Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Don't get me wrong - it's a welcome victory for equality, and the presence of people with working-class roots in the cabinet, is also to be welcomed.
None the less there comes a time when you have to look beyond a person's gender or background and ask:
What are your policies, what is your vision for Britain...and I see nothing that inspires me...
The Tories are very good at gaining power, but is often the case, they have no idea what to do when they're in office...
That's fair enough, I was just challenging the proposition of 'grey, dull and safe'. Hammond, May, and Fallon tick that box, but not so much the others. The rest of them? There's a really diverse mix of backgrounds and personalities there. You're right that nothing's been put forward yet, but don't you think it's a bit early? Davis hasn't been in cabinet since the 90's, Fox has been out in the cold a while, and most of the rest have never held such major portfolios. May herself is a new PM.
I think a week or two of figuring out where the tea point in the office is, who you need to have on speed dial, and general adjustment is to be expected before any of them start to make serious plans or announcing anything major. If May did have a 'vision for Britain' and a full raft of policies worked out at this stage, before her first cabinet meeting, that would be a far grimmer more ominous sign than anything else quite frankly.
I heard of an interview with Norman Tebbit where he was asked, 'What would be the best thing May could do?', and his response was 'Bring back actual Cabinet responsibility and debate, instead of this bizare thing begun by Blair where the Prime Minister and Chancellor decide all the policy and the Cabinet is just there for show'.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in other words, but I think you're jumping the gun slightly. I'm content to wait a month and see what happens. Right now, I'm encouraged by the range of backgrounds and opinions in the Cabinet. Considering originally we weren't even going to have a new PM until October, things are already moving at a sufficient speed that I don't begrudge giving her until the end of August to figure out where she's going.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/14 12:29:29
I'm more than happy to give Mrs May until September to get her feet under the table, plan the BREXIT strategy, and appointment the negotiating team. No problem with that.
Even so, when these people got into politics, I assume, and hope, they did so because they wanted to change Britain. They must, at the very least, have some idea, some vision for Britain.
Power for its own sake, the status quo, is not good enough for the UK heading into a post-BREXIT 21st century.
The same old same old ain't gonna cut it against the Yanks, India, China etc etc
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm more than happy to give Mrs May until September to get her feet under the table, plan the BREXIT strategy, and appointment the negotiating team. No problem with that.
Even so, when these people got into politics, I assume, and hope, they did so because they wanted to change Britain. They must, at the very least, have some idea, some vision for Britain.
Power for its own sake, the status quo, is not good enough for the UK heading into a post-BREXIT 21st century.
I'm with you there. Fingers crossed, eh?
I'm annoyed Hunt survived. There weren't many cabinet members I felt were pigheaded enough they should never have been there to begin with, but he's one of them. It's a bad sign for the BMA.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm more than happy to give Mrs May until September to get her feet under the table, plan the BREXIT strategy, and appointment the negotiating team. No problem with that.
Even so, when these people got into politics, I assume, and hope, they did so because they wanted to change Britain. They must, at the very least, have some idea, some vision for Britain.
Power for its own sake, the status quo, is not good enough for the UK heading into a post-BREXIT 21st century.
I'm with you there. Fingers crossed, eh?
I'm annoyed Hunt survived. There weren't many cabinet members I felt were pigheaded enough they should never have been there to begin with, but he's one of them. It's a bad sign for the BMA.
Hunt's continuation is good news for the Scottish NHS - we've already seen a surge in junior doctor applications up here from down south.
Was reading the Guardian, and some professor of politics made the point that majority of 12 + lots of sacked cabinet ministers on the backbenches with too much time on their hands + Cameron loyalists = trouble for PM May...
And in other news, the new chancellor pretty much confirmed that if Scotland wants to keep its EU status, then it'll have to go independent...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Crabb has just stepped down from the cabinet " for the good of his family".
Stood for Prime Minister last week
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
reds8n wrote: Crabb has just stepped down from the cabinet " for the good of his family".
Stood for Prime Minister last week
As excuses go, it's up there with Bill Clinton's 'I smoked but never inhaled' excuse.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It suddenly occurred to me that Bojo is now in charge of MI6...
God help us...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Anyone else think that in some photo's Liam Fox, bears more than a passing resembalence to Nick Griffin?
Sort of an older, trimmer older brother.
Fox won't last long - some scandal or another will emerge. He can't help himself...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/14 15:24:08
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: So, Morgan and Gove are out. Grayling seems static. Hammond is chancellor. And surprisingly, Fox is back in!
I was discussing it with my father last night, and we both agreed there was something distinctly fishy about Bojo's new appointment; namely that we thought it was a done deal before the leadership contest was over. Johnson never ran, and stayed so very quiet and well-behaved throughout the entire thing it was quite unusual.
Some of you may recall me predicting a few weeks back that I thought May was the obvious successor, and Bojo would lose any contest due to a lack of serious party support? It would be interesting if Bojo thought the same, and came to an agreement with May then; namely a nice fat ministerial portfolio, and the prospect of a solid shot at leader when May departs in exchange for keeping things simple now. Gives him a chance to show he can be taken seriously, a chance to build up the Parliamentary support base he's currently lacking, and a right hand position in the cabinet.
With Davis running the Brexit department, Johnson will be kept well away from the serious business going on in Europe. Him and Fox will be packed off to the rest of the globe, China, America and so on to drum up business and shake hands in photographs. Which frankly, I think Johnson may actually do quite well. He's partially American too, which could come in handy in Washington in the days ahead. Assuming he doesn't turn into Prince Phillip (which I don't think he'll do, he still has his eye on the leadership after May), he may actually make a rather good Foreign Secretary in the end.
Edit:- Liz Truss is Justice Secretary and Justine Greening Education Secretary now. The women are certainly moving up the cabinet under May.
I prefer to believe that May is setting BoJo a do or die challenge.
She knows he is a well-educated, intelligent and personable guy who also is a slacker and a bit of a buffoon. A stint at Foreign Secretary will either force him to straighten up and fly right, or crash and burn.
A transformed, hard working BoJo would be a major asset to the Conservatives, and to the country. Possibly even a successor PM to May, who might be looking four or nine years ahead at this point in time. As head of the party it's her duty to bring up new talent.
OTOH if BoJo is incapable of fulfilling a serious ministerial appointment, it's best to find that out and send him packing in disgrace to avoid him getting near anything else important.
Real News wrote: Sad to see that white supremacists and fascists have become so powerful in the UK. I'd get out of there while I still could if I were you. May will be ten times worse than Thatcher and is likely to lead England (and just England) into a war with France. The US will have to come sort everything out in the end, just as we solved the Nazi problem with bombs and battalions of soldiers. The problem as I see it is that you have no left wing. You have Labour, the party of George W. Bush's personal manservant/whipping boy/fluffer Tony Blair. And you have the usual Tory fascists who offer nothing but blundering incompetence. Just being a tory is a political death sentence right now, but there are enough white supremacists in Labour to keep England as a closed-border fascist police state for decades to come. You really need to overhaul your system and start having general elections every four years so your governments don't just stay in power until they make a mistake and collapse.
Edited for Rule 1, motyak
The Conservatives are hardly fascists. They're not perfect (who is?) but they're performing an awful lot better than the opposition lol. As for your comment about Tory= political death sentences you should maybe look at Labour right now lol. A party at risk of splitting due to in-fighting between the main Parliamentary Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's small group of followers/activists. Despite their rep for being Bush jr.'s mate, they're still socialists so very much left wing.
We do have elections every 4yrs, I'm not sure what made you think otherwise.
Why are you bothering to respond to an obvious troll post ?
Because said troll post was reported to the mods this morning (by me), and they've (so far as I can tell) decided to take no action bar censoring a single word? I mean, really, are such obvious inflammatory flame bait posts permissible now? I've been banned for days in the past for less.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/14 16:29:19
I prefer to believe that May is setting BoJo a do or die challenge.
She knows he is a well-educated, intelligent and personable guy who also is a slacker and a bit of a buffoon. A stint at Foreign Secretary will either force him to straighten up and fly right, or crash and burn.
