reversed - what is the worst possible case that can happen - we break from the EU with no deal in place. That isn't desirable for anybody, and the forces at play are such that deals will come about that mean the world doesn't grind to a halt. Because if that didn't happen it would be disastrous for EU countries and businesses, not just the UK. I can obviously see large differences in how we potentially interact afterwards. But that's for afterwards. I just think we need to cross the rubicon. And then there'll be space to shape how we interact.
-
So what internal forecast made you vote Brexit, if not an economic one (genuinely interested, I didn't bother with the first 500 million posts on here so missed you reasoning somewhat)?
I guess my point is that if we're all making forecasts, I'd most like to listen to the forecasts of those who understand the area thoroughly, even if their forecasting record is mediocre. A random number generator might, almost intuitively, have more success at predicting unforeseen events, but less at predicting the directional impacts of known events, onto which we then superimpose the unforseen onces which will inevitably occur
I've said it a number of times over the last 2 years. Some of my view - not everything I believe - is explained here:
Not fatalistic nihilism Ru, though I can perhaps see how that label is easier to quickly be dismissive of than the label of ‘optimist’.
I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers.
Aptly you mention it, because to me it actually seems more fatalistic to remain in the EU and accept situation normal no change - i.e. an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction. The EU is a fine idea and institution. I just don’t believe they should ever have been allowed the power to govern member states to the extent they now do. Better as mostly a free trade organisation - trade, standards, harmonisation all good things and came out of a desire to avoid future major conflicts.
I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
Pete that's a very nice articulation of what this debate is all about. I agree with Ru though.
Trouble is because each side has staked out their position before it's clear what the risks or benefits actually might really be, as and when evidence emerges that supports one or the other, people spend more time trying to rubbish the evidence than engage with it. Lots of confirmation bias.
Which is why I can't remember seeing anything that suggested any concrete benefits that might emerge from 'being in control of our own destiny', and why Leavers can't see that any of the risks have any substance.
How do Leavers on this thread feel about a second referendum once it's clear what we're getting from whatever deal is negotiated?
My feeling is that this would be fair? I've drawn an analogy before between this and a small island with 15 people where 8 voted one way and 7 the other. My feeling is that in this situation everyone would try to reconcile rather than saying put up and shut up. It's only easy to do that because most of the opposition seem faceless and anonymous. Or are annoying figurehead politicos.
-
Economic policy has been likened to driving a car using only the rear view mirror. Both the brake and the accelerator take 6 to 12 months to have any significant effect the extent of which is uncertain.
Love this!
I also find it very hard to drive using only the rear view mirror. How stupid would that be? And therefore, it only takes me a tiny leap of logic to dismiss all economic policy as stupid. thank you.
-
"I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers. " - That's an economic forecast though, isn't it. Which you just said was a dumb thing to base anything on. If we're going to base decisions on dumb things then let's at least base them on the least dumb things out of a bad bunch, like I said above.
"an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction" - guess we should all devolve into council run areas then? All this kind of argument strikes me as wishy-washy non-issue bull. But I guess that's where we differ
-
So what internal forecast made you vote Brexit, if not an economic one (genuinely interested, I didn't bother with the first 500 million posts on here so missed you reasoning somewhat)?
Pete's position is clear - although I might get it wrong :wall:
There's a good chance it's going to be better if we leave but leaving is scary. The scary is why you're remoaning. The chance is worth the risk.The good & better is why 52% voted leave.
Maybe it's like leaving a job that is a bit shit but OK. It's stressful and hard work finding a new job. A new job might be worse but you'll only find out when you leave. Some would stay put, others would make the move.
-
It seems - given that forecasting is apparently pointless - that it's more like deciding to leave your current job for a new job which you get assigned in a raffle. I suspect that that's not really true, and it's just that Pete backs his internal forecast more than that of the forecasters...
-
Economic forecasting is not entirely pointless but it is an inexact science and the further out you try to go the less exact it becomes. Ergo, in any putative second referendum, which heaven forefend, folk will be voting with their hearts or gut feelings as they did in the first. Issues like immigration are a bit different but still impossible to quantify in the, not too distant, future though even in the real referendum some folk had felt impacts that swayed their views.
