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.
You ask for evidence about my earlier point? Evidence? Evidence!!!???
13 years ago, Blair ran a coach and horses through Parliamentry sovereignty with his push for invading Iraq.
We now know he lied to Parliament.
Parliament has been kept in the dark about British troops in the Ukraine, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which end up killing civilians in Yeman.
Despite the above, I didn't see much people giving two hoots for Parliamentry sovereigntry then.
And yet, here we are, after a crucial EU referendum, Gina Millar, backed by rich Remain supporters, suddenly find it in their hearts to lift a finger to defend our poor and weak Parliament and its sovereigntry.
You can rightly argue that the EU referendum is an important decision, but so is going to war, and war is without a doubt, the important position any nation will ever find itself in. It's a matter of life and death...
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
I know bullgak when I smell it and this courtroom battle stinks to high heaven!
If the Supreme Court rules for the Government, Gina Millar and her backers will be on the first plane to the ECJ quicker than you can say dakka dakka.
They will fail to see the irony of a European court ruling on a British Constitutional matter.
We'll find out one way or another how much they care for Parliamentry sovereigntry.
"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
Well said. I'll be dammed if I take a lecture on the importance of parlimentary sovereignty from people who were always happy and ready to give it away in the past. Funny that it only becomes important and unquestionable again once the tables have turned.
That would very much depend on what school you are in, just like here.
Zimbabwe as a whole has a literacy rate which is good for Africa and families and the government prioritise schools when it comes to spending but here in Europe you're going to be averaging higher than Zimbabwe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 23:29:52
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
If you don't need evidence, why are you in a thread debating the issue? If one side requires no evidence but the other does there's literally no point to the discussion in the first place. I'd even argue that's how you ended up with Brexit in the first place.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It does say a lot about the common man in England, doesn't it?
For those who might be vaguely curious:-
Spoiler:
I had the good fortune to attend a private school there due to my father teaching at the establishment in exchange for reduced fees. It wasn't one of these posh foreign run international schools you see all over Africa/Asia though, virtually all the intake was local and it was 85% black in terms of pupils and staff. There was a preparatory school run by Irish nuns, a primary school for 8-12 years olds, and a secondary/college for 12-18's. I attended the preparatory school for a year and then did the full four years at the primary before moving back to England aged 12 to file into Year 7 just after the turn of the century (the school year out in Africa has different terms).
The primary method of instruction was chalk and talk. Very British Empire public school-esque. Blackboards, caning, and smart uniforms were the order of the day, along with an emphasis on exercise (we had fairly good sports facilities-plenty of space) and religion (it was all Jesuit run). Classes commenced at 8:30, with a fifteen minute break for a run and milk at 11, followed by the end of the academic day at 1pm. After that was an hour's lunch, then a good two and a half hours exercise to finish the day. You got about an hours worth of homework exercises every day.
Classroom facilities were basic. All the grammar and mathematics books were from the 70's/80's, the desks were wooden and still had spaces for inkwells alongside the graffiti of a few decades worth of schoolboys on the insides. Teachers would swat you around the back of the head if you didn't pay attention, punishment beyond that was lines or going to help the labourers who kept the place in order, or caning. We were divided into school houses which competed on sports day, there was a tuck shop to buy lunch, and an authoritarian prefect system.
All clubs/societies were sports or skills related for the most part (so chess, debate, music, etc). Small school library mostly filled with things like Enid Blyton or the Secret Seven at the primary institution, although the secondary had a larger reference library with more academic stuff. Science class involved dissecting animals/organs reared in the labs as opposed to those frozen and brought in (like the system here does it)
To reiterate, this was about a decade and a half ago. Not too long. I visited the secondary I went to here as a potential teacher candidate after university, and it hadn't changed at all.
The reason the education was better was due to three primary reasons I suspect:-
Firstly, the discipline was much, much better. There was never any issue of the teacher fighting the class for attention, which regularly happened here. If someone played up, they went to stand outside, if they played up again, they were doing lines until their wrist ached or they were scrubbing toilets in lunch, and if they did it again, they got caned. The result being that for the most part, class was quite focused and nothing but learning actually happened assuming the teacher was mildly attentive. Which they were.
Secondly, there was a strong focus on what was considered to be 'proper' academia. No time spent on things like 'Food Technology' or Textiles, which I did here in the UK. It was English/grammar, Mathematics, Science, History, Geography, and so on (Drama was part of english - plays etc). I'm not necessarily assessing any subject as being better than the other, purely stating that by excluding some, especially those ones which were so arbitrarily marked and graded (as I discovered here in the UK), there was sufficient time to focus upon those core ones.