A transformed, hard working BoJo would be a major asset to the Conservatives, and to the country. Possibly even a successor PM to May, who might be looking four or nine years ahead at this point in time. As head of the party it's her duty to bring up new talent.
OTOH if BoJo is incapable of fulfilling a serious ministerial appointment, it's best to find that out and send him packing in disgrace to avoid him getting near anything else important.
I disagree with nothing here.
That being said, Johnson has a tendency towards dishonesty that I dislike. It got him fired when he was a journalist, and it showed up rather starkly in the brexit campaign. He needs to put a lid on that, or I will never vote for him. It's one thing to obscure the truth, or omit facts, it's another to make things up.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Ah of course. I missed Motyaks post immediately after. I really should have just gone straight to the source instead of reading the quote chain and jumping to conclusions.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I prefer to believe that May is setting BoJo a do or die challenge.
She knows he is a well-educated, intelligent and personable guy who also is a slacker and a bit of a buffoon. A stint at Foreign Secretary will either force him to straighten up and fly right, or crash and burn.
A transformed, hard working BoJo would be a major asset to the Conservatives, and to the country. Possibly even a successor PM to May, who might be looking four or nine years ahead at this point in time. As head of the party it's her duty to bring up new talent.
OTOH if BoJo is incapable of fulfilling a serious ministerial appointment, it's best to find that out and send him packing in disgrace to avoid him getting near anything else important.
I disagree with nothing here.
That being said, Johnson has a tendency towards dishonesty that I dislike. It got him fired when he was a journalist, and it showed up rather starkly in the brexit campaign. He needs to put a lid on that, or I will never vote for him. It's one thing to obscure the truth, or omit facts, it's another to make things up.
However, we live in an age when telling people comfortable lies that confirm what they want to believe is sometimes a more successful policy than telling them the truth. That's why the Daily Telegraph pays him £275,000 a year for his weekly column. I don't think this is likely to work with hard-bitten international diplomats though.
It strikes me that the annual surveys of most trusted and distrusted career people in the UK always have doctor at the top and politician, journalist and estate agent at the bottom three (the exact ranking varies by year.)
My impression, from across the Atlantic, is that things are moving along with more alacrity than was predicted (or perhaps desired) by commentators even just a week ago. It all looks downright professional, especially compared to how a lot of us Americans feel about our upcoming prospects.
I suppose the pm question was sorted much quicker than we all thought. Many of us thought Cameron would be in until September, so he was out six weeks earlier than we thought.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than Alacrity, Celerity might be a better adjective.
Just wanted to highlight how despondent things are here (and how despondent UK commentators came off). You have a crisis of national disunity, yes, but there is a team of seemingly competent people forging ahead and that sense of purpose is enviable, again from an American POV.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/14 19:55:37
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than Alacrity, Celerity might be a better adjective.
Just wanted to highlight how despondent things are here (and how despondent UK commentators came off). You have a crisis of national disunity, yes, but there is a team of seemingly competent people forging ahead and that sense of purpose is enviable, again from an American POV.
The Conservatives do seem to have gotten themselves together remarkably fast. Unlike Labour, who are resolutely trying to kick each other in the shins in a dark room. The team May's assembled actually gives me some hope that we'll be able to negotiate some advantageous terms on our behalf.
It has long been claimed that membership of the EU increases trade, and with it wealth and welfare, among its members.
Well let us just assess how accurate that is.
Now understanding and explaining movements in trade is difficult. They can be effected by bank crises, oil shocks, global disruptions like the collapse of the Soviet empire, new members joining the community, new competitors and so on. The best way to assess whether we got an advantage from entering Europe is to compare our export performance into Europe against that of a comparable group of similarly developed competitor countries who did not enter.
This exercise has been done by Michael Burrage in an exercise for the Civitas think tank. He took the European export performance of the UK and measured it against the European export performance of a group consisting of America, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland.
The three graphs below show this performance in three distinct periods. Before entry into the EU, then after entry in what you might think of as the Common Market period, and then in what might be termed the Single Market period.
Given that the stated intent of the Single Market was to improve on the trading performance of the Common Market, you would expect our performance to get progressively better in each graph. The actual facts are illuminating. Red is the UK, black is the OECD group.
The first graph shows how, prior to our entry into the European Community, we actually performed worse than our non-EU OECD competitors, at least until we were about to enter when we had a sudden sprint.
Then, as the second graph shows, once we were inside the Common Market, our trade with Europe performed better, as you would expect.
The final graph is the most telling. In the Single Market period our exports grew if anything slower than our OECD competitors, despite our membership. During the Single Market period, despite all the costs incurred, the treaties signed, the regulations implemented, despite all the controversies of the European project, our performance in selling to Europe was worse than our competitors outside the EU.
Why is this?
There are two possible reasons. One is that the burden of the Single Market bureaucracy handicapped us against our competitors. This is almost certainly true to some extent, but the far bigger reason
Trade tariffs during the 1980’s and 1990’s were far higher than they are today, before they were reduced by the World Trade Organisation and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our success in the 80s and early 90s was the result of being inside a trade protectionist barrier, and little else. That is now largely gone, and with it we are now at a disadvantage to our global competitors.
Another benefit that we have supposedly derived from our membership is increased foreign direct investment in our economy.
It is certainly true that at the beginning of the Common Market period there was a spike in foreign investment in this country.
However, since the barriers have come down we have received far less foreign investment than either Norway or Switzerland, both outside of the EU, even once we have accounted for their oil industry and financial services.
So there seems to have been no discernible benefits to our trade or to foreign direct investment.
The final supposed benefit of our membership is how the EU ‘increases our influence on the world stage’, and increases our ‘clout’, allowing us to secure more favourable trade terms across the world.
Put to one side how our adding our ‘clout’ has not improved the EU’s dreadfully weak foreign policy.
We can test out how well that ‘clout’ has served our interest if we look at the EU’s performance on trade agreements.
When negotiating trade agreements with other countries, the EU has to balance the interests of the 28 different member states. This has had dire consequences for the UK.
To start with trade agreements negotiated by the EU take a very long time to conclude. We still don’t have free trade agreements with China, India or the US. The talks with India have been ongoing for almost a decade.
Our interests are not well represented in trade negotiations. The majority of free trade agreements that have been successfully negotiated by the EU are with North African or South American countries, with far more historical and cultural links to Mediterranean countries than to us.
The only Commonwealth country to enjoy a free trade agreement with the EU so far is South Africa, and that has more to do with Nelson Mandela than the UK’s ‘clout’. Other than that the first will be Canada, which is just pending.
This is all a function of how marginalised Britain’s interests are within the EU. It is no surprise than we have been outvoted in the Council more than twice as often as any other country.
The consequence of this is that these trade deals are not tailored to our requirements.
Much has been made of how hard it would be for a single country to negotiate successful trade deals on its own. But if we compare the EU’s trade deals to those that Switzerland have negotiated, with its small population and limited global influence, then we see something interesting.
Switzerland have seen an increase in growth rates in trade as a result of two thirds of their free trade agreements. The UK has only seen an increase in growth rates in trade from one third of the EU’s free trade deals.
So little Switzerland, with its population of 8 million, is able to negotiate better trade deals for itself than the EU does on our behalf.
Does anyone seriously believe that Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world, would not be able to negotiate by itself at least as successfully as Switzerland?
Just as damning is that the majority of these trade agreements do not include services. Services account for over three quarters of all the UK’s economic activity. They have provided much of our economic growth in recent years, as well as most new employment.
Our creative industries, our financial services and legal services are some of the best in the world. It seems certain that they would be included in any trade deal negotiated by the UK.
So on trade, on investment, and on access to overseas markets the benefits we have supposedly derived from the EU are far less than commonly understood. They may well be negative.
As I said, I was initially doubtful of Professor Minford’s assessment that we would be better off outside of the EU irrespective of the EU’s response. But he is very likely to be right.
Those business groups such as Goldman Sachs and the CBI, who have warned of catastrophe should we leave, are likely to be wrong.
It is not surprising that these business are making the argument to stay in.
At the end of the day these businesses are arguing for their own, very narrow interest. Indeed, I think we should all raise an eyebrow at the tremendous concern that these companies are showing for our national welfare, given that at least six of Britain’s ten biggest multinationals pay no corporation tax at all.
