We're all doooooomed: Gloomy Brit workforce really isn't coping well with impending Brexit Employee confidence in the UK has fallen for the third consecutive quarter and the number of workers actively looking for new jobs is down 8 per cent as people hunker down for the perceived storms ahead. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. In the UK, GDP fell 0.2 per cent in the second quarter …
I'm not sure how reliable a metric "likely to stay with current employer is". For European companies with a presence in the UK, employees' sentiment might well be that it's better to jump ship to a more UK-centric company now before the job market gets flooded with employees let go from European companies who decide to move away from the UK.
I can think of at least one company which has stated an intention to withdraw from the UK in the event of no-deal/bad-deal.
In 2016 I left my employer, large US financial institution that had publicly said it would lose ~30% of it's UK workforce, after the vote -- as my function was likely to be one that would go. Three years later, current employer has very similar plans for a no-deal scenario. They have hotel accommodation reserved in an EU27 financial centre. This time I decided to hang on in hopes of some redundancy, though.
I feel your pain - hope things work out for you.
Just out of curiosity...did you get notified of your employer's plans first or did you find out about your potential unemployment through the mainstream news media after the public announcement? not that I speak from bitter experience or anything....
>I'm thinking the Channel Islands. It's a bit like France but with decent chips and beer. The only risk is that when the Disunited Kingdom of England and Wales becomes Singapore-at-Sea there'll no longer be much reason to launder money through Jersey.
You might find that you need money to move there. Unless you get a job qualifying for residency, you'll be on the open market and an arm+leg for a 1 bed flat. Any medical conditions will add a few £00s onto the quote for medical insurance as they haven't got an NHS either.
I wonder what they do with it all.
Infrastructure for tiny islands is not going to be as much as for great nations;
probably they haven't fallen into the Welfare State trap of looking after the people who aren't millionaires;
and I doubt the local democratic politicians are corrupt, any more than say those of the Isle of Wight.
Contingency planning for when Climate Changes forces them on great arkes for places new ?
"Infrastructure for tiny islands is not going to be as much as for great nations"
Partly true, but they have the same requirements as a larger island or continent...Just on a smaller scale. They also have less residents to tax for it, build it, and can't generally afford the grander things, like island-spanning bridges, internet infrastructure, flood defenses (especially with rising seas from climate change).
probably they haven't fallen into the Welfare State trap of looking after the people who aren't millionaires;
While totally missing the trap that millionaires are several exponents more efficient than normal people at sucking up taxpayers money and that millionaires are not likely to spend any of it on the locals!
I've been to Jersey a number of times and whilst its a great place to holiday for a week I wouldn't want to live there. Its way too small and far too little to do long term. Anyone used to a big city or large amounts of countryside will soon get claustrophobia and a feeling of being trapped living on that small island.
In the same way that "1984" became a manual, not a prophecy, "Idiocracy" is becoming a prophecy, not a movie...
"I'm thinking of Portugal"
Good idea - two friends of mine did that a few years ago and seem v happy in Lisbon. Language not the easiest to learn but doable. Weather rather more clement than Wales and Scotland where they used to live. He was suprised to discover that some of the local folk music is actually similar to the stuff he heard in Scotland as a young lad - Celtic influences in both areas.
The in-laws have a place in the Algarve and its very nice there but I fear it is near breaking point as in the locals can no longer afford to live there - indeed the restaurants ten years ago you could spend all night in over food and wine costing 20 or 30 quid will skin you for that and boot ease you out after an hour and a half or so. A lot of the area burnt last year as well.
Still better a bomb site there!
Information on retirement and on non habitual residents in general.
“The population is not so stupid”
Typical arrogant remainder comment. They were so smug and satisfied about the righteousness of staying in the EU they never bothered explaining why it was a good idea.
They dismissed the leavers as a bunch of ignorant yobs and totally ignored their complaints.
Then they were surprised that the peasants revolted.
As I have said before it’s class warefare, the professional classes and bosses benefited greatly from the EU. The working classes were so screwed over they would take any opportunity to take down the smug elitists at Westminster and the BBC — even though most of thier discomfort was due to George Osbourne. The upper classes just wanted thier toys back.
You should remember that the UK joined the EEC in the 1970s largely to insulate itself from the effects of globalisation. The UK also drove ideas like trade liberalisation and financial deregultion. The first hit low-skilled manual labour in the manufacturing sector particularly hard, the second made it easier to move money, and hence production offshore, which is the main reason why British Coal collapsed. The UK was also an enthusiastic backer of EU expansion.
But even the low-paid have been net beneficiaries of EU membership. Workers from over the EU came to the UK to do jobs that Brits couldn't or wouldn't do – there was negligible job displacement – which was essential for agriculture and the NHS. Tax receipts also far outweigh and current and future claims (pensions, healthcare).
But for around 20 years many people have seen their standard of living stagnate or decline, and it's not surprising that in an era of change, people saw the agents of change as the cause. This was helped by opportunistic and scrupleless politicians blaming the EU for anything unpopular. It wasn't the EU that caused BSE and it wasn't the EU that introduced zero-hour contracts, or the banks to collapse, all of which can be traced to lax British regulation and oversight.
But if I could point to a single thing, apart from the condescesion in the face of indignation, it was Germany's decision in 2015 to break EU law and open the borders to migrants. This decision, independent of any moral arguments (I think Cameron's idea of taking people directly from camps had more merit and is probably what we will eventually do), gave populists throughout the EU the argument they needed to point the finger and fan the flames of discontent.
Just reinforces my point. David Cameron could hardly say “its not Junkers fault it’s my old school mate Osbourne who is for responsible for your misery” hence the pathetic remainder campaign.
Off course labour could have exploited this had they not been been led by a party apparat check who could not pay attention to anyone but the small clerk who put him there.
You lost the public voted just accept it.
"You lost the public voted just accept it."
GE2017 was not exactly a ringing endorsement of Mrs May's approach to bexit, just accept it.
Seriously, this is not a football game.
One Mr Dominic Cummings has written a very nice summary of how much of a coin toss the referendum was on his blog.
Google for "On the referendum #21: Branching histories of the 2016 referendum and ‘the frogs before the storm’" and be prepared to read the cached version if the direct link stops working.
https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
Given the thin mandate, one would have expected a very soft brexit coupled with a slow divergence over say 10 years. Alas, the internal dynamics of the Tory party made such a conservative approach impossible. Irony can be enjoyed sometimes.
The election went exactly as may planned it. Look at every announcement she made during the may focussed campaign, it was deliberately a plan to lose, or at least nearly lose the election. From that no conservative majority therefore no chance of pursuing brexit. She then spent 3 years creating a bring with the devastating side effects of giving the EU even more than if we had stayed at the same time getting even less. Indeed Johnson's current problems are a result of her election so she has managed to screw the next pm as well as the while damned country
And just today the financial Times is reporting yet more calls for a common European budget. Remainers, you lost because the lies of 1975 are exposed, the United States of Europe and the demise of the UK and guaranteed if we remain. Note when we do that the eu want private health care like they have in Germany so the nh will also go - probably bough by one of the very expensive highly profitable German health insurance companies. As with all purchases of British companies by European ones this will mean redundancies and jobs moving abroad
"demise of the UK and guaranteed if we remain. Note when we do that the eu want private health care like they have in Germany so the nh will also go"
There are no plans for any of this. The German health system is insurance based, yes, but if you cant afford it you still get treated, unlike the US system. The EU doesn't give a fig what healthcare system we have, nor are they interested in demolishing member states or creating an army or any of the junk you seem to believe. Purchasing British companies? Well, that's capitalism for you. Are you suggesting some kind of state intervention by the British government, maybe a nationalisation program to stop private companies buying and selling other private companies? You don't strike me as a labour supporter.... :)
"or creating an army or any of the junk you seem to believe." Perhaps you don't read widely enough.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/nine-european-countries-to-formalise-eu-defence-force-plan/
2018
Nine EU nations will on Monday (25 June) formalise a plan to create a European military intervention force, a French minister said, with Britain backing the measure as a way to maintain strong defence ties with the bloc after Brexit.
The force, known as the European Intervention Initiative and championed by French President Emmanuel Macron, is intended to be able to deploy rapidly to deal with crises.
"The EU doesn't give a fig what healthcare system we have"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.03.001 2014
This paper argues that EU health policy has three faces: its generally benign health policies, its internal market law, which incorporates health systems into its broader system of market integrating law — and, since 2010, a much strengthened fiscal governance system which makes it a supervisor of member state policy and expenditure decisions.
The effect of the EU on health care systems is not just networking and the compliance costs associated with the internal market law. It is also now about the extent of government expenditure and to a changing degree the specific health policies and priorities of member states.
The EU does not just oblige health systems to work within the parameters of the internal market without otherwise giving them much support; since 2010, it is also committed to making sure that they operate within a tight budgetary framework and implement policies judged conducive to that framework. To market compliance we now add fiscal compliance.
The ones who are the real losers are British workers who are losing their jobs as a direct result of the braindead, ultranationalist Brexit prject. Just look at Wrightbus in Northern Ireland which has now gone bust thanks to Brexit and the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.
The same toxic disaster capitalist hedge fund speculators that are behind Brexit and Boris Johnson's leadership campaign were behind the demise of Thomas Cook too. It would have cost £250 million to save Thomas Cook but the government instead chose to blow £520+ million on repatriation flights in order to please their hedge fund masters. Brexit is nothing more than a populist crock of ***t.
"As with all purchases of British companies by European ones this will mean redundancies and jobs moving abroad"
I'm fed up with being polite. This statement is just complete nonsense and largely a lie. It may apply to some companies (please give examples). But businesses such as Jaguar Landrover, Mini, Rolls Royce, Bentley and Dennis Eagle have been bought by foreign companies (often EU-based) who have invested in them and made them succesful - something their original British owners appeared to be incapable of. However, disruption of the just-in-time supply lines and loss of frictionless access to a major market due to Brexit could indeed well lead to the redundancies you mention. That strikes me as an own goal. Please tell me where my reasoning is incorrect.
Aston Martin are still independent, but struggling - again.
>Note when we do that the eu want private health care like they have in Germany so the nh will also go - probably bough by one of the very expensive highly profitable German health insurance companies.
That won't happen. The very expensive & highly profitable US health insurance companies (especially United Health Care) have already got their eyes on it as a route to overseas expansion. The Conservative government has been actively working with the Americans; what I think you're going to get is a sort of low rent HMO/Medicare setup for basic health needs plus proper insurance for nice people. (....actually closer to what you've got in Mexico)
On the Continent health care is universal and affordable. Its probably as expensive as anywhere else but its primarily a cost to society. The only change that people in the UK need to adapt to is that you really have to pay something, even if its just a nominal amount, for care because nothing is free.
Looking back she was an absolutely terrible Prime Minister, but incredibly strong. She was down-right impossible to get rid of even by her own party.
Her biggest problem was that she wanted to make a deal that would "bring Brexiteers and Remainers together." That's impossible. Remainers don't want a deal. They don't want to leave. And Brexiteers don't want a deal that leaves us half in. So Theresa negotiated a deal so bad that neither side wanted it and alienated her entire voter base, PLUS the other side she was trying to get on side.
Her whole plan for Brexit negotiations is akin to winning an election, but feeling bad for the losing party and deciding to implement their policies as an apology for beating them. This pleases no one.
"he has managed to screw the next pm as well as the while damned country"
No. May tried to bulldoze through something that was and remains completely undeliverable. Remember Brexit means Brexit, red white and blue Brexit? Meaningless nationalistic phrases to cheer on the leave mob, despite having precisely zero idea how to do it. She could have said, no, this is neither legally binding nor sensible, bur chose to try to push it through. The deal we got is the best that could be expected - labour somehow expect to get something better, ie everything we have now but without paying for it, and the no-deal lunatics think we can walk away and everything will just magically happen, I agree May's deal was garbage, but there is nothing better out there - somehow the UK seems to expect the EU to give up everything they hold as their basic tenets in order to give us the best deal imaginable. It's not going to happen.
"somehow the UK seems to expect the EU to give up everything they hold as their basic tenets in order to give us the best deal imaginable. It's not going to happen"
The EU state that a deal is not possible with any of their four freedoms being granted, unless the recipient accepts all four. This is despite them recently offering Canada a deal that picks this bullshit argument apart. They won't offer us a deal even close to what Canada got. So fuck them.
Germany is already in recession and Ireland needs an emergency cash injection the day after Brexit because they played their hand too strong and the EU threw them under the bus. They'll have to renege on this or cull tens of thousands of animals and decimate their farm industry because of that stupidity. Then there's the fact that the "backstop" violates the Good Friday agreement. So the EU simultaneously wants to uphold the Good Friday agreement, while also violating it by separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. To further rub salt in the wound the EU states that Northern Ireland must have the backstop and keep regulatory alignment because it borders an EU nation...But then explain Monaco? Special privileges given to them because of France. It's bullshit and has been since the start. Negotiating MEPs two weeks back went on record to say that meeting prominent remainers, such as the Lib Dems, and Tony Blair was a mistake, as it meant the negotiations weren't taken seriously - as the EU was led to believe that offering a bad deal would instead keep us in the EU.