Third is the constant streaming readjustment. We did tests at the end of every term. If you did sufficiently well, you bounced up a stream. If you did badly, you went down one. With a more equalised holiday period between terms (instead of the long summer one you get here), there was sufficient time to play catchup in between term with the materials that were made available. If you had a poor term, you could go down a set, but movements between the sets were regular enough it was unremarkable. There were only three sets at primary level, but once you moved up to secondary, there were usually five or six per year group, meaning that there wouldn't be sufficient catchup required by adjusting set that it would be impossible to settle in.
As stated, I was about three years ahead when I moved to the UK, I was varying between wanting to be a geneticist and a marine biologist aged 12. I scored top notch grades upon arriving and for the three years after. Sadly, randomised teaching effectiveness, always having to go at the rate of the slowest in class, and three years of effectively doing no work were quite detrimental to my teenage learning motivation, and my GCSE's were distinctly subpar. I became quite lazy (and still am to a large extent, I find doing nothing much one of my favourite activities even if I rarely get to indulge it ).
Anyway. I'm hardly atypical of the common man, but I've had the good fortune to experience what was effectively a mode of education from 1900's and to be able to compare it directly to comprehensives. And whilst there are many aspects I disagree about it with (the caning for example), and like about the British system (music is far better taught here, as another) I think there are a number of aspects that the British system could benefit from integrating into itself instead of obsessing over this daft 'grammar v comprehensive' thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 00:55:14
I just always go back to my mums experiences as a primary school teacher. - Primary 4 pupils. So Ages 9-10 or so.
The one kid that eventually forced her to retire had a mum that ran off, dad who I think was either in and out of jail, or spent a whole lot of time doing less than legal errands. Mostly raised by his gran, who was a junkie.
The kid, who, again, we're talking aged 9/10, carried knives to class and would regularly assault other pupils (pinning them to walls with their desks was his favoured tactic if I remembered the stories right.)
Discipline, caning, whatever... My money would still be on the knife winning. In saying that, I do blame the education policy of the time - Late 90's, early 2000's, Tony Blairs time (keeping in mind this is Scotland education system, not England.) Essentially, the school refused to do anything about this kid of anything relating to a permanent solution. I think the most they did was take him out of class an hour a day (School was 9am to 3:30pm) for special needs lessons.
I kinda don't really know what point I was originally aiming for when I started writing this. Life 'on the ground' I guess?
Compel wrote: I just always go back to my mums experiences as a primary school teacher. - Primary 4 pupils. So Ages 9-10 or so.
The one kid that eventually forced her to retire had a mum that ran off, dad who I think was either in and out of jail, or spent a whole lot of time doing less than legal errands. Mostly raised by his gran, who was a junkie.
The kid, who, again, we're talking aged 9/10, carried knives to class and would regularly assault other pupils (pinning them to walls with their desks was his favoured tactic if I remembered the stories right.)
Discipline, caning, whatever... My money would still be on the knife winning. In saying that, I do blame the education policy of the time - Late 90's, early 2000's, Tony Blairs time (keeping in mind this is Scotland education system, not England.) Essentially, the school refused to do anything about this kid of anything relating to a permanent solution. I think the most they did was take him out of class an hour a day (School was 9am to 3:30pm) for special needs lessons.
I kinda don't really know what point I was originally aiming for when I started writing this. Life 'on the ground' I guess?
Even when I was in High School from around the mid-2000s, discipline--and subsequent punishment--was incredibly lacking. Teachers were and as far as I can tell still are powerless to actually stop anything worse than name-calling. Being my year's metaphorical--and occasionally physical--punchbag, I got to experience a lot of bullying and general deplorable behaviour, as well as the complete lack of any discipline or punishment. I think we had a few incidents with weapons, and someone in my year even brought a bloody great hammer in, but I don't recall them actually being used in any capacity. It didn't mean that they couldn't use them, only that they never had to, because basic physical aggression was just so effective. The most punishment I ever saw anyone get was a week's exclusion, which was laughably ineffective. The headteacher didn't care, the school board apparently didn't care, the pastoral team were usually more harmful than helpful--I remember the time I reported the first of many, many instances of bullying I suffered in that institution, and after asking them to deal with it anonymously, it was "solved" in the good old-fashioned way of bringing the people you reported in to the office so you could all shake hands and stop bothering the teachers.