Nevertheless, we should pay attention to their concerns. They have huge sunk costs in distribution and supply networks, and worry about losing access to existing EU markets. And whilst they are not job creators or particularly good innovators, they still represent an important component of our economy.
These businesses can relax. There is no doubt that such access would continue in the event of British exit. No-one can reasonably say that the UK would cease to have access to European markets.
The worst case scenario is that the UK would revert to trade on a World Trade Organisation basis, with tariffs imposed on our exports into the EU.
Let us leave aside cars and food for the moment. Everything else has relatively small barriers, and these are almost certainly negotiable down to zero.
If Europe wants to stick to trading on a WTO basis, they are very badly positioned to do so.
Everyone knows that the balance of trade is in Europe’s favour.
We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.
To see our importance to Europe, you only need to walk down the street. More than a quarter of all cars sold in this country are Mercedes, BMWs, Audis or VWs. And those are just some of the German brands. We are Europe’s second largest, and fastest growing car market.
This negotiation will primarily be about politics, and our European colleagues pre-eminently concerned about their national interest.
We are too valuable a market for Europe to shut off. Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.
And while they are at it they will be demanding that those British companies that they own will have uninterrupted access to Europe. We are talking Mini and Rolls Royce, owned by BMW, and Bentley, owned by Volkswagen. Premium brands with healthy demand across Europe.
And this is not just German cars. The same will happen with Shell and Unilever in the Netherlands, EDF, EADS and the viticultural trade associations in France, Seat in Spain, and Fiat and the fashion designers in Italy.
The pressure from European companies for a free trade deal between the UK and the remaining member of the European Union would be huge.
We have far more to gain than we have to lose, while the opposite is true for the EU. People have spoken, wrongly, about 3.3 million British jobs being ‘linked’ to our membership of the EU. Well there are over 5 million jobs on the continent that are linked to trade with Britain.
Access to our market is more important to Europe than our access to theirs.
To put it bluntly, the most powerful country in Europe needs this negotiation to succeed to the tune of a million jobs, on cars alone. The second most powerful needs it to the tune of half a million jobs, on wine and cheese alone. The first few months may be hysterical, but the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, Italy Poland and the rest know that the way to lose elections is to destroy your own industries. That is a powerful advantage for us.
And then there are the absolute benefits that Britain would gain. Our food imports would be cheaper outside of the common external tariff. We would be free to reduce our regulatory burden, making our businesses more competitive. We would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, opening up new markets.
And then there is the City.
The prevailing thought seems to be that the City would be damaged should we leave the EU. This is extremely unlikely, and it would be perfectly possible to negotiate proper protection for any significant areas at risk.
There are two obvious examples where the City might gain.
TTIP, the upcoming EU-US trade deal looks likely to exclude financial services, due to a tiff between American and French film makers, and American concerns about having to recognise .
Any UK-US trade deal would not omit one of the UK’s most important sectors.
And then is the Financial Transaction Tax. Within the EU we would face the circumstance where French bonds sold in the City would have to have the tax charged on them, and then remitted to the French Treasury.
Outside the EU, the city would continue to be free continue as before, such as trading in euro-denominated bonds, while ensuring that it is free of the threat of an FTT, as well as being free of all the other stifling European legislation.
And any action taken against an independent City would de facto be also against New York and Hong Kong, which would be too stupid for words.
In total, it is easy to see Britain could be better off out, even on such terms. And this is the very worst case scenario.
Some people have suggested that we should look to Norway, or to Switzerland, to see what terms we can expect once we have left.
The idea that we have to fit our future into some Procrustean bed created for far smaller countries is nonsense.
The conventional options are laid out in the table, with a reminder of what they involve. We do not need to disappear into the details – always a problem with discussions on Europe – but let me outline what we should take from them.
The first one, EEA membership, often called the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.
Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have the accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not.
Nevertheless, as it stands this model would not work for us. To make it viable it would need an arbitration court (not the ECJ), a dispute resolution procedure, and a number of other institutional changes. It would be possible to design and even negotiate such a structure, but it would take much more than 2 years.
The Swiss option, EFTA membership plus a host of bilateral treaties, is the best starting place and is informative in many ways.
It is not perfect for us however. It incorporates ‘free movement of people’ for the moment, although there is a clash coming on that, after a Swiss referendum was carried in favour of applying an emergency brake – a real one this time!
However, understand the comparative negotiating position.
Switzerland is a small country surrounded by the EU. Its trade is absolutely dominated by the EU – over 62 per cent of its exports go to Europe. It runs a large trade surplus, and it is not big enough to be a critical market for any EU nation.
The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.
The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.
If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.
It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.
This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.
At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.
Trade Targets
If you read as many assessments of Brexit as I have, you can easily come to the conclusion that each side of the argument tends to get exaggerated. I am certain that the catastrophic predictions of the Europhiles are simply nonsense. That is why Toyota, Nissan, Airbus, even BMW, Opel and Volkswagen have now said that Brexit will not hinder their investments in Britain, sometimes in reversal of previous positions.
On the pro Brexit side, too, there are a range of estimates from modestly to dramatically better off. The difference here depends most upon exactly what we choose to do with the country and its new found freedoms. The greatest improvements will come if we grasp the opportunities for free trade with both hands.
That means immediately seeking Free Trade Agreements with the biggest prospective markets as fast as possible. There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years. We can pick up the almost complete agreement between the EU and Canada, and if anything liberalise it. We can accelerate our component of the TTIP deal with the USA, and include financial services.
Diverting our current contributions to the EU will help to smooth the transition period following the referendum.
The most effective policy would be to continue, in the short term, all of the EU’s current spending within the UK.
This means continuing to support agriculture, separate from the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as continuing research grants and regional funding.
But this would not come near to accounting for our total contributions – around £18 billion gross and £9 billion net.
We should find a way of improving the global trade performance of our economy. The companies that find it hard to export are the small and medium ones, for obvious reasons. They do not have the huge international sales and transport departments of the biggest companies.
We could afford to fund a new Board of Trade, dedicated to helping British businesses create new links to countries with which we achieve trade deals.
The funding would be available to set up an office in every major commercial centre and capital, completely separate from the Foreign Office, staffed with experts who know the language, the customs and the regulations and are on hand to help British businesses develop links in the country.
Imagine an 0800 number and an email address where a small manufacturer in Lancashire can call Shanghai or Mumbai or Sao Paolo, and find out in English how to negotiate the import regulations, find a freight forwarder, hire a warehouse, translate a brochure, the simple things that stop too many small businesses from operating abroad. They may be small companies, but this is not small beer: I am talking a billion pound project here.
We must see Brexit as a great opportunity to refocus our economy on global, rather the regional, trade. This is an opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.
These parts of the world are growing faster than Europe. We share history, culture and language. We have family ties. We even share similar legal systems. The usual barriers to trade are largely absent.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that we are a trading nation with global horizons. This is undoubtedly true. So it is time we unshackled ourselves, and began to focus policy on trading with the wider world, rather than just within Europe.
We would also have the opportunity to reform our economy, pushing through the changes necessary to create a dynamic, modern economy. Competitive tax rates, a competitive labour market, and effective, rather than burdensome, regulation. After Brexit we can put all that right without asking Brussel’s permission.
The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history. A history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction.
Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.
Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny. Portugal from Caetano. Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels. And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.
Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being. It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.
But this history is not our history. Britain has its own proud tradition of fighting tyranny, of protecting liberty and democracy both at home and abroad.
For us, Europe has always been about trade. For the continent, it is about so much more. This does not mean either side is wrong. But the European Project is not right for us. The Global Project is.
If you don't want to wade through the article, two interesting charts he drew up in there were these:-
I suspect that between them, they reveal our Government's intended negotiating position.
And? The assertion you made was that your average joe schmoe (aka the majority of the population) will want to rejoin the EU to, in your words 'make a difference on the world stage'. I countered that your average joe schmoe in Norway, a country that has had several votes on the matter has no such desire. Talking about what influence Norway does or does not have within the EU is utterly irrelevant to both the point you made and my counter.