-
Ergo, in any putative second referendum, which heaven forefend, folk will be voting with their hearts or gut feelings as they did in the first. Issues like immigration are a bit different but still impossible to quantify in the, not too distant, future though even in the real referendum some folk had felt impacts that swayed their views.
Except once an actual deal has been hashed out, it would be a lot harder for the leading leave proponents to pretend that the land of milk and honey is just the other side of the decision. As such folk may find their guts rumbling and their hearts palpitating away from their initial choice.
-
"I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers. " - That's an economic forecast though, isn't it. Which you just said was a dumb thing to base anything on. If we're going to base decisions on dumb things then let's at least base them on the least dumb things out of a bad bunch, like I said above.
"an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction" - guess we should all devolve into council run areas then? All this kind of argument strikes me as wishy-washy non-issue bull. But I guess that's where we differ
Bloody hell Alex for someone versed in how the cosmos works you've a shoddy grasp of comprehending others' points of view. Why do you have to go to absolutes? Oh yeah.. so you can argue against a point I wasn't making.
Perhaps we'd all get along fine in some simplistic parallel universe (perhaps you've spotted it in your lab?) where every significant political or economic decision was made according to 'Authoritative Predication Machine #1' (backed up by APM #2 in case of power failure). We could get on with life, without having to decide what we thought about anything outside our direct day-to-day knowledge. We could all just get on with training for climbing. But the prediction machine doesn't work for unprecedented complexity like brexit. I can't imagine how shit life would be if we always knew what was coming next.
Highrepute - not a bad analogy that. What's missing is the ideological element - the belief about ''an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction''.
Some have strong beliefs about immigration. I'm not so concerned about that but I'm not in an area where it impacts me. I do think a country should have a bit more control over who it allows in than is currently an option as a member of the EU (over/above the '3-month rule'). I fail to see how you can justify accepting every resident from a country within the EU if they choose to come and work, but not from say Morocco. What delineates someone as desirable - a blue flag with stars on?
I don't have strong views on the economics. I don't strongly believe we'll do better outside the EU - I just don't believe we'll do any worse. Especially longer term - over five-ten years from now. While opening up economic possibilities worldwide that staying in the EU doesn't allow. Two years from now? - sure, I think we'll experience some negative effects on growth. But I don't believe the sky will fall in.. Why not? - because resourceful people adapt to change, they deal with adversity and they make the most of new opportunities.
-
Pete,
I think what you're missing is Alex's point that you're voting based on an economic forecast; in this case your own. I can understand your political preference for 'freedom' from the EU, and I appreciate this is the biggest reason why you voted the way you did. But - would you still have voted to leave if you genuinely thought the sky would fall in, banks would fail, 10% unemployment, etc, all for the next 50 years? I'd like to think not...
So an economic prediction does underpin your voting decision, and why is yours any better than the more pessimistic ones? Personally, I find your panglossian economic view remarkable given the groundswell of educated opinion in the opposite direction.
Yes, you're correct that things have not been quite so bad as forecasts predicted at the time. But you don't consider all the other things not in those forecasts; such as the unexpected growth of the G6, and the fact that the BoE spent over 200 Bn after the pound crashed (the equivalent of more than 60 years of membership subs) to support the British economy. Maybe they're the reason the economy is surviving, and not that Brexit is going to be fine.
I can agree with you that the outcome is uncertain and unknown, but the balance of probabilities certainly suggests a shit outcome as opposed to a good one.
What makes these debates hard I think is that people on both sides are strongly persuaded by the halo effect; because you think leaving the EU is a good idea, you are strongly persuaded by evidence that fits that picture, so you downplay negative economic evidence. This makes it easy for you to have an optimistic economic outlook. Meanwhile, everyone else's brain is playing the opposite trick, so Ru sees all the valid legal issues with arranging the WTO schedules and panics, and downplays suggestions that some non-optimal fudge will allow people to keep trading next year somehow.
-
What Stu said (far more eloquently and less combatively than me)
-
the BoE spent over 200 Bn after the pound crashed (the equivalent of more than 60 years of membership subs) to support the British economy.
Whoa. QE isn’t spending money. It’s more like making a loan to the markets that will be repaid. EU subs however is spending money (some of which will come back in grants etc).
QE also wasn’t just driven by sterling weakness if that was a connection you were also making.