Has shaking hands ever actually not simply made everything worse?
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
The kid, who, again, we're talking aged 9/10, carried knives to class and would regularly assault other pupils (pinning them to walls with their desks was his favoured tactic if I remembered the stories right.)
My parents are foster carers. Most of the kids turned out alright if you get to them young enough, but there was one little girl they had who was so badly damaged that no love, no discipline, and no psychology textbook was ever going to fix her. Complete sociopathic lack of empathy, calculated violence, and so on. Makes me parents wince to this day, even though they did everything they could over a year and a half, they still feel they failed her somehow.
There will always be a few like that who no education system is ever going to be able to cope with I suspect. But barring that sort of damage and trauma, most would-be misbehaving kids tend to toe the line in a place where hard physical labour or pain are viable punishment systems. Whether such punishments are ethical is another question altogether.
I suspect that if you start them young in such disciplined systems, the misbehaviours are also much less egregious than under one less so, purely because the thrill of breaking the rules is far easier to achieve, and the punishment much swifter and harsher. They're far more acclimatised to that sort of disciplinary format also, and so serious rule-breaking is far less easily conceived.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 02:00:48
it was "solved" in the good old-fashioned way of bringing the people you reported in to the office so you could all shake hands and stop bothering the teachers.
That was always my experience. When I was about twelve I got kicked by a girl I barely knew (just her name and that she was in my year) whilst queuing for the cafeteria, completely unprovoked. I can only assume it was a dare or something. As I was understandably angry about this, I insulted her. I didn't retaliate physically in any way, I simply called her a word..."parasite". (I was a bit of a well read swot at the time and just picked the most insulting thing I could think of on the spot)
We were dragged into a teachers office...and basically treated like we were both equally at fault, both reprimanded and she received no punishment whatsoever. Physical violence was apparently considered equivalent to name calling and the fact I responded with an insult got her completely off the hook for what was a random and unprovoked assault.
Also got grabbed in a head lock and punched completely at random (again outside the cafeteria). I ran rather than retaliate. To the best of my knowledge, the kid received no punishment. (He later got expelled for stealing other kid's sports trainers, which I suppose the school couldn't gloss over and hide from the parents ).
Another time, a teacher was locked in a cupboard for half the duration of a lesson by some kid who wandered into her classroom in between lessons (he actually happened to be my best friend in Primary School, til I switched Primary schools and we lost contact until secondary school by which time he was a stoner).
And then there was also the time a pupil tossed a pencil at a teacher's face and nearly blinded her.
Obviously none of this compares to Avatar's experiences, and I certainly never heard of any instances of weapons, but a casual if not defeatist attitude to violence seems to be universal. Suffice to say, I eventually learned to not bother reporting violence to teachers.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 02:26:49
Actually, that cupboard one does compare to an experience I only heard about afterwards, but didn't witness. A few of the arseholes in the year locked a supply teacher in the cupboard mid-lesson, and the class basically all just fethed off. As far as I can tell nothing much came of it, at least certainly nothing noteworthy.
Smoking on school grounds would get mentioned often enough, but locking a teacher in a cupboard didn't even get a "I'm deeply disappointed" in assembly.
I sympathise about the random acts of violence, too. Having Osgood-Schlatter disease in my knee during my early teens, I spent year 7-8 unable to do PE. A few people took exception to that fact, and one decided to 'test' it by kicking my knee. Suffice to say I was not faking anything, and I had to be helped to the nurse to wait for my mum to pick me up, as I physically couldn't use my leg in any meaningful way.
Nothing was done about that incident.
Another one that sticks out was having one of those dobbing-great maths textbooks that weighed a ton lobbed at the back of my head in full view of the teacher. Luckily the gakker that threw it couldn't aim for gak and it bounced off the back of my chair. He was sent out of the room to be dealt with later, and was seen a minute or so later simply wandering off past the block and out of the grounds.
I think he actually got half a day exclusion--though whether for the attempted assault or the walking out of school I don't know--but he was one of the real arseholes, so he just came back and continued being a complete witch as he would do for the following 3 and a half years.
It's amazing what teenagers who know perfectly well what they're doing can get away with simply because it's on school grounds. Trying half the stuff they do to people in school in the outside world would get them in quick trouble with the police.
EDIT: As much as I... 'enjoy' recalling the "best 5 years of your life", I think I may be derailing the thread a little...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 05:35:39
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
To get back to the topic, presumably there are specific points of Brexit that would be acceptable, and if the final terms were outside this level, then the people and Parliament would want to find a different way forwards.