And my counter to this is that the younger generation on the whole voted to remain in the EU so hence on this basis so want to play a wider role on the world stage. Just because Norway wants that does not mean the future UK population wants the same thing. It is clearly demonstrable that the younger population want to remain engaged and that for the vast majority of people their views do not change in a significant way over time (so socialist, conservative, liberal etc). The assertion that the 75% of the younger vote population will simply change their mind on the issue in 20 years is unfounded and in generally can be evidenced by how people maintain the same consistent voting preferences.
Ketara wrote: I don't know if you've paid much attention to Switzerland recently, but they're actually about to be removed from the Erasmus scheme and various other things because they have democratically voted against ever closer union in the form of restricting immigration. So...no, they're demonstrably, verifiably, factually not keen on the EU because of current political circumstance within the EU, and the EU is not happy about their decision.
In other words, I stand by my assertion that Switzerland is not being forced by it's comparative lack of 'industrialisation' to integrate into the EU. And again, I maintain that industrialisation and international muscle are not the same thing, as any economist will tell you. They sometimes go hand in hand, but they're not inherently linked, any more than the banking sector is, or military might is. International influence comes down to an extremely wide range of factors.
Yes I'm aware of what is happening in Switzerland. And again just like the UK it is fear of immigration that has resulted in many people voting the way they have. The simple black and white view that closing the borders will help, will as in the UKs situation, bite them on the rump when they realise the benefits in the EU will bring. But it is still the most heavily linked country not in the EU simply from its geographical location. It integrated with the EU heavily because it benefits both sides, their strong financial systems is what makes it attractive for them to be integrated as much as possible with the EU.
Induistrialisation (which in this context could include financial industrialisation) provide more income to the Country, that means their actions have a bigger impact on the international stage. Hence their ability to affect the world society increases as the other countries have to take notice if they make radical changes (e.g. dumping steel). They simply have more influence. I can't think of any non-industrialised that has a large say in global society. This is why china, india etc are all rapidly increasing their industrialisation because they know that makes them stronger when it comes to negotiating trade terms (both from imports and exports).
Why? You seem to be mixing up the removal of freedom of movement from the EU with the elimination of immigration altogether. There is nothing stopping a Britain from outside the EU taking as many immigrants from around the world as they feel is necessary for economic aims. There is no shortage of people in third world hellholes who will jump at a ticket to the land of the NHS where the police don't take you away in the night.
So why not from Europe and have open borders? As they benefit the economy why not allow free movement where people can take their skills to where they think it would be most appreciated. What makes the 150,000 or so people from one of 27 other countries in the EU so different? It's no more than 0.5% EU population coming into the country that bad? It seems that you are arguing that migration is acceptable as long as it isn't from the EU? In effect you are saying the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the individual which is a dangerous path in my view. The state is there to make decisions for the betterment of society and people as a whole.
Ketara wrote: In all fairness, for every stupid uninformed old person I've seen or met who voted leave, I've met just as many young people who voted 'In' that didn't have a clue about anything either. Ignorance is not limited to those who voted 'leave'.
That's quite true; in fact I'd argue that none of us have a full 'clue' about the EU. Which in my view a referendum should never have been had. I've worked with EU legislation in waste for a 10 years or so and I may know this but I don't know all of EU legislation which is why I expect our voted representatives to undertake this as they should have a much broader knowledge. My view is biased because from what I have worked with and seen and read implies to me that EU is a good idea. We only recycle 50% of our household waste because the EU brought in legislation (and hence we don't need landfills and incinerators everywhere). The only reason the emissions from landfills and energy from waste facilities is miniscule is because of EU legislation. The only reason the emissions from lorries are better than they used to be was because of EU legislation. Without the EU the emissions from waste would be much worse making our environment be a poorer place to live and work in. On top of this I've also read up on the EU and seen what other things they provide. Yes there are issues, but that is the same with any relationship - I try to improve this by responding to consultations and such like. However we have decided as a nation that there are few things we don't like and basically thrown out the partner - but likely any relationship the one you get on the rebound is generally much worse.
Ketara wrote: I mentioned Labour because you fingered the Tories specifically. You didn't mention the other party that's been in charge for a good chunk of the last thirty years. When it comes to things like grade inflation and syllabus changes, they're just as responsible
With regards to the general quality of education, there are several standards by which to measure. A fun one which gets frequently performed is to stick a current GCSE student in front of a 'O' level science paper from the 1960's, most of it doesn't appear now until second year A level. There's also been an increase in the amount of class time dedicated to things like 'Food Technology' and 'Media Studies'.
I'm not saying, mind you, that kids are thicker, or that the things they learnt on those papers back then were necessary. Christ, they're still teaching simultaneous equations today at GCSE, when they'd probably be better off teaching them how to do their taxes.
But Labour were responsible for massively encouraging University uptake by younger people so that the overall education level increased (although you could also add that it ensured people weren't on the unemployment figures either). Tories have always been more elitist.
Just because an exam is harder does not mean the education system is worse or better. The 60's system was based on the old comprehensive/grammar school format. Those that excelled at a certain age were sent in one direction and rest to the 'everyone else' category. There were no second chances - it didn't matter whether you were a year late in your class because of your birth date or that you developed skills later in life. If you didn't make the grade that was it. The A-level exams were then designed for these elitist institutions with small class sizes that focussed solely on these type of subjects so is it really a surprise that the exams where harder. However now you have a system where children can develop at their own rate and shouldn't be Pidgeon-holded when they may still have years of development in front of them.
What's wrong with Food Technology or Media Studies? If they can develop into a Michelin star chef or a sound engineer from these humble beginnings so what that they didn't do advanced mathematics? The important thing about education is to learn the basics and an ability to think for themselves so they can challenge what they hear with the "Is this correct, does it make sense etc?"
And I'm at Leicester
Ketara wrote: The reason I said it was imaginary, is firstly because you associate University attendance with a better education, when a number of the Universities that exist are sub-par degree factories in many regards. Many others used to not have the label of 'University', but specialised in the same areas and qualifications as they do now. Take Canterbury Christchurch University for example. Excellent teacher training. If I followed your critieria that more people are at University, and thus, better educated, I'd be ignoring the fact that the exact same people were doing the exact same training at the exact same place before, simply because it wasn't labelled 'University'.
That is just putting words into my mouth. I would be quite happy to replace University with polytechnic or whatever, but they don't really exist anymore as almost everything is called 'University'. Regardless it still means that they have been educated for longer, had a wider variety of educational experience and became exposed to a wider cultural background than a lot of people did than when they were in the 60/70s. Lets be honest many children left at 15 without any formal qualifications at that time. Also I fear that unless you have been taught and been to all these "sub-par degree factories" then I would say this statement is just educational snobbery (which I also see where I am) because you can't possibly know they are 'sub-par'.
Ketara wrote: You're also assuming that going to University automatically opens up dialogues with foreign students when many lower tier universities have low foreign student attendance.You're also assuming that because someone has drinks with another student from a different country, that they'll develop a specific stance on a foreign policy issue. People are rarely that simple.
That's just wrong. You assume that wider cultures does not in itself mean other people from around the UK, with different backgrounds. It's about not being isolated and limited to a select group of peoples views. Regardless of whether you meet foreign students or not you still meet people from different backgrounds, with different views and outlooks. When issues crop up that means they talk and debate and get a wider understanding of other peoples views of the world. That makes them less entrenched, more likely to see the argument from a different angle. It doesn't just have to be from foreign soils.
Ketara wrote: In short, I found everything in that paragraph to be a vast assumption. That's why I called it imaginary. Which was rude of me, and you know? I apologise for that, I was out of line. But I still don't believe any of it to be founded on anything other than vague anecdotal evidence generalised to the extreme.
How many people in the UK do you think work abroad for a significant period of time as compared to the number of British citizens? The answer is, surprisingly few. As a material benefit, it doesn't affect too many people.
So regardless these few don't matter, those that think they might like to do this don't matter. It's not about where they end up it's about allowing people the opportunity to do so if they so wish without restrictions. To allow them to fulfil their ambitions without state interference.
Trust me on this, I tried setting up a business once. The EU has particular criteria, and most people don't meet them. The start up loan company is the normal method of financing young entrepreneurs. Many of the links on the EU site you specified actually take you through to start up loan company partners.