-
QE was a minor component of the stimulus announced by the bank, which included cutting interest rates, buying back corporate debt and a huge funding scheme that allowed banks to borrow at extremely favourable rates.
Edit: also, you can argue that the difference between a repayed loan and the EU subs is that with the EU subs you get the money back (in terms of improved GDP) *and* the things the subs payed for - economic development schemes, cities of culture, science funding etc.
-
Whoa. QE isn’t spending money.
No, it's better, it's making magic new money!
-
Perhaps Omar Khayyam (and Fitzgerald) had it right.
Then to the rolling Heav’n itself I cried,
Asking, “ What lamp had Destiny to guide
Her little children stumbling in the Dark?”
And - “A blind understanding “ Heav’n replied.
-
Stu. What's the point underlying yours/Alex's though? That I made a decision using my internal decision-making processes. Is that even worth pointing out?
So yes, I chose to give less weight to economic forecasts that foretold of woe and doom; while Alex chose to give them more weight. But I'm not just putting my finger in the air and closing my eyes - as seems to be the implication that if you don't follow economic forecast x then you're basically a loose canon.
I'm hardly alone in the belief that economic forecasting is a woefully inaccurate line of business. It's almost a surprise they get paid for being so inaccurate but this is the self-justifying financial sector we're talking about. And I'm not alone in the belief that some economic forecasting houses are politically biased. Basically, for anyone who thinks an economic forecast beyond the next three months (and even some of those have been out) is worth the time then I advise doing some research on historical accuracy of forecasters. Especially if the forecast goes beyond 12 months. They're an extremely flimsy basis on which to make a decision - just as mine would be if all I based my decision on was 'I think we'll be at x-growth economically in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years etc.'.
Balance of probabilities I agree suggests we'll experience some downturn in the short term. Beyond that nobody can possibly know.
-
I guess it's that you seem quite sanguine about the economic prospects when the overwhelming opinion of "experts" is against you.
I also think you're guilty of making the classic "weather/climate" mistake. It's one thing to accept that all forecasts will be very poor 12 months on, but that's in an absolute sense. It's a lot easier to be confident in a prediction that brexit will have a negative impact on GDP than it is to say exactly where GDP will be 12 months time, in exactly the same way it's easier to say it will be hot in summer than to say whether it will rain on friday.
I agree with you entirely about the long run, by the way, but you know what Keynes said about that...
-
He even proved it! Although I hope to be around in 10 years, maybe even 20 though that could be pushing my luck.
edit: I've just looked up the full quote:
''The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.''
-
I agree with Stu.
When we model the weather we try to take into account everything we know that contributes to changes in weather patterns. We understand the things that contribute to the weather very well, sufficnetly well that we can make a pretty decent prediction of what the weather will be like in 24 hours time. However, the system is inherently chaotic and so long term changes are essentially impossible to predict, regardless of how much you know about the system or how powerful your computer is. Random fluctuations can lead to large pertubations.
These are significant to you, as an individual on a microscopic level. When you look at the weather you want to know if it will rain tomorrow.
Climate, on the other hand, we also have a (pretty) good understanding of the factors that contribute to its behaviour. For example, we know exaclty how CO2 and CH4 absorb infrared radiation, and precisely the wavelengths this occurs at and how strongly they absorb. From this we can make long term predictions about how a change in the concentration of the gases can influence long term trends in global temperature. Again, the system is complex, but overwhelmingly given the many contributing factors, feedback loops, etc, we can predict that the global average temperature will increase which will lead to extremes in weather, sea level change, etc. There are different predictions about what CO2 concentration will cause what change in temperature, but we know the net effect is bad. This is change on the macroscopic level.
This analogy is transferable to Brexit. We are unable to accurately predict long term economic trends on a microscopic level, e.g. how will Apple be doing in 3 years time? There are too many pertubations in the economy to predict it well, will Samsung sue them? Will people stop buying Macbooks because they removed the headphone socket? Will aluminium prices soar due to the Trump?
But on a macroscopic level, we can make predictions about the general economy with relative accuracy. Admittedly, we (i.e. me) perhaps don't "understand" the economic system as well as the environmental one, so in some respects it is more difficult to model. Afterall, the environmental system comes down to the laws of physics, we understand the CO2 molecule. Human behaviour is far less predictable than the vibrations of the bonds in CO2.