For instance, I make up the figure for the sake of argument, that the UK's economy will contract by 10% in five years, if we do not get access to the free market, and access to the free market is dependent on free movement of EU citizens into the UK (and UK citizens to the EU.)
Is it more important to keep EU citizens out of the UK, or maintain the UK economy?
I realise this is not a proven situation, but it could arise (see the banking move from earlier) so it is the kind of thing we need to think about and eventually make a decision about which choice was better.
Graphite wrote: Yeah, relying on hopes that the French won't try to mess up England, a country it seems to have been at war with on and off for the best part of 800 odd years, just because some other members of the EU don't really want them to seems optimistic.
Especially as who's to say other countries wouldn't benefit from EU country having that business rather than non-EU...
UK will be out of EU. That means what's good for UK is not much of a concern for EU countries. Only reason to look for good of UK for EU is if it means even more good for EU. If it helps EU even one red cent then screw the UK.
You ask for evidence about my earlier point? Evidence? Evidence!!!???
13 years ago, Blair ran a coach and horses through Parliamentry sovereignty with his push for invading Iraq.
We now know he lied to Parliament.
Parliament has been kept in the dark about British troops in the Ukraine, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which end up killing civilians in Yeman.
Despite the above, I didn't see much people giving two hoots for Parliamentry sovereigntry then.
And yet, here we are, after a crucial EU referendum, Gina Millar, backed by rich Remain supporters, suddenly find it in their hearts to lift a finger to defend our poor and weak Parliament and its sovereigntry.
You can rightly argue that the EU referendum is an important decision, but so is going to war, and war is without a doubt, the important position any nation will ever find itself in. It's a matter of life and death...
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
I know bullgak when I smell it and this courtroom battle stinks to high heaven!
If the Supreme Court rules for the Government, Gina Millar and her backers will be on the first plane to the ECJ quicker than you can say dakka dakka.
They will fail to see the irony of a European court ruling on a British Constitutional matter.
We'll find out one way or another how much they care for Parliamentry sovereigntry.
But we had a parliament vote on the Iraq war
With 400+ MP's in favour, even though various people had pointed out the flaws in the proposition, as well as being against an ammendment that wanted to wait for UN sanctioning.
But if you're that worried about Brexit not happening, put pressure on your local MP, point out that the majority of their constituency voted leave/remain and they should vote accordingly if Millers' case wins. If they don't, you can always vote them out in the next election.
I've been looking at the numbers for last night's by-election and it makes grim reading for Labour.
Once again, Labour have failed to adapt to the new reality of British politics.
In Scotland, after the independence referendum, politics is dominated by the independence issue, and so, Labour died in the cross-fire between the SNP and the Tories.
In England and Wales, the EU referendum and its aftermath will dominate politics for years to come. UKIP threaten Labour in the north, the Lib Dems in the south, and the Tories will always close ranks to win the prize at a General Election, with the result being that once more Labour die in the cross-fire...
Corbyn is anti-EU/EEC to his core, has been for decades, but can't break out the noose of the Blairites, so Labour, unlike the other 3 parties, sit on the fence...and suffer.
Even without the EU issue, Labour would struggle for the reasons I mentioned a few pages back (Corbyn/Abbott/Middle England/boundary changes)
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
If you don't need evidence, why are you in a thread debating the issue? If one side requires no evidence but the other does there's literally no point to the discussion in the first place. I'd even argue that's how you ended up with Brexit in the first place.
I'm making an educated guess based on years of following politics, and the principals of logic and reason.
We know that Gina Millar's backers are pro-EU. We know that these same people never gave two hoots for Parliamentry sovereignty in the past, and we know that 70% of MPs were pro-EU. And we also know that prominent media and business figures have been urging Parliament to ignore the referendum result ,citing non-binding as a reason.
I'm not the smartest person on God's Earth, but using logic to the best of my ability, I conclude the following.
Millar and her backers, who have a good case I must admit, want the courts to rule in favour of Parliament having the final say on Article 50, a Parliament that is 70% pro-EU.
Need I say more?
Alas, that goose has well and truly been cooked, because we've moved away from the legal realm to the political realm.
Parliament's support of the motion the other day, despite not being a bill, has all but guaranteed the activation of Article 50...
They could back down but we'd end up with a Blazing Saddles style situation - the sherriff putting a gun to his own head and threatening to shoot himself if they don't let him go...