But that doesn't mean that everyone will be refused or everyone won't meet the criteria does it? Just because some people are refused (everyone can't be accepted anyway) it doesn't mean that others should suffer surely?
Ketara wrote: I'll be honest, I just picked Hull as a random town name. I could have said Swansea or Broadstairs, it was just the easiest one that fell to mind. My original point though, to apologetically drag back to it, was that your average joe schmoe doesn't see that sort of development and link it to the EU. The EU doesn't tend to advertise it's involvement particularly. Perhaps that's their mistake, but your waxing lyrical about the benefits of that EU support is somewhat moot
Yes I'd agree that the EU should have advertised it more. So should the Remainers for the referendum. However it may also be the MEPs but then they had a vested interest not to. IIRC though this point started on what benefits the EU gave to UK so you are conceding that such development projects did improve the life of people in the area even if they didn't realise it? And then on that basis was it reasonable for those that knew about it to vote Leave because they hadn't had their turn yet?
Ketara wrote: The discussion was based around the fact that your average bloke doesn't actually link, in his mind, many hard benefits to his having access to Europe, because there aren't many. Most of them are on a more general level with regards to trade and diplomacy. Sure, there are plenty of benefits to being within the EU, I'm not denying that. But the point being discussed is how much benefit does an individual receive, or indeed, perceive himself as receiving? And how badly will he miss them when they're gone? My argument is that people won't be longing to rejoin the EU in twenty years, because even those who lived under it only benefited (for the most part) from it in abstract national level ways.
Ha, one of the things I learnt working with the public is that they never realise what they have until it has gone. Once it has gone they moan and complain until they get it back. But I don't think it is about missing something because the younger people that voted to remain already recognise that they are going to lose it. In the 20 years when a vote might come round again, they will just remember it as something they could have had (and knowing humans will have inflated it to something much greater than it ever would have been).
Ketara wrote: Mate, I hate to be the one to tell you, but liberal governments lie, spin figures, and ignore scientific evidence just as much as authoritarian ones. They're less likely to stand you against the wall for disagreeing, but there's no intrinsic link between the development of modern medicine and government form. When penicillin was discovered in 1928, it wasn't because Stanley Baldwin was in power. When the Nazi's were in power meanwhile, Heisenberg did some wonderful research into atomics. I could belabour the point, but I'll actually have to start dragging in academic citations (this is related to my speciality) and I don't feel like doing work on Dakka! .
Well we have never really had a truly liberal government (and there may not ever be because humans are too power hungry) but the principle still stands the more liberal governments generally use scientific evidence to guide them whereas the further away from this you get the more likely they will pander to populist notions or just what they think benefits them directly.
It's not about specific events, that's like saying any individual weather pattern is directly linked to climate change; it's just impossible to prove. It's the general statistics that's important, the more free the society the greater the scientific endeavour as both humans and monetary resources can be diverted to these areas. You can still get individual events that are at the edge of the distribution (and I'd argue the Nazis are a strange case because in terms of scientific growth they were very liberal as long as it was for them) but the overall scientific growth will be affected - but no I don't think citations would be good they would not be fun for everyone else.
And in fifty years, we may find bacteria are resistant to anti-biotics, and future generations lament our regressive approach to medicine. 'They prescribed drugs to everyone freely? Were they mad?'.
And why would it be regressive? That would be because the biotech industry see no reason to invest in new ones because it is not financially viable (yet). No individual country is willing to pay a biotech company because no one else is helping to fund it either (so why should one country stump up all the cost). However we now have to start thinking as a larger social community, we need to be progressive in our approach to creating new antibiotics or vaccines that means working together (take the Ebola vaccine for example, it was only countries working together that allowed it to be brought forward, the countries the virus affected individually would never been able to affect such a solution. Hence the regressive step would have been to carry on working as individual countries, whereas the progressive step is to work together as a wider community. You've effectively argued why the EU is a good idea from a social perspective!
Ketara wrote: You're conflating the more efficient performing of a function with 'progression in society', not to mention several things that other 'advanced' societies right now would argue are necessary (like the death sentence). In other words, you're looking at the world and assuming that your opinion is the most naturally 'progressive' one.
I'd be quite happy to argue that it is for the examples given, so yes!
Why was it not more progressive to butcher all the other tribes' men and steal their women, possessions, and children to become the strongest tribe around? Why was it progressive to object to the tithe? Why was it not more progressive to make an alliance with the other towns, but then use that alliance as a cover to kill their leaders and take over several towns and rule them all? Why would it not be more progressive to integrate entirely with the tithe demanding power?
Again you are sort of agreeing with my point. In all your scenario's there is a larger society that is deemed progressive because it looks after it's a wider society. Now the question is whether the method is progressive or regressive, well I'd argue the progressive route is the non-violent route because it maximises the benefit for the individuals over the aggressive option which would be regressive because it requires an approach closest to the first step (i.e. bashing each others brains out with a rock for the rabbit)
Ketara wrote: But what makes C objectively progressive? The answer is, nothing but your own mind. And your mind is conditioned to prioritise certain morals and outcomes by the society and circumstance of your upbringing. To come full circle here, what you have experienced in your life makes you believe that European integration/membership is the 'progressive' thing. But in reality, there are a myriad number of other potentials, and none of them are inherently 'better' than any others or more 'civilised'. Those words are nothing more than value based judgements.
No, I'd argue its more fundamental than that. I'd argue that it is evolutionary; any other evolutionary driver that made us not want to be part of a wider community would have resulted in us living our lives alone in caves. The drive to be in a larger community drives us to join religions or wargaming clubs or go dancing in nightclubs. Therefore I'd argue that any situation that drives us to a larger more inclusive groups is not just my view of progression but that is driven into us by evolutionary processes and hence is progressive in that sense.
For my part being in the eu was bad for my job prospects i'm not university educated or highly trained at all never travelled there as money is tight all the time due to bosses having access to a vertualy unlimited work pool who will work for the minimum wage and be quit well off due to economy of scale 6+ can live on min wage in one house better than a family with the 3 kids can, and as ketra said above for you it looks bad for me it looks good it all comes down to point of view. Hence a large amount of labour voters also voted out who you maybe suprised to learn also dont have a paper education. (Degrees etc) but do have other skills which are seen as useless as there undercut all the time in the hunt for jobs, and outside of the major citys it is a hunt.
But you are pointing the finger at the EU/immigration when in reality it is not that simple (I fully agree with what killkrazy said). Lower wages come from a UK government 'policy' of having some unemployment; no employer is going to be paying more than necessary for what I assume is unskilled labour. It is also impractical from an economy view as well. For example if all 'unskilled' workers had a £3000 pay rise then everyone on higher wages would demand one as well. Then you have higher manufacturing costs and the goods you buy will increase as well. Effectively you get a spike in inflation and once the dust settles all you will find is that you being paid more, but everything is more expensive so nothing actually changes.
This would not be different whether we were in the EU or not (and in reality it could be worse if they removed the working time regulations where instead of the maximum 45 or so hours a week you'd need to get minimum wage you'll have to work more and in odder shift patterns. The EU have tried to pump prime deprived areas but it does require people to engage with it. The only way you can ever get out of the minimum wage is to learn what skills you need to develop and go out and get them. Many Local authorities do provide courses (and some do it free for those on minimum wage) to help people try and get out of the situation you are describing. Yes it does require hard work, time and effort but then that goes for everybody who wants to progress (except the lucky few that just get born into positions but they are very rare). If you always look to others for the reasons why you aren't progressing then you will never progress. It requires an individual to put in the legwork. If you need to go to University then the opportunities are there, even from a distance learning perspective. the power to change anything is always in the individuals hands, no governing body is going to be able to hand it to a person.
Skullhammer wrote: As to polls showing voting trends if the younger generation actually voted and realised that a vote is important regardless of how much diffrence it would make and appriceated it more things could of been diffrent BUT THEY DIDN'T VOTE (not all) and so they (not all) seem not to care, and as i was told when i was younger if you dont vote you cant complain about the result.