So there you have it. Theresa May gets some of the blame, but the EU are not our friends. Europeans are. The EU is nation building and playing dirty. Coincidentally the reason people like me wanted to leave in the first place. You won't see this stuff mentioned in the EU-supporting Guardian newspaper.
They won't offer us a deal even close to what Canada got.
The EU did exactly offer that, but, Princess Britain didn't want the Canada deal after all because new British 'Red Lines' suddenly popping up, this one being 'Frictionless access to EU markets (without any conditions, because I am worth it)'!
So the fuck is on you!
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/slide-presented-michel-barnier-european-commission-chief-negotiator-heads-state-and-government-european-council-article-50-15-december-2017_en
PS,
Monaco is very easily explained: A rather quiet insignificant nation can get away with more because it is simplytoo small to matter to anyone. A '5'th largest economy' with a long track record of mendacity and demands for special treatment cannot because it's actions actually matters.
> You lost the public voted just accept it.
omfg that referendum was like it is made by Malcolm McLarren, not Cameron.
You know, "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle". Just, it is not RnR at all, now more like weird, trashy requiem.
Dominic Cummings is not McLarren that's for sure. As Cameron said, some type of psychopath.
"Anarchy in the UK", in deed.
Why is it that Brexiters seem to have trouble with spelling and / or grammar? It's a remarkably consistent observation in my experience, and I find it difficult to conclude it's merely coincidental. I've become tired of being nice and conciliatory when dealing with Brexiters. Increasingly, I'm inclined to say balls to it, I should speak as I feel, because I am angry, I'm really bloody angry.
The politicians that have got us here are egregious examples of what can happen when so-called public servants favour ideology over evidence and are motivated by self - rather than public - interest. They are a reckless, unprincipled, sack of self-serving c**ts.
Then there's the voters. The pro-Brexit cohort is the most gullible and insular, least well informed and meanest 26.9% of the UK population; their vote categorically does not represent the definitive will of the people, no matter how often our Goebelesque politicians bleat it. As things stand they are responsible for robbing me and my kids of EU citizenship along with all the opportunities and security that affords. It has now been demonstrated to anyone with a working brain that Brexit will have hugely negative effects on our economy (and already has in some areas / companies), our national security, scientific research, technological cooperation (e.g. GPS), nuclear medicine and energy. All this at a time of great geopolitical uncertainty and rising threats from Russia and China. How anyone can think we are better off on our own grey little island (protected by what remains of our Navy - 3 tug boats and a pedalo), instead of being part of a 500 million person world superpower is utterly beyond me.
With the exception of the super-rich hedge fund manager types; friends of BJ, Farage et al who will make a ton of money, Brexit supporters fit into three categories. They are either stupid, genuinely want the country to go down the plug hole, or just want to win what they see as a competition (and to hell with the consequences). There are many of course, who exhibit a combination of those factors. James is the perfect example of an idiot with the infantile win, win, win attitude: 'You lost the public voted just accept it'. Yes, he struggles with grammar and spelling and also demonstrates the petty arguments and superficial reasoning which are typical of those that still favour Brexit. But when we have a PM talking about 'surrender' and using other combative, war-like phrases we can't really expect much better from mindless sheeple like James.
I actually don't think we will leave now to be honest. But even if we do, the Brexit fetishists are too thick to realise that we will be back in the EU within a few years. Once sanity has returned into domestic politics and the like of Corbyn, Johnson and Farage have mercifully fucked off, we will re-apply. We would of course be welcomed back in, but without our rebate, our special status and of course, our pound. Yup, we will be spending Euros, driving in KM and buying in KG, and it will be the fault of the retrograde idiots, the Brexit believers who fought progress to get back to an England that never existed.
So, that was a long way round of saying I'm sick of being polite. Our country has been sent down the pan by populist politicians, gullible idiots, xenophobes, racists and morons. And the sorry, poisonous lot of them can just fuck off. God only knows what future generations will think of them.
"Increasingly, I'm inclined to say balls to it, I should speak as I feel, because I am angry, I'm really bloody angry."
I'm afraid I'm heading in that direction too.
"As things stand they are responsible for robbing me and my kids of EU citizenship along with all the opportunities and security that affords."
Yup, affects the children of some of my friends too. And friends who are still in the UK.
"How anyone can think we are better off on our own grey little island [...] instead of being part of a 500 million person world superpower is utterly beyond me."
A thousand upvotes for you.
"Brexit supporters fit into three categories. ..."
Well, I think there are also people who are/feel genuinely left behind and wrongly blame that on the EU. However, as far as I'm aware the EU gives more support to economically depressed areas than Whitehall does.
"But when we have a PM talking about 'surrender' and using other combative, war-like phrases ... "
Yup, the UK used to be the country where politicians would have polite arguments, and where the PM (unelected by anyone apart form their party members) was the primus inter pares, the first among equals. However, they now seem to have presidential delusions and forget they only reached their position by virtue of being an MP and think they are entitled to block the Parliament they're a member off. I utterly fail to understand the reasoning behind that.
"... the Brexit believers who fought progress to get back to an England that never existed."
Hear, hear.
I agree with most of what you say but the UK will not be rejoining Europe, in a few years it will have become a satellite economy of the US, the NHS will be dismantled, the the welfare state will be allowed to fall into disrepair and there will no longer be any singularly British businesses of a y consequence.
The US must be loving brexit because it leaves Europe weaker as a competitor and Britain as hanging fruit ripe for the picking and with no real economic strength to resist.
brexiteers are going to reap the whirlwind.
"The US must be loving brexit because it leaves Europe weaker as a competitor and Britain as hanging fruit ripe for the picking and with no real economic strength to resist."
As a USAlien: Not in the slightest. Frankly the idea terrifies me. We were looking to y'all to be the sane voice of reason and now y'all done gone and looked at us shitting the bed, chugged a pint of ex-lax and said "hold my lager and watch this."
>As a USAlien: Not in the slightest. Frankly the idea terrifies me. We were looking to y'all to be the sane voice of reason and now y'all done gone and looked at us shitting the bed, chugged a pint of ex-lax and said "hold my lager and watch this."
No, from this US perch (another USAlien) it looks like any remaining 'Special Relationship' will look a lot like the relationship between the US and Puerto Rico.
I have this belief that the whole Brexit thing was cooked up because the EU was starting to take an interest in the "financial services industry". They've stomped on the various corporate tax scams in Ireland and Benelux, they're actively prosecuting corporate tax fraud in Germany (the "cum-ex" case) and as they get better at figuring how the whole City machine works they'll be coming for all the other scams (sorry, "tax efficiency measures" &tc.)
I got as far as "But even if we do, the Brexit fetishists are too thick to realise that we will be back in the EU within a few years."
I'm afraid THAT'S likely just wishful thinking.
It was the work of a generation of Britons, of Scotsmen and Welshmen and Irishmen alike, to get the UK INTO the single market, a rather herculean effort that Charles DeGaulle fought tooth and nail to prevent.
And now you pull this shit?
Like HELL they're letting you back in. Not without some kind of literally hands-and-knees begging and some serious and HARD sureties that you won't pull another Brexit clusterfuck the next time a populist idiot with a slogan appealing to the lowest common denominate comes along.
And even then I expect it'll take at least another generation.
But hey, maybe I can offer an alternative here.
See, over here, we're having a spot of bother with OUR OWN blonde maniac, and frankly our entire political system has completely fucking logjammed with some spanners thrown in the works. You're not QUITE so bad off, but I contend that's because you're running on a more-recently-patched version of a different early version of democracy than we are.
So, how's this sound: We get back together. Scrap both the Constitution of the United States of America AND the unwritten "constitution" of the UK and start over. We'd have to retain HM the Queen of course, but I think with the economy output of the U.S. any complaints about the cost of upkeeping a figurehead monarchy would just get drown in what we've paid for fraudulent scar lotion for soldiers here without barely even noticing. We can summon the finest legal and political science minds from Edinburgh to Los Angeles and they can descend upon Philadelphia to hammer out a new one, taking advantage of all the laws and history and experiments that have succeeded or failed in the last 250-some years. (We'll install air conditioning this time.)
There might be SOME small hitches, like the right to keep and bear arms and the right to speak your mind openly without the force of law being applied to you, even if what you say is the WORST kind of drek, being sticking points, but I'm sure we can work past it all. Besides, y'all already know there's more guns in the country than in the city; farmers and farmer's mums are all strapped up to the nines, right? Not so different.
Waddya say? We can jettison two gigantic screeching orange birds with one stone and have a doover together?
I have to say you are probably correct about the wishful thinking and the reasons behind it. And I congratulate the USA with its 52nd and 53rd state (England and Wales, the UK will disunite, Scotland will join the EU independently on a fast track and Northern Ireland will reunite with the Irish Republic).
"he struggles with grammar and spelling".
You will find that comments posted on smart phones are more inclined to have the errors that upset you, rather than demonstrating that such errors pertain only to Brexit voters.
I am afraid that your subjective assessment of Brexit voters demonstrates an arrogance and contempt that is wildly inaccurate. Not everyone wants to be part of a 500 million superstate, it does not mean we don't want to have good trade relations with Europe, but we should be able to decide who we trade with.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851
The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 55% in 2006 to 43% in 2016, though this increased slightly to 44% in 2017 and 46% in 2018. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from 58% in 2002 to 51% in 2011, increasing to 53% in 2018.
The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£64 billion with the EU in 2018. A surplus of £29 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£93 billion on trade in goods. The UK had a trade surplus of £44 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £83 billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of -£39 billion on trade in goods.
Your characterisation of the UK in the 1970's joining the EEC to insulate it from the effects of globalisation was correct, but down plays the challenges the UK was facing in many of the industries affected by globalisation.
The EEC postponed the inevitable for many of those industries rather than insulated them forever - they had to modernise. I say this based on similar stories playing out in many countries, particularly around Japanese manufacturing and fossil fuels. British Coal may have collapsed due to political decisions, but the reality was and still is that deep seam coal is dangerous and expensive to extract while much cheaper, higher energy alternatives were available from other countries.
The EEC did give the UK significant breathing space to reform many of the industries that couldn't survive in their pre-EEC forms, but the EEC gave the UK more than that through the 1980's and 1990's in terms of economic stability and then with the reunification of Germany putting significant economic strain on the German economy, the UK was in a position to benefit from the economic reform from the late 90's to mid-00's.
Then came the economic crisis in 2007 - you trace it to lax British regulation and oversight, but ignore the actions of their equivalents in Europe. While the UK banking sector reformed in a very painful manor, the French and German banks tried to ride out the crisis culminating in the Greek debt crisis. If you look at UK public opinion, this is where the UK began to worry about their potential future place in the EU.
Germany's decision to open its borders wasn't really a choice once the Syrian crisis was in full swing - Germany had screwed Greece over the debt crisis to save their own banks, resulting in Greece allowing immigrants into Europe. When the EU tried to stem the tide by working with Turkey, the EU couldn't meet Erdogen's demands to allow Turkey to join the EU as it stood and so they had to accept the consequences. Interestingly, it had very little effect on the opinion of the EU that had reverted to hovering around 50% in favour of staying/leaving again.
As for Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Europe, I don't dispute that it was done for party politics BUT I'm astonished he choose to do it so quickly. If he had waited, he had electoral reform to help shore up the Tory vote if the referendum didn't go as planned. Instead we have the current mess.
There's too much summarisation to really cover this topic aside from rebuffing some of your points.
"Germany's decision in 2015 to break EU law and open the borders to migrants"
Not so much break EU law but to quietly ignore it - in much the same way that the UK and others have done for years of course. What you are saying though is that the large number of migrants in Germany (far more than any other EU country) was the cause of the Brexit vote? So essentially Brexit was a racist xenophobic vote after all.
I've read this "Germany broke EU law" claim a few times here and nobody seems to challenge it, so I'm guessing it's widely assumed to be true?
What EU law do you think Germany broke or ignored by accepting refugees?
It's simply a fact that 3rd country immigration into individual member countries is not an EU competency and is controlled by national governments.
The only EU law in this area is the Dublin rule? Dublin gives countries the RIGHT to send asylum seekers back to other EU countries - it's not an obligation.
I've read this "Germany broke EU law" claim a few times here and nobody seems to challenge it, so I'm guessing it's widely assumed to be true?
No, it is just ignored as blatant nonsense of such epic proportions that contradicting it is slightly less useful than fighting windmills.
I've read this "Germany broke EU law" claim a few times here and nobody seems to challenge it, so I'm guessing it's widely assumed to be true
What's the point in trying to point out when such transparent rubbish is floated.
The problems with the statement are manifold.
1) Migrants are not refugees.
2) The Germans imposed restrictions on the border with Austria, due to the large numbers of refugees massed at the border, while they sought an EU wide solution.
