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.

Meh.

I don't mean to belittle my fellow countrymen and women on this forum, especially if you have a mortgage or a loan to worry about, and I accept that the coming months ahead could be tough for my fellow dakka members, but when you're at the bottom like me, this sort of news washes over you.

Obviously, I care what happens to our country, and see the bigger picture, and hope that things work out well, but I'm under the radar on this one.

Theresa May: UK cannot keep 'bits' of EU membership
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38546820

Of course we can. The question is what we would need to concede in return.

This goes to the heart of the problem. Do we want to sacrifice single market access and services passporting in return for the ability to keep Europeans out of the country?

It's that simple.

 Ketara wrote:
You wouldn't know. Hence the word 'sub-conscious'.

There's a difference between 'unknown' and subconscious. In case you were wondering by sub-conscious means "the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware". Simply nature and nurture have developed a way of thinking about the world that becomes 'automatic' and hence the individual isn't aware of them. On the other hand the effects are observable.

If it really makes you feel better, the number 'thirty' is random. But it's a phrase I use quite frequently in relation to many other things in similar sentence structures. eg. 'Are you sure this is the only newsagent around?' 'Well, there could be thirty other shops about the place, but this is the only one I know'.

It's not random, our brains are machines, complex ones, but machines nonetheless, hence whatever numbers you are pulling out are based on the machinery. Awareness of the implication is more important than what number that was used.

No, it was point scoring. As I have established multiple times now, trying to play amateur psychologist on the internet like this is incredibly inaccurate off such a tenuous example. It added nothing to the discussion, namely the fact an ambassador had resigned and a new ambassador had been appointed. It was a completely personal tangent targeted at me personally. Me or my potential biases have no real relation to the subject matter at hand, unless you are attempting to discredit something I am saying via ad hominem. Aka, point scoring. You can try and deny it, but in light of the fact you just claimed you want your own biases pointed out in order to control them, that would be a strange thing to do.

If you want to believe it was point scoring that's up to you, but then it is just that - make-believe. The statement was more to highlight that we all have sub-conscious bias and just like the UK ambassador by not going through a fair an representative process you are at the mercy of these biases. It happens to us all, because simply we are human. The worse thing that can happen, is when as individuals, we don't want to see it.

No, it's reminding you of basic societal norms. 'Telling it like it is' is the sort of argument usually reserved for people who like talking loudly about how black people are thick, Jews are thieves, and transgenders special attention snowflakes. Do you really want to start pulling out the same kind of lines as people like that?

That's a bit of an obtuse example and rather twisting the expression. Calling "black people thick...[sic]" is a statement on a group of people that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Saying someone is sub-consciously biased is correct because we all are. There is nothing wrong with calling out someone stating something is racist even if it upsets them (and in just in case you take a weird interpretation on this I am *not* calling you racist). Sometimes the truth just hurts. By not ever saying anything to upset anyone then effectively the racist behaviour is not being challenged and is allowed to 'fester'.

In other words, perhaps the onus might be on you for unclear wording? For a man who apparently likes to recognise his own sub-conscious biases, you seem to spend a lot of time (both here and elsewhere) putting all responsibility for communication on the other party and refusing to accept any possibility of flaw on your own end.

Maybe you should have asked then before you jumped to a conclusion if you were unsure what I was saying? I haven't the time to right a contract document every time I post just so you don't jump to some ridiculous conclusion without asking for clarity first because you want to defend Maybe at every opportunity. So to clarify I am not calling an Empress Maybe a overt sexist. I am saying that whoever made the decision (which Empress Maybe might only have had to nod in agreement if someone else made the decision) will be sub-consciously biased. If they didn't go through a fair and open recruitment process allowing any interested candidates to demonstrate and determine the most appropriate person then that risks leaving the window open for sub-conscious biases; whether that's hidden trends to bias for a certain sex, race, sexual preference, religion, or sock colour preference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meh.

I don't mean to belittle my fellow countrymen and women on this forum, especially if you have a mortgage or a loan to worry about, and I accept that the coming months ahead could be tough for my fellow dakka members, but when you're at the bottom like me, this sort of news washes over you.

Obviously, I care what happens to our country, and see the bigger picture, and hope that things work out well, but I'm under the radar on this one.

Take a care though. Poorer credit ratings means that the Country is seen as a greater risk and hence the cost of borrowing increases. Yes it might not affect you directly but it could indirectly if the Tories hold to a fiscal plan of bringing the deficit down. That means more money has to go into interest payments and that's less money for services, such as the NHS which is already at breaking point, or social care for an elderly relative. It probably won't affect us on a daily basis directly but it may mean those services you thought were there are less effective or more restricted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Theresa May: UK cannot keep 'bits' of EU membership
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38546820

Of course we can. The question is what we would need to concede in return.

This goes to the heart of the problem. Do we want to sacrifice single market access and services passporting in return for the ability to keep Europeans out of the country?

It's that simple.

I don't think she wants to except this. The suggestion is that her two red lines are going to be restrictions on immigration and not having to fall under the ECJ (both of which she has fallen foul of). I doubt the ECJ was a big reason for people voting to leave the EU. Immigration more so unfortunately. However I think even the Leavers are divided on this issue. I suppose we should expect further falls in the £ over the coming weeks.