I never agree with this view, whether they vote or not they are still part of society and the government is there, in theory, to support all aspects of society. A persons importance in a debate should not be based on whether they voted or not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/14 21:27:16
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
And my counter to this is that the younger generation on the whole voted to remain in the EU...
Let me stop you there for that paragraph.. You're working off flawed statistics from the word go, I'm afraid. You're equating 'More younger people who voted were inclined to vote remain in the EU' with the fact that 'Young people want to remain in the EU'. This is incorrect. Less than 40% of young people actually voted in the referendum. At best, 25%, or 1 in 4 young people wish to remain within the EU. So actually, even though that wasn't entirely what I said, the idea that
75% of the younger vote population will simply change their mind on the issue in 20 years
is far more likely than you think. Not to mention your comment about how people 'retain the same voting principles' is also inaccurate, most studies show that people get more conservative as they get older.
Yes I'm aware of what is happening in Switzerland. And again just like the UK it is fear of immigration that has resulted in many people voting the way they have. The simple black and white view that closing the borders will help, will as in the UKs situation, bite them on the rump when they realise the benefits in the EU will bring.
So......you acknowledge your original assertion that ' It [Switzerland] doesn't want to join the EU completely because of historical financial reasons' is wrong? And that right now, there is another element, namely that of immigration? Talking about how they don't realise how good the EU is for them is something else altogether.
Induistrialisation (which in this context could include financial industrialisation) provide more income to the Country, that means their actions have a bigger impact on the international stage. Hence their ability to affect the world society increases as the other countries have to take notice if they make radical changes (e.g. dumping steel). They simply have more influence. I can't think of any non-industrialised that has a large say in global society. This is why china, india etc are all rapidly increasing their industrialisation because they know that makes them stronger when it comes to negotiating trade terms (both from imports and exports).
I'll be blunt, I don't think you and I are working from the same definition of industrialisation here, so I'l leave this one to lie. Plus, we can only have so many paragraphs of responses before it gets silly!
So why not from Europe and have open borders? As they benefit the economy why not allow free movement where people can take their skills to where they think it would be most appreciated. What makes the 150,000 or so people from one of 27 other countries in the EU so different?
There are several reasons. One is that immigration from outside the EU is predictable according to set criteria on a yearly basis, allowing an appropriate number of immigrants to be admitted based on domestic circumstance, whereas EU migration fluctuates madly depending on new entrants, and other factors. A second is that pressure to reduce immigration results in only the controllable (i.e. from outside of the EU) immigration getting cut in order to have some impact on it. This can result in family of people already living here, and people with more useful skills than those emigrating from the EU not being allowed access. I could go on. The point is simple; one is controllable. The other not. As such, it is inherently more desirable from a socioeconomic perspective.
In effect you are saying the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the individual which is a dangerous path in my view. The state is there to make decisions for the betterment of society and people as a whole.
You have an exceedingly idealistic view of government. Though somehow, I'm not surprised.
But Labour were responsible for massively encouraging University uptake by younger people so that the overall education level increased (although you could also add that it ensured people weren't on the unemployment figures either).
As I pointed out further down, shuffling people off the polytechnic register and onto the University register doesn't really count for much when it's the same course with the same people at the same place.
Not only to mention that mass university attendance is not necessarily a good thing in several regards. But that's another debate.
Just because an exam is harder does not mean the education system is worse or better. The 60's system was based on the old comprehensive/grammar school format. Those that excelled at a certain age were sent in one direction and rest to the 'everyone else' category. There were no second chances - it didn't matter whether you were a year late in your class because of your birth date or that you developed skills later in life. If you didn't make the grade that was it.
That would be a surprise for my father, who took his A level equivalents three times. He must have imagined those two years of his life.
The A-level exams were then designed for these elitist institutions with small class sizes that focussed solely on these type of subjects so is it really a surprise that the exams where harder. However now you have a system where children can develop at their own rate and shouldn't be Pidgeon-holded when they may still have years of development in front of them.
You have a very idealistic view of the current education sector as well. Wish I did!
What's wrong with Food Technology or Media Studies? If they can develop into a Michelin star chef or a sound engineer from these humble beginnings so what that they didn't do advanced mathematics? The important thing about education is to learn the basics and an ability to think for themselves so they can challenge what they hear with the "Is this correct, does it make sense etc?"
Sadly, Food technology never taught me to be a michelin star chef, or even skills in that direction. As someone who took and achieved a GCSE in it, it was a bloody waste of time. We spent most of it looking at McDonalds production processes, because even the people who designed the course think that's where most of the people who do it are going to end up.
And I'm at Leicester
Excellent history department up there! Good institution.
Also I fear that unless you have been taught and been to all these "sub-par degree factories" then I would say this statement is just educational snobbery (which I also see where I am) because you can't possibly know they are 'sub-par'.
I've been to enough of them, and known enough people who went to them to know what they do. Both my brothers went to them as well, and I was shocked at the sort of grade inflation they promote. Work I'd barely have graded a 2:2 was getting mid 2:1 marks. You see enough other stuff on the grapevine, and heck, even in the news. There's a reason London Metropolitan got its license for foreign students revoked, and it wasn't because they were taking too long to vet their quality of students!
The problem with converting all the polys into Universities, is that they couldn't contend with the actual Universities, from the Plate Glass institutions down, in either the classical humanities (they didn't have the staff or libraries) or the sciences (didn't have the budgets). They also couldn't attract the high grade students. The result was that they carried on doing the vocational stuff they did before, only slapped with the 'degree' label, and started a load of low cost humanities degrees, that for the most part that weren't worth the paper they were written on because any student who was any good went to a better uni.
Sadly, not much has changed for most of them. There's ultimately only a finite number of people who are good at things like history, philosophy, politics, writing, and so entering uni every academic year, and the better unis hoover up all the good candidates. That leaves the ones who would like to do it, but usually don't have the skills or talent. Not all of them of course (some pull it together or have other reasons for low grades), but most. If they were grading at the same level as the Russell group, most of those students would fail. So they have to accept lower par work so they can try and climb the ranking tables. It's a cruel circle really.
That all said, the ones that stuck to their guns and specialities on more vocational courses do well for themselves. So Christchurch on teacher training, Kingston on business studies, and so on. A philosophy degree from either isn't worth much, but a qualification in their speciality? Still worth a lot.
That's just wrong. You assume that wider cultures does not in itself mean other people from around the UK, with different backgrounds. It's about not being isolated and limited to a select group of peoples views. Regardless of whether you meet foreign students or not you still meet people from different backgrounds, with different views and outlooks. When issues crop up that means they talk and debate and get a wider understanding of other peoples views of the world. That makes them less entrenched, more likely to see the argument from a different angle. It doesn't just have to be from foreign soils.
I quite agree with that. But I repeat, it's a long way from having a more open frame of mind to having a specific view on foreign policy, which is what you're equating it with.
So regardless these few don't matter
,
So you acknowledge it is only a few. My point is made.
But that doesn't mean that everyone will be refused or everyone won't meet the criteria does it? Just because some people are refused (everyone can't be accepted anyway) it doesn't mean that others should suffer surely?
I was outlining hard material benefits to eu membership for individuals. I acknowledged straight off the bat that a few people would be eligible for a handful of grants. The point is that it's a handful. You tried to assert that small business loans generally came from the EU, but your own link leads back for the most part to the British institutions for start-up loans.
Again, if it is only a few that are eligible for eu direct grants, then my point is made. The vast majority of people do not see this hard benefit, and therefore will not miss it (you can't miss what you never had).
Ha, one of the things I learnt working with the public is that they never realise what they have until it has gone. Once it has gone they moan and complain until they get it back. But I don't think it is about missing something because the younger people that voted to remain already recognise that they are going to lose it. In the 20 years when a vote might come round again, they will just remember it as something they could have had (and knowing humans will have inflated it to something much greater than it ever would have been).
Perhaps. I still maintain that less than 40% of those young people bothered to get out of bed to vote, and less than 30% bothered to vote to stay. Assuming things go well, I continue to assert that they'll not even think about it, and that it would take a success story on the EU's part and a failure story on ours to make people want to rejoin.
Well we have never really had a truly liberal government....