We can however make predictions of our economy based on what we know now about our current system (i.e. being in the EU) and the alternative available systems (hard brexit, soft whatever), and studying past events and retrospectively quantifying the effects of specific changes. For example, we know what we trade with the EU currently and we can estimate how this might change after leaving the EU, because we have a rough idea of which sectors might up-sticks and move to Europe (e.g. finance and the automotive industry), and how this will change our overall tax revenue. Based on past data from ourselves and other countres, we can also estimate how a change in the value of the pound will influence our economy based on what it is we import and export now.
The thing is, I'm on very shaky ground here. I don't understand the economy, I haven't studied economics and its too bloody complicated. I have studied the climate, and I appreciate the complexity of that system. I understand that we can predict macroscopic behaviour of complex systems pretty well, although the error bars get bigger as you predict further into the future. But we cannot predict microscopic systems even a few time steps into the future.
The post brexit UK economy is macroscopic. The prediction from most economists (i.e. some of the only people qualified to make the assesment) is that the UK will be worse off in the future. For the next 10 years, the error bars are small. We will certainly be worse off, error bars show it ranges between extremely painful and slightly painful. For the next 50 years, well, the prediction is more difficult as the effects of other pertubations become larger (e.g. climate change, changes in other economies). Yet still, the net effect of Brexit over those timescales is likely to be negative.
I mean seriously, who do you bet on? The economists who (although they may not be able to control it) have an understanding of the knobs and levers of their complex system? Or the brexiters, who have proven themselves to be utterly shambolic...?
-
Some have strong beliefs about immigration. I'm not so concerned about that but I'm not in an area where it impacts me. I do think a country should have a bit more control over who it allows in than is currently an option as a member of the EU (over/above the '3-month rule')
I thought we were allowed to inflict harsher immigration rules than this by the EU, but our "sovereign government" chose not to? I.e the main thing lots of gammon faced xenophobes voted for is twaddle.
See https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.html
-
Stepping back to the “Second referendum” issue, for moment.
I have to say I, personally, think it a terrible idea.
Because Plebiscites suck, as evidenced by the first one...
However, the irony that some are all too happy to accept the results of the first as some sort of gospel, but object to a second, or suggest that the first was conclusive, but then assert that a second at similar split, would not be conclusive, etc, etc, is pretty stunning.
Or, to Pete’s “let the government, govern” thing: What if the Government simply decided that the whole thing was bad for the country, and halted the process?
I suspect, what you actually meant was, the government should enact the result of the first referendum, regardless of their knowledge or of their own conscience...
-
People’s approval tends to reflect whether they like the outcome rather than the merits of the process.
-
Stepping back to the “Second referendum” issue, for moment.
I have to say I, personally, think it a terrible idea.
Because Plebiscites suck, as evidenced by the first one...
However, the irony that some are all too happy to accept the results of the first as some sort of gospel, but object to a second, or suggest that the first was conclusive, but then assert that a second at similar split, would not be conclusive, etc, etc, is pretty stunning.
Or, to Pete’s “let the government, govern” thing: What if the Government simply decided that the whole thing was bad for the country, and halted the process?
I suspect, what you actually meant was, the government should enact the result of the first referendum, regardless of their knowledge or of their own conscience...
You're free to suspect whatever you like Matt, but you don't speak for me.
What ifs are just that. You can conjecture all you like it doesn't achieve much.
It isn't sensible or accurate to use the label 'irony' to describe the expectation that the result of a referendum which had a 72.2% turnout - dwarfing the turnouts for most recent general elections - with the result being 52% in favor of leaving the EU, to be followed through without re-running the referendum. It simply isn't irony by any measure.
What *IS* hugely ironic though is this post-2008 new-found faith in economic forecasters by people upset by leaving the EU as a means to validate their fears about something they don't like.
Anyone using economic forecasters to validate their fear for the future really owes it to themselves to research what they're basing their views on.
-
Economic forecasters...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2017/jan/08/economic-forecasts-hardwired-get-things-wrong
''It took the Queen to show that the emperor had no clothes. On a visit to the London School of Economics in November 2008, when a second Great Depression was looming large, she asked a simple but devastating question: why did nobody see it coming?
Almost a decade later, the Queen might be tempted to lob another grenade at the economics fraternity: why did you get it wrong again about Brexit?