Brexit is back where it belongs - in the hands of the British people i.e the voters and not the judges...
You ask for evidence about my earlier point? Evidence? Evidence!!!???
13 years ago, Blair ran a coach and horses through Parliamentry sovereignty with his push for invading Iraq.
We now know he lied to Parliament.
Parliament has been kept in the dark about British troops in the Ukraine, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which end up killing civilians in Yeman.
Despite the above, I didn't see much people giving two hoots for Parliamentry sovereigntry then.
And yet, here we are, after a crucial EU referendum, Gina Millar, backed by rich Remain supporters, suddenly find it in their hearts to lift a finger to defend our poor and weak Parliament and its sovereigntry.
You can rightly argue that the EU referendum is an important decision, but so is going to war, and war is without a doubt, the important position any nation will ever find itself in. It's a matter of life and death...
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
I know bullgak when I smell it and this courtroom battle stinks to high heaven!
If the Supreme Court rules for the Government, Gina Millar and her backers will be on the first plane to the ECJ quicker than you can say dakka dakka.
They will fail to see the irony of a European court ruling on a British Constitutional matter.
We'll find out one way or another how much they care for Parliamentry sovereigntry.
But we had a parliament vote on the Iraq war
With 400+ MP's in favour, even though various people had pointed out the flaws in the proposition, as well as being against an ammendment that wanted to wait for UN sanctioning.
But if you're that worried about Brexit not happening, put pressure on your local MP, point out that the majority of their constituency voted leave/remain and they should vote accordingly if Millers' case wins. If they don't, you can always vote them out in the next election.
My local MP is SNP and is pro-EU. My area voted strongly to Remain...
You can see the problem I have...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 10:47:20
"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
I still think the biggest issue for Labour, is this Corbyn/Anti-Corbyn split, if the anti-Corbynites swallowed their pride and got on with it, they could at least pretend to be as unified as the Tories are. If it goes well in the next GE they get into power (which must be their aim right?), if it doesn't go well they can just turn aroumd and blame Corbyn and being "to far left", but the man has won 2 leadership contest by a hefty margin, which, for me, would indicate the labour base that is the most involved, wants to head in that direction, for good or ill.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I still think the biggest issue for Labour, is this Corbyn/Anti-Corbyn split, if the anti-Corbynites swallowed their pride and got on with it, they could at least pretend to be as unified as the Tories are. If it goes well in the next GE they get into power (which must be their aim right?), if it doesn't go well they can just turn aroumd and blame Corbyn and being "to far left", but the man has won 2 leadership contest by a hefty margin, which, for me, would indicate the labour base that is the most involved, wants to head in that direction, for good or ill.
I know that they still don't like him, but I can't say I've heard of any Labourites rocking the boat since he won the last vote? I haven't seen anymore negative press briefings, resignations, etc. If that is the case, what you've described has already happened.
Stranger83 wrote: Feel free to buy them French Strawberries at £4 a pack thanks to EU tarriffs, I'll get the nice ones from America that come in at £2, tarriff free thanks to new trade deals.
Given that Trump will probably allow all sorts of chemicals to be used on them, I think I will take the EU strawberries with the sound environmental controls. It's likely to lead to a longer life expectancy...
Yes, cause Trump is highly likely to do this, \sign when you're this deluded it hard to have a conversation with you.
I remind you the EU has been around in some form for over 40 years, meaning anyone under 58 at the time of the referendum has been in the EU (or some version of it) for most of their lives - if anything the evidence points to the fact that as people get older they tend to start reviewing the EU in more detail and decide that actually it isn't the utopia they once thought it was (exactly what happened to me and most brexiter I know about), I therefore dispute your claim that just because I believe that as the older generation die off the younger generation will start to realise that the EU is a mess, and since our young won't grow up in the shackles of the EU it's likely that we won't even get that generation in 20 years time who start liking the EU then come to their senses as they get older.
This is all supposition based on your own personal bias against the EU. I could easily counter that the education levels of the older generation is worse as a factor that you haven't fully taken into account (or that those brought up in the 70's has a much greater anti-immigration exposure). I could also counter your argument that people in three years time will change their views because of higher inflation and hence we should have another referendum in 2019. However unless you can provide current evidence to the contrary the only thing we can use without some form of potential third party bias between two data sets 40 years apart creeping in is the polls that are currently taken. Based on this and this evidence alone given current polling preferences in 10 years given death and birth rates the UK will be pro-EU. Anything else is just guesswork and almost certainly biased due to our personal views.