I think I'll leave that tangent there, as these replies are getting too long. If you want to discuss it further, go ahead and open a fresh thread on it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/14 21:59:05
Well, it appears that Operation "Unite the Tories" has been successful.
And all we had to do is bend over and grab our ankles for the hard right, euro-sceptics.
I feel all warm inside.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: Well, it appears that Operation "Unite the Tories" has been successful.
And all we had to do is bend over and grab our ankles for the hard right, euro-sceptics.
Let me stop you there for that paragraph.. You're working off flawed statistics from the word go, I'm afraid. You're equating 'More younger people who voted were inclined to vote remain in the EU' with the fact that 'Young people want to remain in the EU'. This is incorrect. Less than 40% of young people actually voted in the referendum. At best, 25%, or 1 in 4 young people wish to remain within the EU.
Oh come on, that's not how statistics work. On this basis I could claim that the 28% of the people that didn't vote would have voted to Remain simply because they didn't vote and by not voting wanted to remain in the EU because that was the default option if no one voted. If your sample is large enough then you can be reasonably confident that it is representative which is how all polls and sampling methods work. The probability that the 60% who didn't vote at all would significantly vary from the result is incredibly small because it would mean that the 40% sample you took was in the very tail of the distribution. It is much more probable that the voting preference is reflective of some median nearby result. What we don't know is the error on the sample to determine how far out we could be from the median result. We could find that the actual percentage of young voters wishing to remain/ leave was 70/30 or 80/20 rather than the 75/25 within a 99% probability threshold but it's not going to be 30/70 because the sample error on the 40% would have to be huge to the point that what we are saying is that any result has effectively the same probability of being true (and hence you can't say what the true result is at all). I suppose I could do a MonteCarlo sample analysis but I'm not that bothered! But this is why the referendum result in itself has to be treated with caution. We don't know the sample error on the data, it could be that the sample error is +/-4% on the result (with a 99% certainty). That means the true result could be anywhere between 48% -56% in favour of Leave because you have such a large unsampled non voting proportion and an unknown error. If the result had been 70:30 it is much more convincing as the error is extremely unlikely to be so large as to change the result.
Ketara wrote: Not to mention your comment about how people 'retain the same voting principles' is also inaccurate, most studies show that people get more conservative as they get older.
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean they change who they vote for. Otherwise Tories would be dominant in areas of older people and Labour in younger areas. But that demographic isn't seen and is more associated with wealth. People just become more conservative with the views they already have (so those supporting the EU will become more entrenched, more conservative that the EU is the only way to go, not less so).
Ketara wrote: So......you acknowledge your original assertion that ' It [Switzerland] doesn't want to join the EU completely because of historical financial reasons' is wrong? And that right now, there is another element, namely that of immigration? Talking about how they don't realise how good the EU is for them is something else altogether.
No I am not, from a political perspective they didn't want to join the EU because of the way it runs its financial sector historically. Switzerland is being called to task by the EU because it stopped accepting free movement, because it didn't want too many people 'playing with it's toys'. When it realises it is having the bigger and better toys being taken away it is almost certainly fall in line. Switzerland isn't choosing to leave, it is choosing to ignore one of the tenets of the EU to see how far it can push things.
Ketara wrote: You have an exceedingly idealistic view of government. Though somehow, I'm not surprised.
Yes I do, but then I'd prefer to have an idealised view as it is something to always aim for and improve upon even if things are never likely to get fully there. I think that approach is much better because if you get to the god enough stage then you run the risk of lethargy and stagnation. Challenging ourselves continuously allows us to become a better society.
Ketara wrote: As I pointed out further down, shuffling people off the polytechnic register and onto the University register doesn't really count for much when it's the same course with the same people at the same place.
But it does avoid snobbery of titles and people feeling that they are better educated than someone else just because they went to a University and avoids elitism.
That would be a surprise for my father, who took his A level equivalents three times. He must have imagined those two years of his life.
Yes and my Dad was shuffled into a school where he wasn't developed (and never encouraged to remain in education) and left at 15. I'm not saying that people didn't work hard to get their results just that the system was designed to encourage elitism and catering only to the best for these exams. Todays exams maybe easier from a purely technical perspective but that doesn't make the education worse, just more inclusive. Universities are there for the specialisation and allow people to achieve that and at least people will be more mature and developed to take better advantage of it. Education is better now because it attempts to provide everyone the opportunity to exceed in the areas they are most suited for; unlike the 60's where you could be pigeon holed.
Ketara wrote: You have a very idealistic view of the current education sector as well. Wish I did!
Don't get me wrong I don't think the system is perfect but education is better because it is more inclusive. My main concern is the way the government focuses on targets because it forces a style of teaching by repetition rather than understanding. I don't think it really teaches children to think and question things but rather take what they are given as read. Hence people become more vulnerable to believing anything they hear unless its outrageous. On the other hand maybe that's the overall government aim after all how many actually want their populace questioning what they are doing?
Ketara wrote: Sadly, Food technology never taught me to be a michelin star chef, or even skills in that direction. As someone who took and achieved a GCSE in it, it was a bloody waste of time. We spent most of it looking at McDonalds production processes, because even the people who designed the course think that's where most of the people who do it are going to end up.
No, but then it might for someone else, just as doing maths doesn't mean you will become a top accountant, but some people will - it provides an opportunity for people to exceed where they may otherwise do poorly in the more traditional/esoteric fields. I find that a depressing cynical view as it views no potential for these children.
I've been to enough of them, and known enough people who went to them to know what they do. Both my brothers went to them as well, and I was shocked at the sort of grade inflation they promote. Work I'd barely have graded a 2:2 was getting mid 2:1 marks. You see enough other stuff on the grapevine, and heck, even in the news. There's a reason London Metropolitan got its license for foreign students revoked, and it wasn't because they were taking too long to vet their quality of students!
The problem with converting all the polys into Universities, is that they couldn't contend with the actual Universities, from the Plate Glass institutions down, in either the classical humanities (they didn't have the staff or libraries) or the sciences (didn't have the budgets). They also couldn't attract the high grade students. The result was that they carried on doing the vocational stuff they did before, only slapped with the 'degree' label, and started a load of low cost humanities degrees, that for the most part that weren't worth the paper they were written on because any student who was any good went to a better uni.
Sadly, not much has changed for most of them. There's ultimately only a finite number of people who are good at things like history, philosophy, politics, writing, and so entering uni every academic year, and the better unis hoover up all the good candidates. That leaves the ones who would like to do it, but usually don't have the skills or talent. Not all of them of course (some pull it together or have other reasons for low grades), but most. If they were grading at the same level as the Russell group, most of those students would fail. So they have to accept lower par work so they can try and climb the ranking tables. It's a cruel circle really.
Apart from those that are really bad (if they get their licence revoked etc) I would argue that they are just catering to a different type of student, it doesn't make it worse. They can still be provided with a high quality education. Yes there may be some cynical approaches because of league tables, but this is the same issue as above in that it's the league tables that are the issue not the Universities. Just getting a degree at perceived better universities is no guarantee that the candidate is any good. I've had interviewees that have had PhDs from well respected universities that are absolutely hopeless from an operational perspective, they exceed in the thinking about things but the ability to actually apply it is just not there; whereas students from former polytechnics without a brilliant grade have been a godsend because they just get it. Their education gave them the foundation but they also had the practical ability to apply it as well. Going to a lesser though of university is not in itself an indicator of a poorer education in my view.
Ketara wrote: So you acknowledge it is only a few. My point is made.
,
That's just been taken out of context as I was referring to your wording. I don't think several millions of people over decades is few - the point I was trying to make is that because they were in the minority that as a society we shouldn't care about them and lack any empathy of their circumstances.
Ketara wrote: The point is that it's a handful. You tried to assert that small business loans generally came from the EU, but your own link leads back for the most part to the British institutions for start-up loans.
So? In reality most business loans come from banks. The point is that the EU provide tangible benefits across the UK in multiple different ways. One individual method might not amount to much but the sum of the parts is much greater. Even that one start up grant from the EU could result in the employment of several people and in time grow to a large organisation that employs hundreds of people living in the UK. A few people might only directly benefit from it but the long term benefits can be much greater. These opportunities will simply be gone in the future as the UK is not going to match funding and banks will be adverse to more risky ventures during the coming recession.