3) The Germans then removed the restrictions, taking in a Million people.
4) As (2) and (3) show EU countries can control immigration without reference to "EU" law.
The creation of the common market allowed Europe to protect its own markets (notably primary industries and manufacturing) as they struggled against imports).
Maybe it wasn't called globalisation at the time, but i'm interested to know what you thought drove the introduction of the common market if not the protections and tariffs that followed.
"... what you thought drove the introduction of the common market if not the protections and tariffs that followed."
There have been tariffs, etc. for centuries. The EU eliminated them within its borders and unified them at the external borders. Most tariffs (except for foods) are actually fairly low, non-tariff barriers can be a greater problem. And the US, a supposed promised land for UK exports, is heading for isolationism.
Incidentally, without that form of protection a large part of the British farming sector would go to the wall - is that what you want?
@H in The Hague
"Incidentally, without that form of protection a large part of the British farming sector would go to the wall - is that what you want?"
Is that a good or bad thing? Change farming with british layland. Or peasant farming? Or providing jobs for people by giving them shovels to dig a canal.
I say that because protection from reality is what we are talking about, and you are saying farming is more important than the people of this country. You might be right (strategic resources) but it is you who has to explain why we all live in the real world but farmers shouldnt.
Farming going to the wall is how we had a manufacturing sector and got a lot of people out of the peasant lifestyle which was default. Improving productivity and being selective in manufacturing has made us a very rich country in this world and focused on services.
Would you protect the peasant lifestyle? Maybe the unsafe or dirty manufacturing? Or do you like living in one of the richest countries on earth?
There's some pretty big problems with letting your farms go fallow.
Allow me to talk about the greatest human endeavor to date: the Apollo Space Program.
The speech which resulted in its commission was given in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy of the United States, who promised to deliver the goal of "landing a man on the Moon by the end of this decade and returning him safely to Earth."
That feat was finally realized in time in the year 1969, when a man named Neal Armstrong became the first human being to set his boots into the lunar regolith and return safely to the planet Earth.
Three men getting there and back, one of whom never set foot on the moon, was the culmination of the direct work of some 400,000 human beings, who were indirectly supported by a literally incalculable number of persons; the spouses and children and family and friends who supported them in times of untold stress, the old drinking buddy who listened to their old war stories of college or Korea or even WWII, the grocer who sold them food, the mechanic who fixed their cars, the autoworker who built their cars, the miners who gathered the ore that became the metals that made their cars, the farmers who fed them.
We cannot replicate that feat. Here, in my homeland of the United States of America, which for all its crippling flaws and egregious moral bankruptcies recently, I dare to say REMAINS the greatest and strongest of nations of this world, WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE HAVE DONE BEFORE.
We cannot DO it, because generations of idiots allowed spaceflight to languish. They were allowed to DARE to utter the words "well, what do WE get out of it?" and slash funding to space, so they could embark on continual disastrous military misadventures, making morally absurd alliances in the name of stopping the spread of the notion that, you know what, maybe letting poor people die starving and sick in the gutter ISN'T a good thing, and just to line their own fucking pockets. And, I suppose, a few of them might GENUINELY have swallowed the flavor-aid and believed wholesale that they were pursuing a moral good in and of ITSELF in reducing the size and scope of government.
And because of that, we cannot do it. We DID it! We sure as shit did it, and if you don't believe us we can blast the moon with fucking LASERS to reflect off shiny things the astronauts that we sent to the moon left behind to prove it!
But we cannot do it again, because they allowed the doors to shutter; they permitted that expertise to wander off, to go seek "other opportunities." It's not just that NASA itself is underfunded; all of the companies who made parts that went into the Saturn V have lost that institutional knowledge as well.
Mark my words: the country that DARES to utter the words "cost-benefit analysis" in terms of something is setting themselves up to fail at that thing when they realize that, having kicked out the legs, that thing collapsed. Now, some might argue, that's of no consequence if that thing is spaceflight; you don't need spaceflight to survive! Well, firstly, bollocks to that, but this argument isn't about that, it's about your suggestion of scrapping the farms.
A country that cannot feed itself will become a client state to the one that CAN. You let the farmers go out of work, some stubborn holdouts will remain until the foreclosures happened. Their kids won't; they'll seek other jobs, or they'll die homeless or something. Within a generation or two, there will be nobody left who has any fucking idea how to farm, and suddenly you're going to be paying massive fees for those food imports when, say, something hits the place you were dining off of and they jack the prices up because of simple Supply & Demand. Or, worse, they realize they have leverage over you and use the food prices to SQUEEZE.
Our fuckthunder idiots in congress kicked NASA's leg out from under it, and as a result we cannot send a man back to the moon.
Don't repeat that fucking mistake only with your agriculture sector, or you're going to wind up enslaved to the people who didn't.
@ShadowDragon8685
That is a very good comment about the big willie contest between the US and Russia (with valid reasons to do so too) and it would be possible to do it again for something that would be worth it. But its highly expensive, achieves little and makes everyone poorer to accomplish is it worth doing?
People and things are still being put up there. Instead of landing someone on the moon (and developing long range missile tech) we now send up all kinds of junk for fun and testing as well as serious application. Is the US richer for letting someone else do the work? Hell yes.
If farming is some strategic asset then let them do so out of a military fund or something. But if we are paying people to do something not worth doing that would be stupid. Just as we all stood in fields farming to eat, now its a small portion of our workforce, less of our land and more produced.
"something hits the place you were dining off of and they jack the prices up because of simple Supply & Demand."
That happens all the time. Yet food was such a huge portion of a households expenses and is now one of the smaller bills of a household. In poor countries that changes their diet and causes them food shortages (in mismanaged economies) but for us, its not something we care about or even notice.
"Or, worse, they realize they have leverage over you and use the food prices to SQUEEZE."
And this argument doesnt work. If one wont sell another will and if one jacks up the prices others take the profit of the business. This is why markets work and why food prices should fall after leaving the EU purely on the basis that prices are jacked up because of such leverage (high tariffs and regulatory obsticles).
"Our fuckthunder idiots in congress kicked NASA's leg out from under it, and as a result we cannot send a man back to the moon."
I understand the complaint of this. But why do you want to send a man to the moon (exclude politicians and other undesirables)? We send probes which work better, dont require space/oxygen/food/water but instead carry the very tools we wish to explore with. They go further, work for longer and get results. And its cheaper.
" If one wont sell another will and if one jacks up the prices others take the profit of the business. This is why markets work and why food prices should fall after leaving the EU purely on the basis that prices are jacked up because of such leverage (high tariffs and regulatory obsticles)."
More nonsense. Where will you get the competition in food supply? I thought the response to us losing about half our food supply once we fall out of the EU was "we'll grow more here"? Any food we import under WTO rules will have tariffs applied until such time as we manage a trade deal with the supplying country. So we can expect to see most food costs increase by up to 40%, whoever we buy it from. Competition doesn't enter into it, unless you are one of those who feel that our water supply and train systems are somehow in competition with other suppliers and we the consumer have a choice about what we drink or how we travel? Markets work up to a point - there has to be actual competition and there cannot be a cartel; our fuel supply is a classic case, in theory there are multiple suppliers and we have huge choice. In practice we have whatever the local petrol station is, and mysteriously they all put their prices up or down by identical amounts at the same time.
I love this pie in the sky optimism about how wonderful it will all be once we are out of the EU with their dreadful free trade (most of our medicines are dependent on the just in time model, as is most of our industry, but hey, who needs that ?) and their tariff free food.
@Mooseman
"More nonsense. Where will you get the competition in food supply?"
Please tell me you are joking. I assume you are from a country which has the capacity to trade, which is why foods from all over the world can be relocated to be sold in other parts of the world. That question is nonsense.
"I thought the response to us losing about half our food supply once we fall out of the EU was "we'll grow more here"?"
Why would we lose half our food supply? What rubbish have you been told? Are you saying the businesses wanting to sell food suddenly wont want to sell to us? Thats one you seriously need to think about and explain.
"Any food we import under WTO rules will have tariffs applied until such time as we manage a trade deal with the supplying country"
Ahhh! You are wrong. Dont worry Nick Clegg made the same dumb mistake, but no. The tariffs if any would be set by the UK and nobody else. So now I understand why you believe things will be bad but your base assumption is completely wrong.
"So we can expect to see most food costs increase by up to 40%"
Actually the food costs should fall by leaving the EU. Thats unilaterally without any trade deals.
"Markets work up to a point - there has to be actual competition and there cannot be a cartel"
Great argument to leave the protectionist block and rejoin the world.
"In practice we have whatever the local petrol station is, and mysteriously they all put their prices up or down by identical amounts at the same time"
I feel bad for where you live. We have a few to choose from and there is a fair variation in price.
"I love this pie in the sky optimism about how wonderful it will all be once we are out of the EU with their dreadful free trade"
Which they dont have. Unless you mean within the protectionist block but you already argued against cartel practices.
"and their tariff free food."
Which they dont have. Unless you mean within the protectionist block but you already argued against cartel practices.
Germany didn't break any EU law? 3rd country (non-EU) residency rules are not an EU competency - each member has the own policies for 3rd country immigration. UK, France, etc. all favour ex-colonies in terms of immigration law, for example. The refugees have no right to travel outside of Germany and so the cost of processing them falls completely on Germany. And actually lots of the refugees were shipped directly to Germany.
Blaming brexit on this event is pretty weird when there are plenty of more obvious home-grown culprits - like the decades long jingoistic and dishonest anti-EU campaign by a segment of the UK press.
"totally ignored their complaints."
Well yeah, when the complaints consisted of "too many furrners" when EU nationals are more profitable for the taxman *EVEN WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE ONES ON THE DOLE*
How do you address that? How do you address that ignorant fucks dont like accents?
Link in case you think I was making it up.
Other complaints:
"Something something sovereignty."
For every single EU law and regulation, the UK has not only had a seat at the table, but has voted *FOR 98% of them* In the whole history of the EU, there are 56-72 law the UK was outvoted on (depending on who you talk to)
Link in case you think I'm making that one up.
"The working classes were so screwed over they would take any opportunity to take down the smug elitists"
Yes, but not by the EU.
The EU pours millions into regions the Tories couldn't give a fuck about.
The EU (up until the referendum) funded a massive part of research in our universities the the govs of the day just wouldn't.
The EU is the largest market to sell the goods those industrial heartlands produce. Having trade barriers selling (say, cars) into the EU *will* hurt those regions that can ill afford it.
We have *always* been able to kick out EU migrants who were "a burden" but we're *STILL NOT DOING IT*, even now.
Perhaps you can tell us how many problems will be solved by leaving the EU when we will *STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEIR RULES* if we want to trade with them.
They are >50% of our trade, were are ~10% of theirs.
When those screaming about sovereignty realise that they are worse off out, there will be trouble.
It’s really quite amazing to see that some people actually believe that Brexit is some kind of victory for the poor and downtrodden over the smug middle classes. Wetherspoons drunk bore talk at its absolute best.
Those people who see Brexit as a backlash against the elite have got a serious fucking shock coming, you’ve been had, big time. Seems it wasn’t too hard.
@werdsmith
"Those people who see Brexit as a backlash against the elite have got a serious fucking shock coming, you’ve been had, big time. Seems it wasn’t too hard."
As a country we are a net contributor, one of the more successful countries and not in the appalling Euro currency. But yeah sure we have been had.
The problem with trying to act superior while providing a remain argument is the difficulty of presenting the argument as intelligent thought.
"As a country we are a net contributor, one of the more successful countries and not in the appalling Euro currency. But yeah sure we have been had."
So you think going cap in hand to the IMF in the 70s was mark of success, yeah? We've been one of the more successful countries *SINCE WE JOINED* largely down to trade with and through the EU.
That's where you've been had. You think we've been successful *despite* the EU, rather than *because* of it. It's not difficult to point out the obvious. Just because a teenager can figure it out doesn't mean it's not true.
@Glen 1
"So you think going cap in hand to the IMF in the 70s was mark of success, yeah?"
I have to call you dumbass for saying the above, where did I say that? I didnt. But going for the same comparison how can you find the EU going cap in hand after 2008 and currently to the IMF to bail out the Euro (Greece)?
"We've been one of the more successful countries"
Well noticed. With opt outs and rejecting the socialism of the 70's (you point out). Even with the EU's single market being geared towards manufacturing over services and a few members desires to impose EU rules against London.
"largely down to trade with and through the EU."
Net contributor to prop up the failing project. You seem not to realise who is leaning on who.
"You think we've been successful *despite* the EU, rather than *because* of it"
Yup
"Just because a teenager can figure it out doesn't mean it's not true."
That is correct. But you do need to use more critical thinking skills against the younger and obviously less experienced (teenager often being vastly less experienced of the world).
"I have to call you dumbass for saying the above"
Why? its a legitimate comparison between when we were not a member (or new) and when we were. Don't like that one? Ok, how about since the referendum?