Actually I think I do have evidence, most of the 'old folks' were alive when we joined the EU and very few people batted an eyelid, the fact that they are now antiEU simply shows that people change in ther life, the fact that most old people vothed leave shows that that change tends to be against the EU, but lets ignore all this to claim that I'm just making this all up, yes?
As for Education, this is a good point, I myself went to University, where I was an ardent Europhile, as was 99% of the people I met, we'd all gone to school and university where we are all told how wonderful the EU is and never asked to question this fact - it's only when I got out into the real world that I met people with different views and started to question what I'd been taught, my point here is about the young being pro EU - of cause they are if they have only ever been in education and never been told anything but the good part. when thy get out of University and intermingle with the seathing masses how many will change their minds?
This is a bit of a non story - of cause they were going to look into their options, then again having worked at a bank they are always looking into their options to see what is available. It's called Due Diligence it is usually a requirement of the board as part of their obligation to shareholders.
You are missing the point. Due diligence means that they have already reviewed their options and come to a preferential decision based on some (unknown) factors, one of which probably is losing passporting rights. They are now just going through analysing the preferred option to check nothing has been missed. What it means that if these factors happen they will be in place to immediately transfer operations. That's potentially billions of £'s worth of tax lost on day 1 of Brexit.
I suggest you read the article again, they have made no plans to move to France, they are simply looking at what would be involved if they did so, how would the regulation work - what taxes would they need to pay and such. the point is that they will look at the full package, and with a favorable euro/GBP exchange rate, a corporate tax rate of 17% (the UK target) to 33% in France and the potential benefits of being outside the EU red tape for none EU transactions I'm not entirely sure what the advantage of being inside the EU is - unless the EU were to change their financial transaction rules as currently ANYONE who has a similar finacial regulation is allowed to transact within Europe, on Brexit day we won't just be similar, we'll be the same!
If you don't understand the advantage of being inside the EU, you won't understand why banks are looking at moving to be inside the EU.
After Brexit, British banks will lose their passporting rights and thereby a big chunk of business. That is why they are looking at moving divisions to EU capitals.
In the immediate aftermath of the US election, Facebook came under fire for allowing ‘fake news’ to dominate its platform, and there was much lamenting that traditional print media – which, in theory, at least tries to verifies sources and stories – has been replaced by social media as the source of ‘news’ for many people. The ‘fake news’ problem raises many profound and interesting questions about what ‘news’ really is, and what makes it ‘real’ as opposed to ‘fake’, but commentators have perhaps been too hasty in assuming
that fake news is something new and something alien to the ‘traditional print media’. In fact, the pattern of user-generated news that we see on contemporary social media platforms is closer to the original pattern of dissemination of news in the first age of print.
Defining what counts as ‘fake news’ is not straightforward, given the traditional print media’s overt political bias, spinning of rumours, wilful misinterpretation of statistical data, and editorial decisions to foreground minor stories and ignore many newsworthy ones. However, a strict definition of ‘fake news’ would exclude speculative stories that might be true and are supported by anonymous sources. The reporting of such stories with the implication that they are fact may be dubious journalism, but it is the longstanding practice of the tabloid press. ‘Fake news’, in the strict sense, would have to be the kind of story that no conventional newspaper or news website would run because it directly contradicts easily verifiable fact: for instance, the report that Donald Trump won the popular vote in the US election as well as the votes of the electoral college. No conventional media would run with a story that is demonstrably false; to do so would run the risk of being discredited as a news outlet or sullying the ‘brand’ of a conventional newspaper.
Fake news sites, especially those generated by user content, have no such scruples. Unlike conventional media, they do not exist in the hope of projecting bias onto readers, but are created solely for and by readers with a particular bias, who will share the stories (and thereby gain the sites advertising revenues) whether they are contradicted by demonstrable fact or not. Whilst some may realise that the news stories are fake, many others – enough to make ‘fake news’ sites a viable commercial proposition – rely solely on an ‘echo chamber’ of social media for all their news and may not even become aware that a story has been challenged.