Assuming things go well, I continue to assert that they'll not even think about it, and that it would take a success story on the EU's part and a failure story on ours to make people want to rejoin.
Well given the current UK governments direction and imploding opposition I think the UK failing is more likely. But I do think you are putting down the younger generation, they do think about it, rather they are more motivated by other things rather than voting. I remember what I was like when I was at Bristol during the general election. I was supportive of one party and the issues at hand but I didn't think my vote would make a difference so I just didn't vote (and probably forgot on the day in question because May was always exam season).
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Oh come on, that's not how statistics work. On this basis I could claim that the 28% of the people that didn't vote would have voted to Remain simply because they didn't vote and by not voting wanted to remain in the EU because that was the default option if no one voted. If your sample is large enough then you can be reasonably confident that it is representative which is how all polls and sampling methods work. The probability that the 60% who didn't vote at all would significantly vary from the result is incredibly small because it would mean tha/t the 40% sample you took was in the very tail of the distribution. It is much more probable that the voting preference is reflective of some median nearby result....
It is totally how statistics work. Let's break the debate on this point down down step by step.
You are making a generalised assertion, namely that 'the younger generation on the whole voted to remain in the EU' and that this is evidence that they, in your words, 'Want to play a larger role on the world stage'. Your evidence for this assertion is that statistic (I'm assuming) that around 3/4 young people voted to stay (the exact percentage varies depending on the polling data utilised, but let's work with that).
Now we've already kind of had out the concept that being outside the EU does not preclude functioning on the world stage. I would posit Japan is a perfect example of that capacity, but you and I seemed to have different concepts of industrialisation and future events, so we left that one behind. I also pointed out that people in Norway seem happy to not need to function on the world stage but retain independence from the EU, your counter is that the fact that so many young people in the UK voted to stay in, so you believe they must feel differently to Nordic teens. As things stand right now, you've in no way linked the desire to 'perform on the world stage' to that of 'wanting to remain within the EU' ; these are two extremely different things, and your own counter-arguments about material benefits provided by the EU would serve to promote an alternative explanation for a desire for EU membership.
But ignoring that too and assuming(for the sake of argument) we roll with the idea that EU membership is the only way to 'perform on the world stage', and that all votes to remain within the EU area are also votes in favour of that reasoning. As things stand, the fact is that about 36% of young people voted. Now you're claiming that this must be a statistically representative portion of the country on the basis that it is a large sample. In many cases, I would agree with you, but due to the point attempting to be established, a certain degree of rigour is required in order to ascertain any essential limitations or biases inherent in the sample, no matter how large.
And right now, the most self-evident bias inherent in the sample, is simple. Only people who actually care about politics and the future of this country will have been inclined to vote. People who felt they were too ignorant, or were simply lazy, or just didn't care would have all stayed at home. And such people arecompletely unrepresented in the sample, on account of the fact that they stayed at home. Now you can try to claim that such people would be so small in numbers as to not affect the numbers, but how do you know? Where is your evidence for that assertion when they're completely unrepresented in your sample? Even if you polled all of them again right now, they'd still be excluded on the basis of the fact that they wouldn't be bothered to respond.
Going empirically for a minute here, I would say I've met just as many young people who didn't give a damn about politics/international affairs as those who did, if not more. From the smart to the stupid, young people I know tend not to care so much.
So. Summing up this point, I believe your argument is suffering from a variant of Flew's 'Death of a 1000 qualifications'. We've come a long way now from that assertion of 'most young people want to stay within the EU to have a greater impact on the world stage. We've now hit:-
'Most young people (assuming the statistical sample of young people is entirely representative despite an unquantifiable bias towards people who care about politics) want to stay within the EU (assuming that all participants are including this reasoning when the time came to submit their vote) in order to have a greater impact on the world stage (assuming that participation in the EU is the only way to have an impact on the world affairs).
Your original assertion is getting so mangled with assumptions, all of which are debatable, that it's almost unrecognisable!
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean they change who they vote for.
If this were accurate to any substantial degree, our government would never change as there wouldn't be a sufficient number of voters changing sides to swing it.
No I am not, from a political perspective they didn't want to join the EU because of the way it runs its financial sector historically. Switzerland is being called to task by the EU because it stopped accepting free movement, because it didn't want too many people 'playing with it's toys'. When it realises it is having the bigger and better toys being taken away it is almost certainly fall in line. Switzerland isn't choosing to leave, it is choosing to ignore one of the tenets of the EU to see how far it can push things.
So you believe that despite voting to curb immigration, Swiss citizens would not view large scale immigration as a reason not to join the EU? The point being made here is that Switzerland has reasons other than financial to not want to join, and unless you're going to assert what's in the previous sentence, you have to capitulate on this one.
But it does avoid snobbery of titles and people feeling that they are better educated than someone else just because they went to a University and avoids elitism.
Does it? You implied I was suffering from such a delusion about two posts back. If it had truly been the great leveller in the way you're describing, the thought would never have occurred to you.
Yes and my Dad was shuffled into a school where he wasn't developed (and never encouraged to remain in education) and left at 15. I'm not saying that people didn't work hard to get their results just that the system was designed to encourage elitism and catering only to the best for these exams.
There is an alternative explanation, namely that people were channelled towards an appropriate place to learn the skills they needed to be successful in life. After all, by the time Uni is an option, they're already 18. They're adults. That kid with a 2:2 in Politics from Bolton University may know a handful more about politics, but he'll have spent three years struggling for a qualification with few job prospects, and mired himself in debt. Don't you think it's irresponsible to burden that student with that University debt for the benefit of a little extra political knowledge, as well as profligate with limited taxpayers funds?
And it's not necessarily a case of making him free to study the subject he loves either (just to head that argument off). Most young people haven't got a bloody clue what they want to do for a living, and this constant pushing for kids to go to University has become an inculcated societal one. Both of my brothers went to university, got useless degrees, and hated their time there. But they went because they didn't know what else to do and everyone expects you to these days.
Don't get me wrong I don't think the system is perfect but education is better because it is more inclusive. My main concern is the way the government focuses on targets because it forces a style of teaching by repetition rather than understanding.
Sadly, a natural result of tailoring Uni education to the masses has been a conversion of that level of education to repetition. All these students are now 'customers' for spoonfeeding, and Government increasingly wants the sector to try and quantify the unquantifiable so they can trot out statistics for the population. It's also meant that the intense competition of having so many Universities has accelerated grade inflation and the importance placed on ranking tables.
On the other hand maybe that's the overall government aim after all how many actually want their populace questioning what they are doing?
Is that a touch of cynicism I hear? I'll make a Private Eye reader of you yet.
No, but then it might for someone else, just as doing maths doesn't mean you will become a top accountant, but some people will - it provides an opportunity for people to exceed where they may otherwise do poorly in the more traditional/esoteric fields. I find that a depressing cynical view as it views no potential for these children.
These children have potential (all kids do), but the courses themselves are poorly designed and instituted, and more about getting easy grades for schools to show off than they are to do with employment or the children's futures.
That's just been taken out of context as I was referring to your wording. I don't think several millions of people over decades is few
Several millions? Source please.
So? In reality most business loans come from banks.
And the reason they give the loan is because the government underwrites the debt. They wouldn't do it otherwise, not for young people with no seizable assets, savings, or substantial credit history.
The point is that the EU provide tangible benefits across the UK in multiple different ways. One individual method might not amount to much but the sum of the parts is much greater. Even that one start up grant from the EU could result in the employment of several people and in time grow to a large organisation that employs hundreds of people living in the UK. A few people might only directly benefit from it but the long term benefits can be much greater. These opportunities will simply be gone in the future as the UK is not going to match funding and banks will be adverse to more risky ventures during the coming recession.
I'm sorry, but you've started generalising away from the specific point being discussed; namely the hard material benefits of being within the EU, and how many people benefit from them, and not only that, are aware of doing so (in order for them to miss them later on to make them want to rejoin). I maintain it is a negligible number of the total population of the UK. I'd be surprised if it were higher than a few million.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 11:48:57