The trillion pounds of assets leaving the UK in *anticipation* of Brexit Link
How about the exodus of manufacturing Link The closing of Fords engine plant Link The loss of the X-Trail at Sunderland Link
"EU going cap in hand after 2008 and currently to the IMF to bail out the Euro (Greece)? ... With opt outs and rejecting the socialism of the 70's (you point out)"
If we stay, we still get the opt outs, and the 2008 crash was caused by deregulation of the mortgage market - too much capitalism. Ironic given your dig at socialism.
Greece should have never been let into the Euro. They hired Goldman Sachs to fudge the figures. Link
Given our special snowflake status within the EU, the UK was insulated from paying for the Greece bailout. Therein lies the rub. We have such a sweetheart deal with the EU, its referred to as Germany+
"Even with the EU's single market being geared towards manufacturing over services and a few members desires to impose EU rules against London"
- which benefits the working class as opposed to "the City"
"Net contributor to prop up the failing project."
Its not failing though. Even with all its difficulties, It's just signed a massive trade deal with Japan Link (merely ~twice the GDP of the UK) It was able to tell the US to sod off over TTIP Link.
Even with the bailouts of 2008 - which we would have been subject to outside of the EU (it was called the Global Financial Crisis for a reason), Greece is seeing light at the end of the tunnel (Link), and the EU is stronger for it.
"Yup"
Nope
"use more critical thinking skills"
Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
"Why? its a legitimate comparison between when we were not a member (or new) and when we were. Don't like that one? Ok, how about since the referendum?"
I am pretty clear in my comment why I called him dumbass for that particular comment. To answer you since the referendum, here is what glen 1 quoted of my comment (which answers your question)-
"As a country we are a net contributor, one of the more successful countries and not in the appalling Euro currency. But yeah sure we have been had."
"How about"
The investment coming into the country Link. The fact that we should have left, havnt left and thanks to remainers have uncertainty affecting the economy? As some remainers are fond of arguing 'we are still in the EU'.
"If we stay, we still get the opt outs, and the 2008 crash was caused by deregulation of the mortgage market - too much capitalism. Ironic given your dig at socialism."
Too much capitalism? You dont seem to know the issue. It was caused in the US where pressure was being put on private industry by the gov to lend to people who cannot pay. An event never happened before (house prices falling across the whole US) causing the crash aka market correction. After this massive crash do any of the capitalist countries look like Venezuela? Nope.
"Greece should have never been let into the Euro"
I am happy to agree with you. But they were and that nearly bankrupted the ECB. As a result they sacrificed countries economies instead of the currency taking the hit.
"Given our special snowflake status within the EU, the UK was insulated from paying for the Greece bailout."
Sorry but no we wernt. This is actually one of the big mistakes the EU made. They signed a piece of paper for Cameron to wave and they promised not to use our contribution to bail out Greece. Then they did it. The UK ended up bailing out the Euro.
"- which benefits the working class as opposed to "the City""
I regard the country being richer not poorer being better for the working class. It is the country that is expected to pay for the social services, welfare, pensions and the money in the working mans pocket. As a smart tradesman once said 'I have never been employed by a poor person'.
"Its not failing though"
Really? Good at making crises but not at solving them. Raised tensions with the west and Russia leading to Ukraine war. Creating a currency that is still dying off from the last recession with continuing damage to member economies. Euro being bailed out from the IMF, UK and other non-Euro members.
"It was able to tell the US to sod off"
That is actually a capacity of any trade negotiation. Event the brexit negotiation where we can just leave without agreeing.
"Even with the bailouts of 2008 - which we would have been subject to outside of the EU (it was called the Global Financial Crisis for a reason)"
And look at the economies from that. That is why the Euro was such a global financial danger when they were banging on about China being a global financial danger. The reaction to the recession would have been different and much more successful especially for Greece.
"Greece is seeing light at the end of the tunnel (Link), and the EU is stronger for it."
A debt to the EU it can never repay and should never had to. Private creditors should have taken the loss but instead the EU tax payer got the bill. But it puts Greece well under the thumb.
"As a country we are a net contributor, one of the more successful countries and not in the appalling Euro currency"
None of that makes me a dumbass. Especially the part where were are successful because of the ~50% of our exports going to the EU. I can only say it in so many different ways before you come across as "lalalalala not listening furrners lalala suvrintee"
"The investment coming into the country"
Last I checked 1 trillion is greater than the 50 million in the link you give - but hey lets expand on that - JLR are expanding at the site in Coventry Link
What they have in common is that they are specialist or luxury goods. The industries that are not dependant on the EU (that 50% figure again) will weather the storm the best. Land Rovers, Aston Martins and Satellites. That's not thousands of bog standard cars that can be build in Poland or China for less. Oh wait
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs (possibly millions) dependant on frictionless access to the EU. Pointing out that some aren't, isn't going to comfort the people who are and will be laid off. On the global economy, we need to compete. We can't do it on price in small volumes due to the high cost of living in the UK. The EU offers some protection from that through tariffs and trade deals agreed with the collective bargaining power of 350 million consumers.
"Sorry but no we weren't. This is actually one of the big mistakes the EU made. They signed a piece of paper for Cameron to wave and they promised not to use our contribution to bail out Greece. Then they did it. The UK ended up bailing out the Euro."
[Citation needed]
We helped bail out Ireland and Portugal, not Greece. Link I remember the press conference when David Cameron waxed lyrical how bailing out Ireland was in the UKs national interests because of how intertwined our economies are. We haven't suddenly stopped being intertwined, yet Ireland has 20+ other countries to fall back on. We have... small fry Link
"I regard the country being richer not poorer being better for the working class."
Still A believer in trickle down economics, I see. That doesn't work if people are holding all that capital in hedge funds in London. Doubly so if they are moving capital away from the UK altogether.
"Raised tensions with the west and Russia leading to Ukraine war."
Raised tensions because Russia feels threatened by our strength. Lets face it, united we are a superpower. Also: don't confuse the EU with NATO.
"Creating a currency that is still dying off from the last recession"
The Euro seems to be doing ok vs the £, I wonder why? (sarcasm). Link
"last recession with continuing damage to member economies"
FTFY The recession was global.
Yes, Euro members were not able to just print money. There were *global* spending cuts, not just in the Eurozone. Greece got the worst of it because they were carrying too much debt, hidden as per my previous post. That doesn't make the Euro bad, it makes Greece of the time ill suited to be in the Euro.
"That is actually a capacity of any trade negotiation. Event the brexit negotiation where we can just leave without agreeing."
Just like North Korea. For us to come to a trade agreement as equals, we have to actually be equals. In the EU we are a big fish in a medium sized pond. Outside there is EU, USA, China, and everyone else. Link By world rankings, we come in a respectable 5th, but the ones above us are not just *slightly* bigger, but either multiple times our size - or members of the EU.
Our closest equal in terms of GDP is india. Trump has publicly coveted the NHS, China cancelled a trade meeting when we sent a ship to join the US in the South China Sea. We just don't carry the economic clout Leavers seem to think we do. The EU lets us take the piss like the special snowflakes we are, that will no longer be the case if/when we are out.
The rest of your post is just rehashing of "Greece had a bad time, therefore Euro is bad" They had other options, they could have left the Eurozone, they could have left the EU, but chose the least worst approach of accepting the bailout, even if begrudgingly. Link
They knew the rules when they applied.
I'll say it again the UK's sweetheart deal insulates us from most of the perceived issues you have. We even got an exception the for "ever closer union". Any future trade deal won't be as good as the deal we have right now.
@AC
Dunno why its autoticking anon. Cheers for identifying. Didnt notice your second comment until I responded so edited*
"None of that makes me a dumbass"
Ok you seem to be taking it pretty badly to heart, sorry for upsetting you. Your rebuttal to the UK being a success is going to the IMF in the 70's. The EU is currently cap in hand to the IMF. So by your very standards of trying to argue to remain you argue to leave. By your measurement the EU is not a success.
"Especially the part where were are successful because of the ~50% of our exports going to the EU"
Why because? Are you sure its not despite? Or that we are a success because of the opt outs keeping us just on the edge of the EU membership? Saying 'because' is a hell of an assumption, and I am happy to discuss the possibility (I am willing to consider it) but I wont assume a place performing bad economic policy and inflicting economic harm is doing us good.
"I can only say it in so many different ways before you come across as "lalalalala not listening furrners lalala suvrintee""
Look to the first bit of this reply and you will see why I think the same about you. You tell me your wrong but are unhappy I dont think your right.
"What they have in common is that they are specialist or luxury goods."
So things to trade with. Its amazing, almost like in this world we can trade! Yes the jobs we do will change, thats because being in the EU has changed our jobs. Your assumption is for the better, that it would be worse.... why? Again thats one hell of an assumption we can talk about but why?
"On the global economy, we need to compete" "The EU offers some protection from that through tariffs and trade deals agreed with the collective bargaining power of 350 million consumers."
Meet the conflict. Be global by being protectionist. Trade with the world by hiding behind nationalist borders. The government doesnt do all that trade, it doesnt service all those customers. Look at the customers, in the US Trump makes their lives more expensive so in the EU they made our lives more expensive. The govs are obviously doing wonders for us. The EU is shrinking as a portion of global wealth. While they sit on their hands China is the one making the investments and expanding into the global trade.
"We helped bail out Ireland and Portugal, not Greece."
https://www.ft.com/content/6d92bbe2-2b04-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7
https://www.businessinsider.com/some-of-greeces-bailout-is-going-to-come-from-a-fund-contributed-to-by-britain-and-george-osborne-is-furious-2015-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2104701/Greece-crisis-UK-contribute-1bn-second-110bn-bailout.html
"Still A believer in trickle down economics, I see."
Yes. Until I am proven wrong then yes. Your claim it doesnt help if the money is in London... who pays for your public services? If the country is richer then the public coffers are filled by it. People with more money buy more things and services. Throw out the money and so far we have seen many economies fail.
"Raised tensions because Russia feels threatened by our strength. Lets face it, united we are a superpower. Also: don't confuse the EU with NATO."
Aka dont you confuse the EU with NATO. Ukraine kicked off because a more EU sympathetic leader would replace the Russian sympathetic leader. And as I said the EU then puts it tail between its legs and run off to the US for protection. Not very strong.
"The Euro seems to be doing ok vs the £, I wonder why?"
You wonder? Read my comments then, its right there. Telling me the exchange rate looks good while ignoring the economies is stupid. As I pointed out look at the economies. So the currency might be good but the EZ isnt.
"FTFY The recession was global."
you fixed nothing. Repeating your mistakes doesnt fix anything. US and UK bounce out of recession, EZ not even close. So why is the wonderful utopia of the EU still sucking bad? Why is the EU still in such dire shape?
"Yes, Euro members were not able to just print money."
Thank you. They could not meet a liquidity shortage when they needed to.
"That doesn't make the Euro bad, it makes Greece of the time ill suited to be in the Euro."
True. The EZ is too big with no stabilization mechanism and so the economies pulling in different directions conflict with each other. The single currency causing harm.
"By world rankings, we come in a respectable 5th, but the ones above us are not just *slightly* bigger, but either multiple times our size - or members of the EU."
Look at the GDP rankings of your own chart, Germany is above us and the other 3 are outside the EU. In the top 10 6 of them are outside the EU! India in #6, do you want to be in the UK or India or China? What you point out is we are a big fish.
"We just don't carry the economic clout Leavers seem to think we do"
By your own chart that is a lie. By our net contributing to the EU thats a lie. The frail little England that remain seems to believe in doesnt seem to exist. And without that the dream that we need to hide from the world and be protected by the mighty but weak EU doesnt stand. Personally I dont think its either of the extremes.
"They had other options, they could have left the Eurozone, they could have left the EU, but chose the least worst approach of accepting the bailout, even if begrudgingly."
Yup. The EU bought the private debt, made it EU debt and squeezed the Greeks badly. Not very friendly but saved the currency at the expense of people.
"We even got an exception the for "ever closer union""
Which fits for as long as the EU is nice enough not to force us into ever close union. And it wont be hard with a Blair selling the country or a May desperate to remain. Just as we were exempt from bailing out Greece.
The eu pours some (not all) of our money back into projects the Eu approves of. The UK has often voted to avoid being isolated so it appears at the centre less the BBC start moaning. The UK is the only country that takes eu regulation to the extreme rather than avoiding it, see the Germans approach to best value purchasing is that anything funded by the German tax payer has to be made in Germany to have any value. The French do a similar thing, in neither country do you find a single foreign built police car or council wagon. In the Uk we have taken best value to mean whatever tips the most into the chief constables back pocket so there are no British vehicles in the Uk police fleet. Note that until quite recently bribes paid to gain business could be discounted against tax in germany
"The French do a similar thing, in neither country do you find a single foreign built police car or council wagon."
A while ago a Commentard living in France indicated that your statement is simply incorrect.