In fairness, the economics profession had its Cassandras in the run-up to the financial crisis and not all economists thought a vote to leave on 23 June meant instant Armageddon. Even so, it is a valid question. How can it be that the not to mention the vast majority of academic economists, all predicted so confidently and yet so wrongly that the UK economy would plunge straight into a stonking great recession after a Brexit vote?
On both occasions, economists have been guilty of groupthink. On both occasions they pretend to have forecasting powers that don’t really exist. As the economist Paul Ormerod points out, in the short term it is nigh-on impossible to sort out genuine information from noise. Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, last week compared his profession to poor old Michael Fish, who insisted there would be no hurricane on the eve of the biggest storm to hit southern England in living memory.
Meteorology has moved on in the past three decades: the use of satellite technology has made forecasting more reliable. The same cannot be said of economic forecasting, which is no better now than it was half a century ago.
The models, however sophisticated, don’t work awfully well, particularly when big shocks occur. And that, of course, is when they are needed most. The “great moderation” – the period in the 1990s and 2000s when growth was steady and inflation low – lulled economists into a false sense of security.
There are lessons to be learned. The past is not a reliable guide to the future. The consensus is not always right. Economic forecasting is not a hard science, even though it pretends that it is.
The fallback position for those who said the sky would instantly fall in after the referendum is that they were right about everything apart from the timing. Armageddon has been postponed, not cancelled. The consensus is that in the long term there will be a sizable and permanent hit to the economy from Brexit, caused by a loss of trade and inward investment. The Treasury’s central forecast is that the cost of leaving the EU is an economy that will be 6% smaller in 2030 than it would be under the status quo.
Yet models are only as good as the information they process: garbage in equals garbage out. The garbage factor increases if forecasts are designed to serve a political end, as was the case with both sides during the referendum campaign.
A new Cambridge University study* shows that forecasting the medium to long term can be just as prone to error as forecasting the short term. Their argument is simple. Leaving the EU is a unique event. No other country has tried to do it. There is no past experience to draw on, which means that the best forecasters can do is construct “a series of scenarios based on assumptions about future trading arrangements, migration controls and about the short-term uncertainties which could affect business investment in the run-up to the likely leaving date of 2019”.
This is what the Treasury purportedly did in its study of the long-term impact of leaving the EU, published last April. It concluded that leaving, but remaining a member of the single market, would carry a 3.8% of GDP cost after 15 years; leaving with a negotiated bilateral trade deal would cost 6.2%; while having access to the single market on the same terms as any other member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would cost of 7.5% of GDP.
The Treasury used what is known as gravity modelling to come to these conclusions. So do other forecasters, such as the IMF, which is why once they have all crunched the numbers they all come up with the same result.
Gravity modelling is Newtonian physics adapted for economic forecasting. Just as the attraction between two heavenly bodies is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, so the volume of trade and the amount of foreign direct investment between two countries depends on how big and how geographically close they are.
Using this approach, the Treasury says there would be a 43% loss of trade with the EU were the UK to revert to WTO rules, and because almost half the UK’s trade is with the EU this would result in a 24% loss in total trade. The assumption is that there has been a 76% increase in UK trade as a result of membership of the EU and that all of these gains would be lost. There would be no gains in trade with non-EU countries to compensate for the loss.
How plausible is this? Not very, according to the Cambridge economists. They note that the share of UK exports going to Europe peaked in the late 1980s and has been falling in recent years as a result of weak demand in the eurozone. EU external tariffs average only 3% and the Treasury forecasts take no account of movements in the exchange rate. The Cambridge paper estimates that the 15% drop in the value of sterling since the referendum would be enough to offset the impact of a 10% external tariff on cars, which perhaps explains why the government has been able to persuade Nissan to build a new model in Sunderland.
The paper expresses similar doubts about the Treasury forecasts for inward investment, since they are heavily influenced by the wave of capital attracted by the ultra-cheap labour on offer in eastern Europe after the collapse of communism.
Using different but still relatively pessimistic assumptions, the Cambridge study says the loss peaks at 3% of GDP early in the 2020s. The loss of GDP per head is smaller – never much more than 1% – and soon recovers.''
-
The Cambridge paper referenced in the article above.
http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp483revised.pdf
Abstract.