The current news situation has striking parallels with mid-seventeenth-century England. In 1642, previously strict government regulation and censorship of printing collapsed as the War of the Three Kingdoms threw England’s central administration into chaos. As a result, more printed material was published in the year 1642 than in the entire preceding 165 years since William Caxton set up the first London printing press in 1476. One of the most popular printed genres that poured off the presses was the newsbook, a form closer in style to pre-Civil War one-off pamphlets than to later newspapers. Few if any newsbooks were periodicals in the true sense of being published on a regular schedule, partly because the chaos of war made regular publication difficult and partly because the newsbooks reported news as it came in rather than at fixed intervals. The absence of much editorial control of newsbooks and pamphlets meant that this material resembled today’s user-generated content. All that was required to create news was access to a printing press and the willingness of stationers (the Mark Zuckerbergs of the seventeenth century) to provide a platform for new printed material.
This, of course, the stationers did for exactly the same reason Facebook provides a platform for ‘fake news’ – because there was a commercial incentive to do so. The vast majority of stationers’ shops sold pamphlets, newsbooks and ballads in a small area of the City of London centred on St Paul’s Cathedral, although the establishment of an alternative Royalist capital at Oxford meant that newsbooks poured off the presses there as well. As might be expected in a divided nation, the newsbooks were highly polarised politically and rife with bias and unsubstantiated reporting of rumour as fact. The difficulties of verifying rumour as ‘news’ in an age of slow travel and poor roads are obvious, and this problem remained until the advent of the railways and the invention of the electronic telegraph in the mid-nineteenth century.
However, the newsbooks also crossed the line from exaggeration, rumour and bias into something more like ‘fake news’ by reporting victories as defeats and defeats as victories and by misreporting defections from one side to the other. In January 1643 The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer falsely reported the defection of the Royalist Captain John Fenwick, and in July 1644 the Royalist newssheet Mercurius Aulicus questioned reports of a Parliamentarian victory at Edgehill, implying a Royalist victory. In May 1648 Mercurius Bellicus even falsely reported that the king was dead. It is possible to excuse such reporting on the grounds that it was sometimes difficult to establish who won early modern battles – such as the indecisive Battle of Edgehill. However, the newsbooks were also able to report ‘fake news’ wilfully and deliberately because they could get away with, for the same reason today’s fake news sites can – because their existence was ephemeral rather than an established ‘brand’. Just as today’s fake news sites can simply rename themselves overnight, so seventeenth-century newsbooks came and went rapidly, with few names surviving more than a couple of years.
Anticipating the ‘viral’ user-generated content of today’s social media, seventeenth-century newsbooks often printed supposed personal letters describing events, many of which are demonstrably false. During the Revolution of 1688 a pamphlet circulated in the form of a letter describing a plot by Catholics to blow up the town of Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. An exhaustive search of the town’s surviving records reveals no hint that this was true, or even really suspected by the inhabitants. Yet then as now, marginalised minorities (in this case Catholics) whose voices were unlikely to be listened to were the targets of ‘fake news’. In mid-seventeenth-century England, as today in the UK and America, ideals of ‘objective’ reporting of news (which were perhaps always a fantasy) broke down seemingly irretrievably. So factionalised and polarised was society that fake news was acceptable to a large enough portion of the population to make it a recipe for commercial success.
Once again Britain has always led the way !
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,
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't understand the advantage of being inside the EU, you won't understand why banks are looking at moving to be inside the EU.
After Brexit, British banks will lose their passporting rights and thereby a big chunk of business. That is why they are looking at moving divisions to EU capitals.
Fear not, if Private Eye is to be believed (and I have no reason to doubt them) the Tories are looking to turn the UK into the world's biggest tax haven, the Hong Kong of the North Atlantic
Trickle down economics, a windfall for every working man and woman
I can only imagine the EU's reaction to this
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 12:41:48
"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
National Grid has agreed to sell a majority stake in the UK’s gas pipe network to a team of investors, including the Chinese and Qatari states.
The UK's power network operator confirmed it is offloading the 61 per cent shareholding to a consortium led by Australian investment bank Macquarie in a deal that values the unit at around £13.8bn.
The division controls an important part of the country's infrastructure, which delivers gas to 11 million homes through 82,000 miles of pipeline, and its sale will reignite concerns about the ownership of critical national assets by foreign investors.
In August Theresa May said such deals would face tighter regulation as she gave the green light to the French and Chinese-funded Hinkley Point nuclear reactor.
National Grid said it would distribute a £150m voluntary payment to benefit British energy customers, while some £4bn of the proceeds will be returned to the company’s shareholders.
It will keep 31 per cent of the business but said it could potentially sell another 14 per cent stake to the consortium under the terms of the deal.
The sale, which is set to complete before the end of March next year, comes as part of a move to rebalance National Grid's business towards higher growth areas and create extra value for shareholders.