"In the Uk we have taken best value to mean whatever tips the most into the chief constables back pocket"
Are you seriously accusing all or most UK CCs of being corrupt? Evidence for such a serious charge?
This is possibly the daftest comment yet - You have no idea about car manufacturing apparently, Most car makers are multinational conglomerates, many German cars are Opel, for example, which are GM (US owned) like Vauxhall. France has Peugeot Citroen which is part of a conglomerate including Vauxhall, Renault are closely lined to Nissan, etc etc.
Are you seriously trying to claim that UK chief constables accepted bribes to not have "british vehicles" - what british vehicles do you mean? Ford? Vauxhall? And then the claiming bribes back against tax garbage...I'm really lost for words at the level of gullibility and foolishness. You work in IT but don't have the ability to use a plethora of internet search engines which would show you in about 5 seconds the daftness of your entire post?
"many German cars are Opel, for example, which are GM (US owned) like Vauxhall. France has Peugeot Citroen which is part of a conglomerate including Vauxhall, Renault are closely lined to Nissan, etc etc."
While your overall point stands, I think you've got a bit mixed up here. Opel/Vauxhall used to be owned by GM, but were bought a couple of years ago by PSA (Peugeot, Citroen, etc.). GM don't really have any significant presence in Europe any more.
@Mooseman
Opel used to be GM but today it's like this.
"Opel Automobile GmbH (German pronunciation: [ˈoːpl̩]) is a German automobile manufacturer, a subsidiary of French automaker Groupe PSA since August 2017. From 1929 until 2017, Opel was owned by American automaker General Motors. Opel vehicles are sold in the United Kingdom under the Vauxhall brand. Some Opel vehicles are badge-engineered in Australia under the Holden brand, and in North America and China under the Buick, Saturn, and Cadillac brands."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel
If you are referring to:
And then the claiming bribes back against tax garbage...I'm really lost for words at the level of gullibility and foolishness.
I am afraid you will have to rethink this, as there certainly was legislation in multiple countries that allowed tax claims for bribes as common business expenses. I am not so sure about Germany, but it made the headlines here in the Netherlands when that was abolished. And please let it be noted, that within the Netherlands accepting bribes was and still is a criminal offense, but not reporting an accepted bribe to the tax office was and still is a fiscal offense with harsher penalties when caught. But the Dutch tax office isn't completely unfair, a taxed bribe is not reported to other authorities.
"How come the most revolting leavers (Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage) try desperately to look like the toffest of toffs?"
Studies show that the classes with significant percentages of votes for leave fall into the economic categories C2/D/E (reference: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum)
Why do Boris and Nigel not fit this profile? Because they want to lead - they look just like the majority of other UK leaders....
Actually the professionals have been screwed by the eu as well, it's just most of them are thicker than pigshit and can't understand.. Frankly the remainers really should look into facts rather than carry on unabated drivel. The only ones who have benefited in any meaningful way are the very rich who own the companies taking cheap foreign labour and backhand for locating new factories in Slovenia and poland
'Unabated drivel"
Contradict a single reference I made. Go on. Show us it's drivel.
"Professionals... Thicker than pigshit"
Think about what you just typed. Just like how the flat earth society has members around the globe. Trusting homeopathy rather than a doctor. Because hey, leavers have had enough of experts
"Only ones who have benefited..."
This has been refuted so many times I'm just gonna leave this link here.
What has the EU ever done for us?
"Backhanders to Slovenia"
Do you mean the regional development fund, that we also benefit from? Or are you talking about something else?
As somebody that hasn't lived in the UK for 17 years, I watched the results of the referendum with disbelief.
That a Nation could collectively hold it's future prosperity to ransom over thinly veiled xenophobia and rampant nationalism seemed perverse.
That you should double down on this mistake, even in the face of the mounting evidence which suggests the disruption arising from Brexit because of the perception that "arrogant remainders" were "so smug and satisfied" merely manages to prove his point.
Given that my wife is German, and my company has significant operations in Germany (plus many other countries), I am seriously considering leaving the UK if things properly turn to shit. I don't want to as my wife and I do really like where we live (and my German language skills are crap), but if no-deal does happen and everything turns to crap then I'm not going to sit here and suffer due to the stupid decisions of the Brexiteer idiots and tax-avoiders.
(and my German language skills are crap)
You've had a couple of years already now to improve those German language skills and it isn't even the hardest language to learn for a foreigner. Besides that, most Germans are perfectly willing to forgive a couple of linguistic mistakes for foreigners really trying to speak German. In that regard Dutch is much harder as most will just immediately switch to English for foreigners (always funny with Germans and especially French).
So what, the sentence structure of English differs in a few crucial ways from Dutch, which I grew up with. And both have different differences with German. To make it even funnier, those three are all basically Germanic languages with rather a lot in common. The differences with Romanic languages like French, Spanish and Portugese are even bigger.
You having issues is just an issue with education, not with the languages. And just for your information, I am fluent in English and Dutch but not anymore in German as I don't use it enough.
You should probably prepare to go *now*, before things turn even more to shit than it already has and before 'The Market' for ex UK residents becomes crowded!
The problem is that: Whatever happens in the UK going forward, there will still Remain up to one fifth of the total population who will always feel betrayed and who will be looking for Traitors, Spies, EU-Agents, Saboteurs, Remoaners and Foreigners in General, especially the coloured- or Polish kind.
This is not a safe situation to be in, especially for a German wife!
I resent the idea the main reason to vote leave to be about stupid individuals. We all know there are indeed stupid people too and we probably know one or two. But those "stupid" probably did not vote, and if they did they probably voted 50/50 out of stupidity and I doubt they read ElReg either.
But when people fall for lies, bluffs and miss information it is stupid all the same, if understandable, we all love snakeoil salesmen.
The leave campaign was full of energy, enthusiasm and hope and fauls promises. Poor Cameron a guy who would have difficulties selling a ten pound note for a fiver.
People voted to leave in the hope that it would bring them something good, some perhaps in hope of some more "Rule Britannica" and fuck you foreigners, here we come, fish and all.
Now this might annoy some Brits, but you are not "world leading" in problems and non of those problems are due to the EU and non will be solved leaving of the EU.
There are some guys who claim the leave vote was against the elite, and that I find rather perplexing looking at the ardent leavers at the head of the ship like Boris and Rees-Mogg.
At times "stupidity" does indeed enter my mind no matter.
Well, I moved out to SE Asia years ago.
I now have my own booming business now and live in a 3 bedroom house. I could not afford to rent (forget buying) anything beyond a tiny flat in the old country if only because of the ever increasing council tax! And I was a first line manager in a tech company. It was also a bit of an eye opener when I did the math and added up all the taxes I was paying and over 50% of my income was going on tax.
But I left not because of EU or Brexit, though the endless EU regulations were a factor, but because I have absolutely nothing in common with the modern British. Not religion, not social values, not entertainment tastes especially the soul destroying soaps, I hate football and I hated going to to the pub. I was just becoming increasingly alienated as the UK went culturally where I was not going.
I didn't leave the UK. It was really a divorce. The UK and I had NOTHING in common sans the sense of humour.
Now I am in a country where my anime music videos are popular and Hatsune Miku is A Thing. Oh, and my rubbish is picked up every night and I can put it out to be picked up whenever I like.
Don't confuse Parliament and Government. No doubt Parliament contains many odious scumbags, but they appear to be more concentrated in the relatively small number that make up government.
Either way, I downvoted you for the intestine-strangling comment. Adding more violent imagery and hate-speech to a situation that already has more than enough isn't helpful.
"They're making promises now? I thought they'd given up on that sort of thing."
Not making them. Just keeping them. The trouble with any politician is that they really believe they can do anything so they make promises that any rational analysis will show they can't possibly keep. And they're the last to realise they can't.
"So student loans are basically already written off."
The current repayment rate is around 17% for full repayment. Approximately 31% of student loans are expected to be written off for pre-2012 loan (£21k income threshold) and 45% for post-2012 loans (£25k threshhold).
"But grads are paying 6% interest. To banks."
Depending on the expected return, loans are sold (i.e. the Government receives money) to banks based on an expected return.
"So student fees are a way for banks to earn money without any risk."
In general no, the banks are accepting risk - if the amount paid by students is lower than expected, the Government benefits, if it's higher, the bank benefits. If the money is unlikely to be repaid, the Government is unable to sell the loans to the banks (as has happened).
In most cases, it's written off before the repayments even match the capital originally loaned.
It really doesn't matter what the headline nterest rate on a £50,000 loan is if you'll only ever pay back less than £10k before it's written off!
Look at the total repayments, not the interest rate (or even the amount borrowed).
Eg Plan 2, written off after 30 years. If your average earnings (pretax, in 2019 pounds) are £28,800 (median UK income), that means repayments of £23 pcm, total repaid over 30 years is £8,280.
To even pay back the £50k capital you'd need average 30 year earnings of £44,235 in today's money.
(£139 pcm repayment, repaying 9% over threshold.)
So unless you're paying the 45% rate of tax, the interest rate is irrelevant. It could be zero and most wouldn't pay it.
Which is of course why the OBR class it as a payment, not a loan. In reality it's a 30 year graduate tax, unless you are super rich.
Labour called it a loan because Blair didn't want the Tories saying he was raising taxes.[1]
Just to shout out this splendid comment again: In reality it's a 30 year graduate tax.
[1] But the Tories happily keep increasing VAT -- that way they can keep taxes on wealth out of the news.
>But grads are paying 6% interest. To banks. So student fees are a way for banks to earn money without any risk.
Err no. Student Loans don't directly involve the high street banks. They are between a student and the Student Loan Company.
The banks only get involved when students take out additional, non-student loan borrowings.
And damned if you don't.
If straight after the ref the position had been taken that half of the pop wanting out and half in, the obvious result should be to have some half assed result like a Norway option, there would probably have been a majority support. Instead May wanting to keep the anti immigrant voter inside decided to play that ball first. Considering her role in the whole affair with the deportation of people that arrived in the late 40's to help rebuild the UK, that may have been expected. Instead of building bridges and a compromise on the whole sorry Brexit thingy, the British position has been to play the underbelly. Considering the latest polling stats, it seems to work from a party power aspect, but I severely doubt that the aspects of a hard Brexit are well understood.
Meanwhile hundreds of companies are leaving Britain and investment is negative. I hope your sovereign un-prorogued parliament gets its act together together with the elected Tory leader, House of Lords and Queen. Ehm,.. right.
Ok, it's high time to look at the REAL effects of Brexit 1/50
Brexit's already hitting the UK right now: job losses, sunk costs & investment shifts 1/40
He's done more similarly depressing threads backed up by facts, see the pinned thread.
The problem is that I don't think there *is* a solution to this saga, like the country Parliament is split between remain/leave with leave split deal/no deal - what the ratio of the latter is nobody knows as the question was not asked in the referendum.
Also Parliament voting seems to be just a yes/no, not option 1,2,3 etc, so whenever one of the 3 tribes starts getting ahead, the other 2 close it down.
I am not sure an election which will be just about Brexit will help, and if it does by any chance then we will need another election to get a government voted in on non-brexit issues.
Whichever way it goes about half the country will be happy, the other half hacked off, and it will take a generation or 2 to heal the divisions.
An election would solve nothing at this point.
The Tories would win (because Corbyn is just that frickin' hopeless, and the Remain vote would be split between Labour and Lib Dem). They'd accept this gleefully as a mandate for hard Brexit, and that would go through. (Step 1.)
Then the Tories would take their "mandate" and continue to misgovern the country for another five years, based on policies that no-one even noticed at the time because they were buried under the great steaming pile of ordure that is Brexit. Meanwhile, everything bad that happens will be blamed on some combination of (remainers/traitors/saboteurs/inevitable transient correction after Brexit).
Or, let's imagine that Labour and Lib Dem could do a deal (which seems improbable, given Labour's recent efforts to purify itself of all heretical liberal thought, but let's go with it), and put together a coalition government. Then it would be tasked with negotiating a New and Better Brexit, per Labour's policy, but doing so from a position of "no matter what happens we can't leave with no deal". This means the EU has even less reason than it's had to date to negotiate seriously - from its point of view, the whole problem can be solved by simply forcing the worst imaginable deal onto Britain, so that it will be rejected and the UK will remain. And then Corbyn, or his successor, will be in the position of trying to deliver on Labour's manifesto (which assumes Brexit) while still inside the EU, which would be mostly impossible, so they'll be epically punished for it at the next election. (And the Lib Dems would be even more screwed than they were with the Tories.)
OR, imagine that Corbyn could pull off - what he pretended to pull off in 2017, another massive swing to Labour, giving him an outright majority. (Spoiler, he can't. Lest we forget, he lost in 2017.) That leaves him - well, actually in the same position as if he'd done a deal with the Lib Dems but with one less scapegoat.
There's no happy ending to this story. Brexit is happening. If, three months later, you can still walk down the street without having to step over corpses, buy mange tout in Waitrose, turn on the lights - it will be called a howling success, because that's how low Remainers have dragged the bar.