''This working paper uses the new CBR macro-economic model of the UK economy to investigate possible futures following the referendum decision to leave the EU. The paper briefly explains why we felt the necessity to build a new model and describes some of its key features. Since Brexit is a unique event with no precedent it is not possible to do a normal forecast in which a few assumptions are made about a limited range of exogenous variables. The best that can be done is to construct scenarios and two are presented here. The difficult part is to decide what scale of adjustment is needed to reflect the likely realities of Brexit. Gravity model analysis by HM Treasury of the potential impact of various outcomes for trade outside the EU is examined and found wanting. The gravity model approach is replicated but with data only from the UK’s main trade partners and not from a large number of emerging economies with which the UK does little trade. The results suggest that the approach is unstable but the impact, if anything, of EU membership on UK trade is much less than suggested by the Treasury.
In addition the actual experience of UK export performance is examined for a long period including both pre- and post- accession years. This augments the gravity model results in suggesting a more limited impact of EU membership. While we include a scenario based on Treasury assumptions, a more realistic, although in our view still pessimistic, scenario assumes a much lower level of the trade loss than that of the Treasury. The results are presented through comparing these scenarios with a pre-referendum forecast. In the milder Brexit scenario there is a 2% loss of GDP by 2025 but little loss of per capita GDP, and also less unemployment but more inflation. In the more severe, Treasury based scenario the loss of GDP is nearer 5% (2% for per capita GDP), inflation is higher and the gain in unemployment is less.''
I think that's a half-decent rebuttal of Stu's and ButterworthTom's points about accuracy of economic forecasts and the climate/meteorology analogy. Of course provided by economists so I can be discounted by my own logic.
-
You keep redirecting to economic forecasters, like it's only a subset of economists who are warning about the negative effects of leaving the EU, when it is in fact the majority of businesses, BoE etc. etc.
Plenty of forecasters are currently talking about another financial crisis looming, with unsecured debt at levels way above 2008.
-
Oh come on guys, you know Pete is right.
Nobody involved in Economics, Finance or international Business, has the slightest clue.
Because they haven’t always been right.
And citing an overwhelming body of evidence and forecasts that don’t square with Brexiteer positions is ironic.
Because it hasn’t happened yet and no one can know until is has.
But, nothing very bad is going to happen, because the forcasts were wrong, because it has already happened in 2016 and the world didn’t end.
Pick your argument.
In the end, we’ll find out. What we are doing now is placing bets and weighing odds.
Balance of evidence suggests the “good stuff” is a longshot.
-
You don't get to post and then say "no, no" I don't want to engage. Either be quiet or say what you mean and expect to be challenged (or perhaps agreed with, you never know). Sorry Pete, but you've come across as an arsehole on this.
?? Bit uncalled for. I thought I made it clear I only posted in reply to Matt's asking 'any flaws', to make a witty retort (aka unfunny joke). Not any engagement in any so-called 'debate'.
Some people need to chill out. No need to be a dick just because the world seems to be falling apart. It's always been so.
On reflection, that was a bit over the top, so apologies from me. I've also wadded you to keep the karmic balance. Still think you're wrong on Brexit but I guess we'll all find out in due course!
-
:thumbsup:
-
So Pete, this Cambridge paper that gives results you like. If GDP is down but GDP per capita not so much, surely this means the population has decreased. I’m guessing that this means lots of EU citizens leaving.
Now, ignoring the dramatic upheavals in many lives that this represents, and which you good, good Brexiters always appear so sanguine about, does the model include the effects of losing lots of skilled workers? Or does it just focus on trade?
-
Haha, nice re-framing there Sean.
I can play that game:
'The paper that gives results you don't like'
How about trying to view the paper through objective eyes... From what I can tell - as a clueless layman - they've put forward a solid evidence based case and gone into the failings of their own profession and explained how it can be done more accurately. Is there an agenda there beyond truth-seeking? A conflict of interest? Read their paper and tell me why you think they're wrong.
And how about viewing the accuracy of *all* economic forecasts/forecasters with the same level of scrutiny and scepticism an academically minded person should employ when looking through any evidence..
Because if we were discussing a less passionate topic on UKB - like nutrition advice, or Latticeboard training advice - and the evidence presented to support a belief in 'xyz' was of the quality of the record of economic forecasting, then someone would quite rightly point out how weak that evidence was.