Dave Prentis, Unison union general secretary, said: “The experience of Thames Water customers when Macquarie was running the show should have been a red flag to ministers and regulators as how unsuitable this company is to be in charge of the UK's gas supply.
”Macquarie has poor form already – in building up huge company debt, repatriating massive dividends to the southern hemisphere and charging customers more for a much poorer service.
“The company has already proved it can’t be trusted with the nation’s water supply, but now it is to be in charge of gas pipes to millions of homes and businesses.
“The Government has said it wants to invest in UK infrastructure, yet these are not terribly encouraging first steps. It suggests ministers have not given much thought to an industrial strategy, not do they seem to have much desire to retain key parts of the nation’s infrastructure in UK hands.”
John Pettigrew, chief executive of National Grid, said the deal “represents an important milestone in the evolution of National Grid and is a good outcome for our customers, employees, and shareholders”.
Yeah, it's not like the energy infrastructure is important or anything.
We're lucky we have such great relations with China -- a situation that won't at all affected by, say, the acts of a new President who seems determined to ruffle their feathers.
And the Middle East is so stable too, great bunch o 'lads.
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,
So that's the future then: gakked on from a great height by the Tories, and then swept up by the Chinese and the Arabs...
As things stand, that is the future for average man and woman in the street.
As I've said many a time on many a forum, Brexit is a wonderful opportunity to build a new Britain fit for the 21st century.
The progressive left/liberals could do this, because the non-Conservative Conservative* party won't, having neither the skill nor the vision.
Sadly, the progressive left/liberals, are too busy fighting yesterday's EU referendum battles. If they accepted the result, presented a vision, and got stuck into the Tories, they could blow the blue rinse brigade away...
*Horribly corrupt and incompetent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 13:41:47
"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
As I've said many a time on many a forum, Brexit is a wonderful opportunity to build a new Britain fit for the 21st century.
So that's the future then: gakked on from a great height by the Tories, and then swept up by the Chinese and the Arabs...
As things stand, that is the future for average man and woman in the street.
You might well find a lot of people who voted remain did so to try and stop or at least slow down -- this happening.
Obviously YMMV -- but the idea that Brexit was ever going to be anything than (yet another) chance for the rich to help themselves to even more was .. well......
... I'll go with naive.
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,
Given that so many international companies already dodge tax so they don't pay corporation tax anyway. Wouldn't it be better for local companies to just to scrap corporation tax anyway?
You could put conditions on it saying that x amount of employees must be paid x amount.
International companies cant really get away with not paying their workers like they do their taxes, and then you just take the money as income tax from the workers.
Who would really mind paying more tax on their income if their income rises to offset it? Just a less avoidable way of taxing corporations without really taxing them. All tax comes indirectly from businesses anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 14:14:12
We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.
Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress
obsidianaura wrote: Given that so many international companies already dodge tax so they don't pay corporation tax anyway. Wouldn't it be better for local companies to just to scrap corporation tax anyway?
You could put conditions on it saying that x amount of employees must be paid x amount.
International companies cant really get away with not paying their workers like they do their taxes, and then you just take the money as income tax from the workers.
Who would really mind paying more tax on their income if their income rises to offset it? Just a less avoidable way of taxing corporations without really taxing them. All tax comes indirectly from businesses anyway.
Call the bluff of these big companies and push up the living wage to between £15 to £20 per hour. That might focus some attention to corporate HQs.
As I've said many a time on many a forum, Brexit is a wonderful opportunity to build a new Britain fit for the 21st century.
So that's the future then: gakked on from a great height by the Tories, and then swept up by the Chinese and the Arabs...
As things stand, that is the future for average man and woman in the street.
You might well find a lot of people who voted remain did so to try and stop or at least slow down -- this happening.
Obviously YMMV -- but the idea that Brexit was ever going to be anything than (yet another) chance for the rich to help themselves to even more was .. well......
... I'll go with naive.
Even if we had stayed in the EU, the poor would still struggle, and arguably, would struggle more, because Dave and George* would be emboldened to push on with more austerity, Dave seeing a Remain vote as a vindication of his premiership.
The Tories are clearly corrupt and incompetent. If Labour could ditch Corbyn for somebody half decent, or let Corbyn take the gloves off and back Brexit, the Tories would be squirming.
*Normally, I'd be more respectful, but I refuse to use the surnames of these self-serving charlatans...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 14:26:59
"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
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,
).