"hat's how low Remainers have dragged the bar."
Ah, so the whole Brexit mess is the fault of remainers? People who, you know, didn't want this pile of stinking compost in the first place? No, sorry - nobody is forcing anyone to go for a no-deal other than the hard right tories (that's all that seem to be left) and their buddies in the Brexkip "parties" - all for the sake of keeping the tory party together. Screw the country, fuck business, talk of surrender, traitors, blah blah blah. What planet are you on?
@Mooseman
"Ah, so the whole Brexit mess is the fault of remainers?"
Yes. Brexit was voted for, remainers refuse, remainers fault.
"People who, you know, didn't want this pile of stinking compost in the first place?"
Who believe themselves omnipotent but really just crying babies. Democracy only being acceptable if it returns the 'right' result. Aka tyrants nobody should want running anything.
"No, sorry - nobody is forcing anyone to go for a no-deal other than the hard right tories"
And who is in power. Job done.
"Screw the country, fuck business, talk of surrender, traitors, blah blah blah"
Absolutely the problem! And if remain will stop doing such then we can get on with our lives. Unfortunately they still refuse after losing 3 votes on EU membership.
You really have no idea do you? And yet here we are again, hurling sad little insults around as if that makes you some kind of tough guy. "crying babies"? Well the only people I see crying are the brexiters like you who whine about "sovereignty" but throw your toys out of the pram when our parliament and legal system stops the most incoherent and dangerous "government" - I use the term loosely - of modern times. What you and all the rest of your mob fail to realise is that 1) it was a referendum, not an election so no, democracy hasn't been destroyed 2) It has been attempted for 3 years, we had a deal (done by the tories) which the hard right of the party rejected. To be fair it IS worse than staying in the EU, then again, any Brexit is. 3) because a hard right government is in power doesn't mean they have the automatic right to wreck the country for their own ends - make no mistake, that's what they are doing. Yellowhammer is base case, not worst case. 4) fuck business? that was your hero BJ
Stop acting like a child and grow a brain.
@Mooseman
Feel free to format your responses with a little more space. Then it looks like organised thought instead of a wall of rambling text.
"And yet here we are again, hurling sad little insults"
You dont have to.
"Well the only people I see crying are the brexiters"
Really? Not looking much I guess. 3 votes to leave and still libs are talking about stopping it happening, the speaker, the court. Yes they are doing what they can to stop brexit. Yet we didnt vote for them. We voted to leave and brexit parties. Its not crying to oppose tyrants who seek to remove the people from deciding the future of their country.
"What you and all the rest of your mob"
The majority of voters. 3 times.
"1) it was a referendum, not an election so no, democracy hasn't been destroyed"
1 referendum. 1 election. 1 MEP election. And yes parliament voted to enact the referendum which had been advertised as binding and enacted right away. Compared to no democratic mandate at all in the slightest for remain.
"2) It has been attempted for 3 years"
Which shows a remainer cannot negotiate brexit. Something both sides didnt seem to like as May made a mess. Yet the deadline passed. And there are cries to beg for another extension. But brexit is unilateral, so there is no excuse for it not being done. So obviously a poor attempt by May.
"3) because a hard right government is in power"
Where? Hard right seems to mean anyone to the right of Corbyn which is pretty much anyone thinking or has employment. Cameron and Osborne were as centre left as labour and their 'austerity' was spending a little less than the extravagant spending already planned (not a cut). UK tax is as high as it has been in 30 years! So in what way hard right?
"4) fuck business?"
Where uncertainty is known for causing economic damage which just happens to be because we have still to leave.
I see you're beginning to lose any coherence at all. The insults came from you.
Lets see - a referendum which leave won by a tiny margin
An election which saw the pro leave tories lose their entire majority and have to be propped up in power by the creationist anti everything sane DUP
An EU election that saw pro remain parties poll more votes than pro leave, even including the laughable Brexit "party". The tories stated that the kicking they got in the EU and local elections was as sign to "get on with Brexit". No doubt you agree.
Cameron and Osbourne are left wing? Anyone to the right of Corbyn is hard right? You are simply deranged.
2 points - stop trying to put people down by making sad little comments, nobody thinks it makes you look clever except you
Secondly, "fuck business" was your hero Johnson, a direct quote. Look it up.
@Mooseman
"Lets see - a referendum which leave won by a tiny margin"
So leave won. That is correct.
"An election which saw the pro leave tories lose their entire majority and have to be propped up in power by the creationist anti everything sane DUP"
So a leave government formed due to greater support for leave than remain.
"An EU election that saw pro remain parties poll more votes than pro leave"
You cant count? The party set up for brexit (brexit party) gained the most votes. The party set up for remain (CUK) barely noticeable. To be fair though the lib dems set themselves up as the remain party and did well, but less well than the brexit party.
"The tories stated that the kicking they got in the EU and local elections was as sign to "get on with Brexit". No doubt you agree."
The brexit party won so yes.
"Cameron and Osbourne are left wing? Anyone to the right of Corbyn is hard right? You are simply deranged."
Cameron and Osborne didnt move much away from what Labour did. Labour being the centre left party yes. Not much changed between them really except we actually finally got the promised referendum.
You made the laughable comment of the hard right in power. If you believe that then you must think Corbyn near to centre, aka thats funny.
"2 points - stop trying to put people down by making sad little comments, nobody thinks it makes you look clever except you"
Then stop posting your sad and incorrect little comments and I wont reply to them.
"Secondly, "fuck business" was your hero Johnson, a direct quote. Look it up."
I know he said that but why the hell you think he is my hero? And it was said in reaction to lobbyists who are often considered the enemy? By action however it is the uncertainty of not leaving yet which is fucking business over.
As soon as the EU said no negotiations before article 50 is triggered. That was a ludicrous decision for both the British and the rest of Europe. What should have happened, given rational governments seeking the best interests of all their people in the circumstances, would have been for all parties to accept the referendum result and immediately start negotiating in good faith an agreement that would constitute the best or at least least worst relationship between the countries going forward. Once that was agreed article 50 would have been triggered and there would then be a properly planned two year transition period. It seems pretty likely that is what was in the minds of the treaty drafters.
Now clearly almost none of that happened, with the results we see, and no party comes out of it at all well. Its ironic that the behaviour of the EU negotiators, apparently not in the least bothered about the state of their own noses just so long as they could punch the Brits in the face, is a strong new argument that leaving the EU is a good decision, whilst the behaviour of our own politicians, apparently incapable of running a whelk stall without EU bureaucrats restricting their powers of idiocy, is probably the strongest new argument for staying in.
Bollocks.
They said no "formal" negotiations. That means:
"We all know that two years isn't enough time to work all this out. Come and have as much discussion as you like, off the record, for as long as you want.Once we've got something pretty much sorted out, trigger A50 and we can all formally agree to the stuff we already agreed to in private. Nudge nudge, wink wink..."
That's how pretty much all trade deals are actually done.
But it seems our "master negotiator" didn't understand politics, trade, borders or how to walk and breathe at the same time.
Even after that, the deal May agreed to was:
"Let's have at least two more years when we're technically 'out' to really figure out WTF to do. And that one part that's ridiculously difficult, we'll leave it open for now. Somebody will find a solution eventually, and then we can set a sensible timescale for everyone to implement it."
Put simply, the EU were under the mistaken belief that we weren't utterly insane fools who couldn't negotiate our way out of a pre-torn wet paper bag.
They've since realized their mistake, of course.
And then all you have to do is to explain to the public what the difference is between "discussion... off the record" and ignoring the referendum result completely.
Especially as typically the EU response to adverse referendum results has been to find a way of ignoring them and hoping they go away.
And then all you have to do is to explain to the public what the difference is between "discussion... off the record" and ignoring the referendum result completely.
All D.Cameron had to do was to set up a Commission.
As we now know he could of populated it with the Brexiteers in the Conservative party and be sure they would never be able to reach agreement to be able to publish an actionable report.
Especially as typically the EU response to adverse referendum results...
The EU doesn't hold referendums, and also isn't in any way responsible for the way member nations hold them or act on the results. This is all down to the fact that every member of the EU is a sovereign state...
Spot on. Theresa May backed herself into an impossible corner and the country is still paying the price.
If she'd gone for a Norway deal (and had shut up the Brexiteers by pointing out that a 3.8% vote gap isn't a mandate for a hard Brexit), then the Irish border would have been no problem, negotiations would have been pretty straight-forward and she would have had sufficient backing from Labour that it would have got through parliament with no problem - even if some of the ERG fanatics in her party voted against it.
Instead, she went for the impossible. Leave the single market and customs union, then try to find an impossible solution to the NI border. Result? Chaos and eventually her own position.
I should note as a Remainer that I consider a Norway deal a bit dumb as it'd actually reduce our control. Still, they aren't in the EU and during the referendum even Farage was trumpeting Norway as a possible solution...
Farage is not to be trusted. Norway was fine for him then, but now it seems no-deal wont be enough.
The ERG would not have been happy with it either and while a Norway deal might be fine for a Norway that still has massive oil wealth and taxes that would make a tory commit suicide its effect on the UK would have been bloody awful, which would be blamed on the EU and round we would go again.
Imagine the gloomy Brit workforce in the EU who haven't got a scooby doo what their future is going to be, because their residency, work, health, and pension rights are reciprocal to what gets dished out to EU citizens in the UK and are entirely dependent on the entitled schoolchild and his special psychopathic friend dream up today.
Best deal would be to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
But parliament didn't screw anything up, it just did its job. The executive fucked things up by making incompatible promises and trying to sideline parliament, even after the Supreme Court told it that it couldn't.
regardless of my take on the UK gov and the people at the helm (what helm?!), and while I, kind of, sympathies with the parliament in the current... circumstances, I do think that the parliament screwed up very badly and didn't do its job at all, as it allowed Cameron's referendum to be worded in such a way that we've got ourselves into an impossible tangle. They shout it's their job to scrutinize the government. Like fuck they did. Serves them right. And serves us right because we chose PMs who are OK-ish for fair weather, but nothing worse. But then, hindsight is a wonderful thing :(
@Tom 7
"Its not like no-one warned them. Project fear and all that."
We are still waiting on those 2 recessions we were guaranteed. One from the result and one because of art50. And of course the punishment budget aka a direct threat against the population by the gov to dictate the vote (and failed). And the ongoing problems of uncertainty when the uncertainty is directly 100% caused by us not leaving the EU within the allotted time.
"Best deal would be to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union." The best deal yes, but what exactly would be the point? It's non-voting Remain. Remain minus.
The only perceivable benefit is: "it will make some ignorant people happy". Is that the level of desperation we've reached? Really?
Best outcome is a second ref. Three years have passed. Unlike 1975, 2016 was won marginally and was unfair. The Leave side broke electoral and data protection law, and told proven misinformation throughout the campaign. It's entirely legitimate to have another.
Best outcome is a second ref.
Why? Oh Why?
The Brexit mess should by now have demonstrated that 'Parliamentary Democracy' and 'Popular Votes' does not mix. Second Referendum just lets everyone faff around screaming about what they don't want others to have for even longer.
The very best outcome is the UK Out on the 31'st, May's deal or no deal, because we on the EU-side don't care anymore about preserving the unity of the Tory party and the total uselessness of Labour as an opposition party and the failure of Parliament to remove a dysfunctional government!
The coming recession in the EU can be safely blamed on Brexit and all manner of fudgy things can be done about it since it is a 'totally unique and never likely to happen again'-situation. Just wait.
More like 6 or 7.
Which is why Dominc Cummings Leave campaign was just "Leave the EU" because that's all the agreement all the different Brexiteers could agree on.
And because understanding all the different rights and benefits trade offs those options gave would make the poor little brains of the leavers explode.
They voted for a blank sheet of paper.
3 years on the sheet is not blank but the leavers are still as divided as they were the day the Leave campaign was formed.
>More like 6 or 7.
A few years ago, UKIP (or similar) had a competition to select the version of Leave to champion for the referendum. It had about 10 entries, including WTO, Norway, FTA, Flexcit, Lexit, etc, etc and all was good until it came to picking a winner. The panel assembled, started discussing the different versions and realized that none of them could agree on any version....
The competition was abandoned with no winner, and that is the reason why it was just "Leave" instead of a specific version of leave.
"but this time it was necessary since there are about 4-5 versions of leaving."
The 4 or 5 versions mean that it's not possible for any of them to get a majority.
Don't forget that when the fragmented leave is taken into consideration the largest group is remain.
@Doctor Syntax
"Don't forget that when the fragmented leave is taken into consideration the largest group is remain."
Until we ask what version of remain. Then its a clusterfuck of hippies, socialists, twerps and rabid mercantile short sightedness. Hell remain means reform/status quo/federalisation/nationalism/EUSSR/US of E/protectionist/globalisation/centralised/devolved insanity.
@Mooseman
"Rubbish. Stop quoting bullshit Farage soundbites"
Has Farage pointed out that fact too? Its one I have said for a while because remain is not some united group with a unified vision. They are a rabble of conflicting views and opinions who see the only possibility of their vision through remain. Which is the same description I would give to leave.