Yet people in this debate readily justify their worldview by accepting forecasts by pseudo-scientists who going by any accepted norms of testing their theory and comparing with the reality, should be discredited or treated with extreme scepticism at least.
-
The venerable economist Patrick Minford is worth a google in this context.
-
The venerable economist Patrick Minford is worth a google in this context.
Christ on a bike, his favoured model might lead to cheaper goods but it's an acknowledged (by him) part of the model that it will lead to decimation of much of UK manufacturing and agriculture although I guess in time we can turn build plenty of battery farming sheds on our green and pleasant land.
-
Pete, but tight for time here as I’m supposed to be going to a wine tasting in Tuscany, but I’ve skim read the paper, much of what seems to be a debunking of the Treasury models and an argument that UK accession to the EU made no difference to trade. It seems to ignore services (unless I misunderstood the data sets they are using - it’s difficult to check those on a phone sat by a pool), and this analysis also depends upon data for U.K. trade with all the EU 28 since 1950.
They don’t show their model in detail but they do outline their assumptions. A few jumped out immediately:
They assume net EU migration to fall to zero by 2019. This is unlikely, in part because it would knacker the NHS, but essentially you now know your argument that “Brexit won’t be so bad” requires the NHS to be denuded of staff.
They assume all UK exports to the EU lost as a result of Brexit will be replaced in 20 years. As I understand it (I might be wrong) many of our exports are products which are created as part of pan-EU supply chains. We aren’t going to have just in time manufacturing with the US.
They “arbitrarily” assume a 10% loss in EU exports, a sixth of the Treasury’s assumption. Are the results benign because the assumptions are benign? You be the judge.
Just read a section on the model, it doesn’t include a lot of standard macro model elements (profit maximising behaviour by firms, expectations) but consists of a series of econometric relationships based on past UK data. They then go on to say Brexit is totally new so we can’t use the past data on trade which the Treasury’s gravity model relies upon. So they’re using past data to build a model that is needed because past data isn’t useful in this context.
There may be good answers to these points, of course.
Anyhow since you seem quite exercised by economics and forecasting, do you have a view on conditional vs non-conditional modelling?
-
And to answer my own question, no, they don’t cover the effect on productivity caused by having a much more closed labour market.
I look forward to an argument that the bureaucrats who deport British citizens will be able to accurately select productivity enhancing employees.
-
Here is an updated version of this paper from this year
https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp493.pdf
Just started reading it, and thought it was worth making sure people read the most recent draft (2018), rather than 2016 version.
Interestingly the introduction to this more recent draft explains that despite their findings the authors were mostly remain supporters and would still be remain supporters if there was another vote.
I appreciate the work of these economists to question the pessimistic post-Brexit forecasts, and will now get back to it.
Cheers Pete for posting the report up.
-
I'm a bit rushed myself Sean as I've shortly to pop out to keep on oiling the wheels of industry here in the northern powerhouse... but an initial review of your post seems to show you're trying to pick up flaws in the author's logic and debunk their model, while highlighting my lack of professional economic modelling credentials.
Your specific concerns about the assumptions behind the paper's model are better directed to the authors of the paper:
Graham Gudgin: gg14@cam.ac.uk
Ken Coutts: kjc1@cam.ac.uk
Neil Gibson - EY Ireland
The credentials of the authors of that paper seem to be rock-solid. Do you know otherwise? Let us all know on here what answers you get to your questions about their model.
While you're questioning the assumptions underlying this paper's model, will you be objective and apply equal scrutiny to the assumptions underlying the Treasury model? As this paper does.
To your question about my view on conditional v non-conditional modelling - I wouldn't know the difference if one or the other approached me and offered to pose. But your querying of my knowledge of modelling has nothing at all to do with the point I'm making, and everything to do with you trying to play the man not the ball - a sign of a weak argument.
My point is:
There's no doubt that the profession of economic modelling/forecasting has been shown up to be seriously lacking in credibility, not just about brexit but for a long time. You don't need to have a working knowledge of the nuts and bolts of economic modelling to see how completely flawed forecasts have proven to be. Therefore it doesn't take a Keynes to question the underlying basis for people's fears post-brexit, if they're basing those fears on said economic forecasts.
In the author's words:
The short-term forecasts of the Treasury and OECD, which have turned out to be wrong, have further damaged the already weak public confidence in economists’ contributions to public debate. Our paper is not necessarily an argument in favour of Brexit. But it will cast doubt on traditional economic modelling and it does question the ability of the economics profession to provide high quality policy analysis on issues of national importance.
As I've said all the way through, the economic argument isn't my primary concern. But I've seen nothing about the economic side of things since June 2016 that's made me doubt my views.
Enjoy your Tuscan wine-tasting. I'll be supping Guiness in Wicklow.
-
Read their paper and tell me why you think they're wrong.
...
And how about viewing the accuracy of *all* economic forecasts/forecasters with the same level of scrutiny and scepticism an academically minded person should employ when looking through any evidence..
Erm, I was only doing what you asked. I’ve told you objectively why I think they are wrong. It’s not my fault if the study you are trumpeting as proving your view correct assumes that net migration is zero and hence the NHS is buggered if it wants to employ more nurses. That’s just part of the short run disruption no?
As for viewing economic forecasts with scrutiny, a key part of that is the difference between unconditional forecasts (tea leaves) and conditional forecasts (much more useful). There’s lots about this online and you can easily research it. Since you have a clear opinion on economic forecasts I’d assume you also have an opinion on this.
But, as the paper you quote argues, poor assumptions lead to poor understanding of reality.
-
Nothing you've just said addressed my point. What I know or don't know about conditional/unconditional models is totally irrelevant to the point I made.
You're mistaking me highlighting an alternative view, for me saying I believe that view *must* be correct. I'm not. I've never argued for economic sunlit uplands. I actually accept brexit probably means an economic hit, at least in the short-term.
I'm pointing out that a lot of the negative views expressed on here and elsewhere by people worried about the future have their source in pessimistic economic stories stemming from a few influential well-publicised forecasts. Correct?
Those forecasts have been scrutinised and their assumptions questioned. In what appears to me - an unqualified dumb-ass in economic modelling as you're helpfully implying - to be an objective and even-handed way by qualified people who's credentials, unlike mine, are rock solid. And who don't have a political agenda just an agenda to be as objective as they can be. This is worth pointing out.
Our conclusion is that most estimates of the impact of Brexit in the UK, both short-term and long-term, have exaggerated the degree of potential damage to the UK economy. We stress at this point that this is not a politically-driven exercise. Most of the four-person team behind the research for this and our other papers voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum and would do so again if given the chance. Our purpose is rather to establish a sound basis for the ongoing debate on the likely potential economic impact of Brexit, and more generally to question the quality of economic analysis in dealing with major, macroeconomic policy issue like Brexit.
No doubt it doesn't sit easily with you or lots of others that it's me pointing it out, because 'well I would wouldn't I'. But nobody else I've seen on here or among 'remainers' is pointing it out. Probably because it doesn't sit comfortably with their worldview, or because they haven't put that much effort into questioning their view and researching alternatives.
-
As far as I can see. Pete, that cambridge paper and numerous government, economists and business reports all agree that Brexit will be bad for the UK economy - it seems almost everyone, leave or remain is agreed on this - they just disagree to what extent.
This a far cry from the promises plastered on buses prior to the referendum. This is what pisses me off. Where's the good news?
-
Never fear James, you'll be free of the tyranny of Brussels and can revel in your newfound sovereignty.. which will be great... for some reason.
-
:wank:
Dyson to build his new electric car in Singapore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377 (http://Dyson to build his new electric car in Singapore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377)
-
:wank:
Dyson to build his new electric car in Singapore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377)
Working link.
-
:wank:
Dyson to build his new electric car in Singapore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950377)
Working link.
Cheers.
Dunno what was wrong the first time.
I’m sure Dyson’s views and decisions are not at all based on disadvantaging his competition.
This is the first day I’ve sat down to read the papers in weeks and this Telegraph article reminded me of a snippet I caught on one or other TV channel (presented as “balance” to the People’s vote march). The clip was the Farage twat, drinking in a bar, with some fellas of my age; who were gleefully telling the reporter that “it’s abiut time we got back to being the British Empire” and that “there are 2 billion people in the Empire, we don’t need Europe”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/22/former-summer-capital-india-renamed-end-mental-slavery-british/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1540211748 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/22/former-summer-capital-india-renamed-end-mental-slavery-british/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1540211748)