The Brits who think there must be a “no deal” threat to get a good deal have no idea how the EU works.
Of course “no deal” is no big threat. It’s like saying “I’ll shoot myself in the foot in your living room, and you’ll have to pay to get the carpet cleaned”.
What the EU wants is a contract how the U.K. will leave in an orderly way, while not going against the principles of the EU, and not going against the interests of valued EU members like Ireland. What U.K. politicians want is mostly unreasonable based on deluded beliefs in their own importance. They see enemies that don’t exist in real life. It’s sad.
"but since parliament is determined to hamstring the negotiations by creating a situation where the EU, alone, gets to decide what the deal is"
There's this odd thing about negotiations. Both sides need to agree on an outcome. It's not the EU alone who decide. We both have to. And so far there's nothing both sides can agree on. Then, of course, there's the matter of in international agreement which the UK entered into a couple of decades ago that, in practical terms, assumes we're part of the EU and the only suggestions for continuing to honour it and not be in the EU seem to consist entirely of hand-waving.
"Imagine the gloomy Brit workforce in the EU who haven't got a scooby doo what their future is going to be, because their residency, work, health, and pension rights are reciprocal to what gets dished out to EU citizens in the UK and are entirely dependent on the entitled schoolchild and his special psychopathic friend dream up today."
EU citizens resident in the UK before Brexit is implemented (currently, 31st October)are entitled to stay in the UK, even if they have not already qualified for permanent residence. This was announced under May's tenure. Many EU citizens have already established their situation but as usual, the Home Office is managing to screw up the fairly simple rules.
The EC/EU27 have not reciprocated, which is why many British citizens living on the continent don't know what will happen. However, some EU27 countries, like Germany, have announced something similar to the UK.
>The EC/EU27 have not reciprocated, which is why many British citizens living on the continent don't know what will happen. However, some EU27 countries, like Germany, have announced something similar to the UK.
The UK govt has now announced that it will only fund healthcare for 6 months after a no deal Brexit. Lots of UK cits that retired in the EU will now find themselves having to fund their own healthcare in the EU.... and if they come home, they aren't covered either.
"....and if they come home, they aren't covered either."
Entitlement to free non-emergency NHS treatment is for all legal residents of the UK - any returning ex-pat would be entitled to free routine NHS care as soon as they establish residency e.g. register for council tax and inform HMRC and DWP of their return and UK address.
Actually, the chances of a recession everywhere are increasing. Here in Germany, the number of companies who've put people on short time is up to 6% with quite a few more expecting it in the next few months. It turns out that loose monetary policy doesn't help at all when companies don't want to invest.
As for the government keeping it's promises: well, Bojo has already lied to the electorate multiple times; he's lied to parliament and now we find he's lied to the Queen. I wonder if he's prepared to lie to the electorate again?
#LockHimUp.
Of course he'll lie and lie and lie again. You'd think that would render him untenable in the eyes of the electorate and it probably would if they knew but all the "popular" press are not reporting his lies as lies, instead they just parrot the disinformation from Central Office as they have done for the last 50 years or so.
That's what gave us Brexit, if the papers (especially the Mail, Sun & Express) had been honest about the EU the referendum wouldn't have stood a chance.
Maybe, but people choose what they want to believe and so often it's the snake oil salesmen, because they tell them what they want to hear. Getting rid of Johnny Foreigner and leaving the EU will put food on table and help their football team win the league.
We need to outsmart the liars.
Maybe, but people choose what they want to believe and so often it's the snake oil salesmen... <snip>
We need to outsmart the liars.
An interesting and almost certainly an accurate comment, but at the risk of finding myself with a bulk delivery of downvotes do you apply this comment to both sides of the Brexit debate or perhaps just the "leave" side?
One of the most noticeable features of the debate (insofar as it is a debate) post referendum is that the arguments in favour of remain seem to consist mainly of ad hominem criticism of those who voted to leave rather than clear arguments in favour of staying in.
I would argue that self - delusion (or at the very least elements of self - delusion) exists on both sides of any division such as this.
Maybe, but people choose what they want to believe and so often it's the snake oil salesmen
Well yes, it even has a name: Confirmation bias.
the arguments in favour of remain seem to consist mainly of ad hominem criticism of those who voted to leave rather than clear arguments in favour of staying in
The advantage of staying in is we don't get all the disadvantages of leaving. I'm still yet (after 3 years) to hear a single valid argument for leaving.
Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but ignorance of what happens when you believe promises that are based on whatever you want to hear rather than the reality is the average election these days. PT Barnum would be the richest man in the world if he were alive today.
Laying my cards on the table as a metropolitan elite whinging remoaner.
If no deal can be achieved.
[1] Repeal of conduct of employment business 2003 legislation.
This makes it easier as an intermediary to rip off workers for less than £10k at time, without risking the award of costs in a legal case. In other words from agency workers paid from minimum wage until about £400 per day, can have an entire months wage stolen at no risk again, something outlawed for 16 years.
This would be most often seen in recruiters with customers who refuse to pay, passing on the losses to the agency worker. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3319/contents/made
[2] Property available cheaply
Quite a lot of people are overleveraged in the property market, an increase in the number of repossessions as people are unable to meet mortgage commitments, creates an opportunity for liquid investors to buy property sold at actions from banks looking purely to recoup the debt.
These are rather horrible examples, but, I think that the money backing Brexit includes these motivations.
Ben Habib (Brexit Party) €960,000 from First Property Group, his property fund manager.
Tony Goodwin (Brexit Party) Recruitment Agency owner.
So these people and people like them will gain certain specific things from Brexit.
I'd argue that agency workers and people wiped out by repossessions are likely to not view these outcomes as positively.
I don't see these as a positive, maybe I'd see it differently if I was in these chap's well heeled shoes.
Ah well, it's probably the politics of envy colouring my view.
Project Fear actually sounds like this:
“when Turkey joins the EU several million sex crazed dervishes are going to immediately travel to the UK and claim all the benefits, and when there is a European army we will all be conscripted to fight for Ukraine against Russia in a tactical thermonuclear battle. Bloke down ‘Spoons said so last Friday night after 9 pints of good old British Stella.”
Indeed.
The only Turk you should really fear already has a British passport.
Meanwhile the Turkish armies pension fund is buying Scunthorpe steel works from "British Steel"* Many of whom voted Leave in the area.
An honest headline would have been "Gammons bacon saved by Turkey" but no one went for this.
*As the US hedge fund renamed it after they bought it from Tata and loaded it with a mountain of debt.
I agree with the thrust of your point.
The arguments in favour of remain are essentially
1) EU law is known and largely favourable to businesses and workers rights.
2) Free movement is a unalloyed goodness.
3)The other two global trade blocks (US and China, don't favour us, will never favour us, and are far enough away to be problematic).
4) We have the best deal in the EU, if we leave we'll have to have a worse deal with our majority trading partner.
An interesting and almost certainly an accurate comment, but at the risk of finding myself with a bulk delivery of downvotes do you apply this comment to both sides of the Brexit debate or perhaps just the "leave" side?
In 2016, it was definitely the Leave campaign that saw the opportunity and ran with it. There was never really much of a positive, emotional campaign to stay. This wasn't helped because the various parties with an official position of staying saw little political advantage in working together and the two largest (Conservative and Labour) had large, vociferous minorities that wanted to leave. So the Remain campaign was lacklustre and focussed on economic assessments. I think the idea was to repeat the election campaign of 2015. As the referendum loomed there was more stick, with some overblown claims about the economic consequences (unknowable because the form of leaving was unknown).
As for ad hominem: Cameron was an idiot for not following up on his speech on becoming leader of the party and standing up to the anti-EU fringe and eventually caving in; Corbyn was unconvinced and hence unconvincing, he really doesn't seem to care what Britain's relationship is with Europe as long his great socialist dream comes to fruition; but Bojo is an entitled and self-serving arse who saw an opportunity for personal glory.
For me, with parents who remember the Second World War, the overriding argument for the EU is the peace that it has brought members, including eventually Northern Ireland. There are plenty of others but it's a good place to start.
"One of the most noticeable features of the debate (insofar as it is a debate) post referendum is that the arguments in favour of remain seem to consist mainly of ad hominem criticism of those who voted to leave rather than clear arguments in favour of staying in."
I think the term "Project Fear" and disparaging of experts could be reasonably classed as ad hominem. The arguments thus attacked can't.
He was sacked for working at The Times when he could no longer cover up the shit he was making up. Of course, it's exactly the same kind of shit that The Telegraph laps up, which is why, even as Prime Minister, who might be considered to have more important things to do, he continues to be paid to write opinion pieces.
" The chances of a recession everywhere are increasing"
Brexit is a side issue and a distraction as far as a wider recession is concerned, really Brexit is just another stick being thrown on to what could become a not so merry blaze.
With certain people peeling bananas with their feet while signing trade and other war executive orders with their hands willy nilly and also printing money as fast as it is possible to do, we just need one or two little things to push everything over the edge.
Then UK woes with Europe will be insignificant as the world will go into overdrive rescuing too large to fail corporations while everyone else stuggles to survive.
Since nobody knows what's going to happen the best strategy is to continue, and do whatever you feel works best for you.
Sounds daft but if everyone followed this - at their own pace and without looking for external influence - it would actually create some balance.
As opposed to everyone trying to do the same thing because they've been led to believe it's the "right" decision.
Problems tend to occur when there are huge shifts involving huge numbers of people in a relatively small amount of time. If it were more balanced out it would actually create some harmony.
What works best for me is to let the right wing scum take us out, slash taxes and public services. I am a healthy white male earning a good salary. I will be ok and end up paying less in tax.
However I am not one of those cunts who just thinks about themselves. Doing what works best for you is what produced this mess with greedy fuckers trying to increase their score (read bank balance) at other people’s expense or even lives.
Cheer up people! Cheer up!
After all, if Brexit continues to be the omnishambles it currently is - very likely - we have climate change to look forward to.
Just think how cool it's going to be to plan and implement a series of 'bug out' sites and a secret bunker in the far north of Scotland!
All that interesting logistical planning on how to actually get there if society breaks down and then, if you do, how long you can make your food last and what you could possibly grow as you eek out a subsistence level existence in the face of marauding hordes of migrating humans!
Lets face it, most of us geeky gamer types have spent many hours training for this, in various gaming scenarios. Sandbox survival games are such a close match to reality, we can rebuild civilisation in just a few weeks. All you need is an axe to start with and soon you'll be generating your own renewable geothermal energy.
So much to look forward to.
>All you need is an axe to start with and soon you'll be generating your own renewable geothermal energy.
Trouble is those "geeky gamer types" will rapidly discover: wielding a real axe is very different to clicking buttons on a game controller to wield an axe - especially if you've never done any real physical activity...
The ones who are still alive that is.
According to a YouGov analysis in the UK Guardian as of roughly Jan 19th 2019 enough old gammons have popped their clogs that if everyone who voted in 2016 noted today (and in the same way) it would have been a Remain vote.
Given that cretin Cameron had set the bar at X+1 vote for the winning side it doesn't seem like a landslide victory for the leave position, does it?
Then of course there's the question of wheather the Leave campaign could tell so many lies through social media without Cambridge Analytica to help them, although I'm sure they can find another outfit to fill their shoes.
"Given that cretin Cameron had set the bar at X+1 vote for the winning side it doesn't seem like a landslide victory for the leave position, does it?"
Not to mention the large number of young people now old enough to vote. The demographics of the vote showed many more young voters chose remain, so it's highly likely that not only would the remain vote be lower due to OAPs dying, the remian vote would increase because of what where 15/16/17 year olds now able to vote.
While I agree with the general stochastic analysis, it fails to take into consideration that as people get older their voting patterns tend to move towards long-term ones. So, some while some of the young people who too busy partying in 2016 to vote, would probably do so now, some of their parents who voted to remain then, might well vote to leave now.
Turn out would be key as would indeed be a positive campaign to stay. So the sooner Jezza retires to his allotment the better. Though I am slightly worried that he will be succeeded by Len McCluskey.
"it fails to take into consideration that as people get older their voting patterns tend to move towards long-term ones."
I wonder if this is so. As one of the older ones here my concerns are long term: I have children and grandchildren to think about. And to be brutally honest, I also have my pension to think of, which in both numerical and value terms, depends on the state of the UK economy. Those are personal concerns; in addition, to be altruistic, although it's a long time since I lived there, I do have concerns about peace in N Ireland. Those are reasons why I voted Remain.
I can't see why anyone with long term views would put their descendants' future at risk.
>While I agree with the general stochastic analysis, it fails to take into consideration that as people get older their voting patterns tend to move towards long-term ones.
Generally, lower educated people tend to develop more right-wing views at they age - but that is a large generalization.
Despite the obvious troll accounts on twitbook that claim they voted remain, but now want leave, I find it very unlikely that there are many people who voted remain who now thing leaving the EU looks like a good idea, especially now the reality of the challenges this involves are now much moe apparent. I do, however, know at least one leave voter who would now vote remain (and campaign for it) and at least one leave voter who has since died.
You’ve got no arms left. The country is already in recession, and if the economy wasn’t so warped, by axis and finance, you’d have noticed. It’s a policy bubble, with vote for the Blacksmith party or leave the sceptred shores. Albeit a bifurcated dichotomy nonetheless. #itsafleshwound
The main problem with Brexit is that most people are too young to remember the days before the UK joined the EU. Back then, people predicted the same gloom and doom upon entry as they are now predicting upon exit.
It sort of reminds me of the gloom and doom predictions of the climate changers who switched glibly over from the 'Next Ice Age Is Upon Us', to the 'Global Hothouse is Upon Us'.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
"the EU population is perfectly willing to see the UK leave "
Actually I suspect that's not true - Europeans I have spoken to recently are uniformly flabberghasted and utterly bewildered at the state of our politics and the apparent desire to drive the country off a cliff, but none of them said "I wish you'd just go"
Not quite wishing to see you go, but wishing to see an end to this farce most definitely. And as every people gets the government it deserves, the UK seems to deserve whatever comes from the Brexit, for which a majority of the voting people voted. Just blame the non-voting.
Scientists have been predicting global warming from burning fossil fuels since the 19th century. Even in the 70s where the ice age story dates from the global warming papers outnumber the cooling ones 10 to 1.
I think you may have applied the same quality of research to Brexit as you have to global warming
I really struggle with the argument "we got by before we were in the EU, so we'll get by once we're out of it." The world has changed massively since then, and we have changed in step with that (for better or worse). We are now proposing to yank ourselves back in time fifty years over the space of a weekend.
It's like saying that we could travel just as fast around London in the Victorian era as we can now, so suddenly taking all the buses, cars and taxis off the road would be absolutely fine. But we' be knee-deep in horseshit for a start...
@mr-slappy
"The world has changed massively since then, and we have changed in step with that (for better or worse). We are now proposing to yank ourselves back in time fifty years over the space of a weekend."
How is it a step backward to rejoin the world? How is it a step forward to hide in a cold war era protectionist block? The EU currency zone is in trouble because decades of economic knowledge has been ignored for fairies and unicorns with the obvious result of ideology over reality.
"The EU currency zone is in trouble"
Says who? It's doing rather better than the US dollar and outperforming the pound. More drivel with no substance.
Rejoin the world? Are you on drugs? more than half our trade is with countries outside the EU, for now at least. When we have to renegotiate every trade deal again from scratch with the added hindrance of a lying tosspot in charge, the world's least convincing negotiation team, cabinet ministers who don't know what Dover is and a country willing to simply dismiss debts they don't feel like paying, I doubt it will be that easy.
@Mooseman
"Says who?"
Oh you didnt know? Feel free to do some research. This has been pretty common knowledge even by the EU itself.
"It's doing rather better than the US dollar and outperforming the pound"
Yikes, nope. A currency exists to facilitate an economy, and if you look at the sacrificed economies to protect the Euro (instead of reducing the strength of the overvalued Euro to protect the economy) then you see the Euro sucks badly. And that is because it is overvalued for the poor countries and undervalued for the successful ones with no fiscal transfers and diverged business cycles.
Put simpler- Recession hits. US and UK bounce out of a recession while the EU does nothing. The US and UK at full employment and still stonking along even with trade wars and brexit uncertainty while the EZ nearly fell into deflation, are barely clinging on and still have unemployment problems.
"Rejoin the world? Are you on drugs?"
Your a protectionist nationalist?
"more than half our trade is with countries outside the EU, for now at least"
A world much larger than the EU. And of course the EZ is a shrinking portion of the worlds wealth. With high tariffs imposed by the EU! So yes rejoin the world!!!
"When we have to renegotiate every trade deal"
This does make me laugh. Shouting trade deal shows the problem with the EU. The EU is so protectionist is absolutely cannot function without trade deals. The UK will benefit from trade deals but unless we wall ourselves off like the EU we can easily keep trade.
"lying tosspot in charge"
How will that change? Cameron got a signed paper guaranteeing our contribution would not bail out Greece. And it was worth approximately bugger all. Because lying scum are lying scum in our gov or the EU's.
"This does make me laugh. Shouting trade deal shows the problem with the EU. The EU is so protectionist is absolutely cannot function without trade deals. The UK will benefit from trade deals but unless we wall ourselves off like the EU we can easily keep trade."
That rather the point of the EU, trade - we have about 50 trade deals via the EU, which is more than the USA and China combined. Are you suggesting we can do better, or that we can function in the world without trade deals? I repeat, are you on drugs?
@Mooseman
"That rather the point of the EU, trade"
I think somewhere you missed the point. That the EU isnt about trade. Such point is made every time a remainer says the EU 'protects' our industries, that is truth- the EU is protectionist.
"we have about 50 trade deals via the EU"
In the very quote of mine in your comment is the answer! Read- "The EU is so protectionist is absolutely cannot function without trade deals."
"Are you suggesting we can do better, or that we can function in the world without trade deals?"
Again the answer is in the bloody quote! Read- "The UK will benefit from trade deals but unless we wall ourselves off like the EU we can easily keep trade."
"I repeat, are you on drugs?"
When you learn to read, even the very parts of my comment that you quote, then come back to me. Until then you obviously dont read or understand so dont waste my time.
"When you learn to read, even the very parts of my comment that you quote, then come back to me. Until then you obviously dont read or understand so dont waste my time."
So we have gone from "do your own research", the lynchpin of "I don't have a clue what Im talking about but I'll keep spouting made up nonsense" Brexit supporter, to more pathetic insults. You haven't answered a single thing other than by repeating "look what I said" as if your transparently stupid comments actually had A) any basis in truth and B) had any evidence to support them. That's not how arguments work, sorry - you cant just say "I wrote it so its true", unless you're Trump or Johnson of course.
How will we "easily keep trade" ? All our trade deals will require renegotiating. You insist the EU isn't about trade? What is it about then? Ooh let me guess, an EU army? Global domination ?
"don't waste my time"? Well you keep churning out fucking garbage sunshine.
How about you take your self important attitude away, you impress precisely nobody, and do some actual thinking beyond rainbows and unicorns and parroting soundbites.
@Mooseman
"to more pathetic insults"
I wasnt trying to insult you, but to instruct you to actually read. You quoted the part of my comment that answered your entire comment! Seriously all you had to do was read it. And you are wasting my time if you quote my answer to your question in the comment you ask the question. You didnt ask for any expansion of the answer, nothing new, you literally asked a question that you quoted the answer.
"How will we "easily keep trade" ?"
The EU has high tariffs to protect its industries aka protectionism (for 28 countries!) which then requires trade deals to actually then be able to trade. We can easily keep trade by not having high tariffs in the first place, thereby reducing the costs on the country. Trade deals are of course nice and desirable but starting from a position of accepting trade is better than starting from protectionism. Also a number of deals are queued up for when we are free to sign them.
"All our trade deals will require renegotiating"
New ones yes. And is that a bad thing? Right now EU trade deals are negotiated for the protectionism of 28 countries not including who the deal is with. Newly negotiated deals will be 1 to 1.
"You insist the EU isn't about trade? What is it about then?"
Protectionism. Its an old style protectionist block designed for the cold war era. Trade being something you need permission for not the norm.
"Ooh let me guess, an EU army? Global domination ?"
Thats amusing, equating an EU army (something they are actively working toward) vs global domination (probably any politicians wet dream). There isnt a unified view of the EU from within but the desire for an army is known as is the desire to federalise.
So if you are going to respond please read the comment first, especially the bit your going to quote, before writing your questions just in case the answer is already there.
We have a person at work who goes to Europe a lot, so of course he voted to leave.
He said he doesn't mind it costing more to go, He is happy to pay.
But for some stupid reason or other he is not willing to pay for my daughters EU funded research project.
Also he went blank when I said "Good Friday Agreement"
He knows I consider him an idiot.
Aw, suck it up snowflake. I had to work with an actual neo-Nazi in two different workplaces. The first one was an apprentice of mine and I was able to take the time to reason him out of it. The second one was older than me, and a salesman, and he didn't ever mention his politics at work so I just had to put up with him.
I often found it difficult to get along with colleagues even when their politics agreed with mine, let alone the scum. But I've also been unfairly treated as scum myself so I tend not to sabotage others. I treated work like a football game where you don't get to pick your team.
There are valid arguments for voting for Brexit. If someone disagrees with you it is not a big deal, it's just a minor disagreement you can argue about if you want. What is unacceptable and dangerous is when a political demagogue uses inflammatory language like "Surrender Bill', "treacherous" or worse.
The UK is at it's lowest point in, well, perhaps ever but certainly in 18 years, probably 200 years. That is not the case here, The Register is just as good as it always was. And as every other forum falls to pieces around us we have an added responsibility to stay cool, polite and rational.
A doyen of the free software movement once threatened to stab me through the internet. I'd made the mistake of emailing a very polite and complimentary text applauding his work but disagreeing with his gun control views. I think he seriously wanted to stab me but was joking about the internet bit. It became an internet meme when I joked about it online.
Even smart folk fall for stupid ideas and act stupidly, but unless they have personally done others harm then you have to put up with them, try to reform them and respect them enough to argue with them. The forum helps. I'm a bit nasty on other sites, I'm virtually a Buddhist monk here because the moderation is so moderate and the contributors are so rational. I get a wee pang of joy every time I upvote someone here and a wee pang of guilt on the rare occasions I downvote someone.
The folk here are smarter and more decent than parliament, increasingly so. Let us maintain that.
"cool, polite and rational"
Metaphorically machine gunning people with facts (or 'facts') kinda hides a lot of the nasty emotions behind the keyboard.
The counterpoints are ignored. You can absolutely demolish someone's basic premise with a whole host of references, and they just change tac. Piling on talking points as if that adds weight to a flawed premise.
Look at the opinion polls doing the rounds. 'Britain Elects' currently has the Conservatives >6% lead over Labour, but whatukthinks.org (aggregates several polls) has remain at 51%. It's quite easy to cherry pick surveys to get to whatever position you want. I recall channel 4 calling both sides out over this during interviews.
Whenever a politician would cite a poll to back up their position, they would be asked "Which poll?" It's rare that either side would have an answer.
>The UK is at it's lowest point in, well, perhaps ever but certainly in 18 years, probably 200 years.
The UK *in its current form* is only 97 years old.
In the original form, the UK of GB and Ireland (only 218 years old), had a famine that killed 1million people and a civil war, so at least one of those would have been a lower point.
I stopped reading el Reg regularly before the referendum. Why? Every EU comment thread was full of raving Leavers, and half the articles were no better. Where have they gone? Where were the remainer arguments? Is it just that Russia has run out of money for trolls, or have all the angry sysadmins crawled back into their server racks? Was it just that the majority of Register readers couldn't be arsed, or never thought in their right minds that anybody would take Farage seriously?
"Every EU comment thread was full of raving Leavers, "
Actually that's when I started reading El Reg articles on this subjects - practically everyone I know favoured of Remain so I was keen to hear the arguments from the other side. Though I found those to be somewhat unconvinging. Also got the impression Leave-voters seemed to vastly overestimate the scope of EU regulations.
(<rant> A lot of overly complex regulation, esp. in HSE, is homegrown in the UK and those implementing it (both civil servants and the private sector) often misunderstand it or add unnecessary further layers of complexity. For the record: I'm in favour of effective HSE regulation to protect lives and the environment, but against misapplying it to make life unnessarily difficult, and no safer. </rant> )
"The UK's Office for Budget Responsibility also said this week that government borrowing had increased by £17.8bn to £41.4bn, although the lion's share was due to more realistic accounting of student loans – half of which are now considered as "spending" because they will never be paid back."
Great, so people who didn't go to university are footing the bill for those that did, nothing quite like a dose of shadow socialism to show the fairness in our society eh?
Great, so people who didn't go to university are footing the bill for those that did
Yes, just like those of us without children are footing the bill for those who do, or those of us who have never been burgled are subsidising victims of crime, or those of us who have never smoked are subsidising treatment of COPD on the NHS, or ... well, hopefully you get my point.
FWIW, those who have been to university are more likley to be higher tax-rate payers, so on the whole, they are subsisidisng those who didn't, but don't let basic factual literacy get in the way of a good misanthropic outburst on t'internet.
I couldn't afford to go to university even when it was free because my sister had went and my family struggled with her living expenses and so on.
I have no complaint because I got a great apprenticeship. I have paid an amazing amount in tax. 50% in income tax, plus huge amounts in stealth taxes, and I wouldn't grudge any of that if the government flunkies treated me with minimal respect now I am impoverished.
Scotland still has free University education, and that makes for better conversation around the campfires. It also makes for better scientific discovery. Investment in education now will pay dividends in future.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