 Whirlwind wrote:

There's a difference between 'unknown' and subconscious. In case you were wondering by sub-conscious means "the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware". Simply nature and nurture have developed a way of thinking about the world that becomes 'automatic' and hence the individual isn't aware of them. On the other hand the effects are observable.

This is broadly correct, but if you become aware of your own personal behaviours and responses, you are conscious of them, and they are no longer 'sub' conscious. Judging by the extent to which you've pursued a tenuous interpretative theory of the subconscious views of a complete stranger through a distorting media such as the internet, I can only conclude that you must have some sort of compulsive sub-conscious desire to hunt down misogynists.

In reality, that's probably a load of hogwash, but it has approximately as much validity and supporting evidence as your original view on my own personal sub-conscious drives.

It's not random, our brains are machines, complex ones, but machines nonetheless, hence whatever numbers you are pulling out are based on the machinery. Awareness of the implication is more important than what number that was used.

And as has been stated (to repeat), it's a common type of semantic phrase in my lexicon. You can read anything from or into anything if you're determined enough. I would have said the same phrase regarding men/women/trans people, black/white/asian/ethnicity or racial subtype of your choice. Sexuality? I would have phrased it the same, with either straight, gay, bi, pan, or whichever you would prefer. Depending on the inserted word though, using your current method of diagnosis, you can prove I'm biased against all of those people/things! Which...well, doesn't say much for it, really.

If you want to believe it was point scoring that's up to you, but then it is just that - make-believe. The statement was more to highlight that we all have sub-conscious bias and just like the UK ambassador by not going through a fair an representative process you are at the mercy of these biases. It happens to us all, because simply we are human. The worse thing that can happen, is when as individuals, we don't want to see it.

So what you're saying now is that you seized upon a statement somebody made, and then wrung a meaning that really was in no way implied out of it in order to make a more general point? Without thinking through the implications of indicating that another poster was sexist, sub-consciously or otherwise?

Falsely implying somebody is a sexist for a separate goal without any concern for how that might impact upon them is one of two things. Socially inept or plain rude. Are you sure that's what you want to say you were doing instead of point scoring?

That's a bit of an obtuse example and rather twisting the expression. Calling "black people thick...[sic]" is a statement on a group of people that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Saying someone is sub-consciously biased is correct because we all are. There is nothing wrong with calling out someone stating something is racist even if it upsets them (and in just in case you take a weird interpretation on this I am *not* calling you racist). Sometimes the truth just hurts. By not ever saying anything to upset anyone then effectively the racist behaviour is not being challenged and is allowed to 'fester'.

You missed the point. The point being that 'revealing the truth' isn't always an excuse for acting like a *insert expletive of choice*. And when your 'truth' was based upon such a tenuous, flimsy, and frankly, twisted interpretation of a statement like that one was, it's certainly not an excuse. We're all perfectly aware of what a 'sub-conscious bias' is, and explaining them doesn't require a target example.

In future, please kindly make your somewhat grandiloquent revelations of 'truth' with a touch more evidence, and a modicum more respect towards strangers, if you'd be so kind. It's not much to ask for.

Maybe you should have asked then before you jumped to a conclusion if you were unsure what I was saying? I haven't the time to right a contract document every time I post just so you don't jump to some ridiculous conclusion without asking for clarity first because you want to defend Maybe at every opportunity.

You were so outraged about the seeming unfairness of the selection process that you were criticising it and thinking about lodging an FOI request. I took you seriously, and assumed that to hold such strong views, you'd possess a basic understanding of the thing you were criticising, and thus be aware of the natural implication of your words. It's not often I get people telling me they wished I assumed them more ignorant!


Regardless. This has gone far, far beyond UK politics, so I'm going to draw a line under my responses on this exchange there.

@ Whirlwind

Yes, you're right in saying that cuts to the NHS and things like food price increases at the shops will effect even people like me, but as I said to you before, thank God for devolution, because I'm spared a lot of the crackpot Tory ideas that are implemented down in England and Wales.

NHS Scotland is devolved, and although the funding does come from the central funding, we have a competent party in charge at Edinburgh, so things are not as bad as they could be.

Plus, air passenger duty will be going to Edinburgh, and something like 20% of income tax raised in Scotland will stay in Scotland because of the new Scotland Act powers coming into play, so the SNP have a few more pounds to spend on stuff.

That's not too say that Scotlands NHS is perfect... Going by some of my father's rents, after all it's the Scottish taxpayer that's picking up the £7.50 bill for when doctors prescribe paracetamol that costs 20p in the shops...

My wife has been given a prescription for paracetamol in England.
Hard Brexit will certainly make things interesting in a few years, I may even be getting a new passport

Yeah, but that's when you laugh at them and go to Asda and get it for 20 pence. Otherwise you, personally are paying £7.50 immediately and someone wouldn't do that, unless it was a not-off-the-shelf kind... - Which, a lot of the time, it isn't.

It's basically a microcosm of the "tragedy of the commons" in a way, in my view.

 Ketara wrote:

This is broadly correct, but if you become aware of your own personal behaviours and responses, you are conscious of them, and they are no longer 'sub' conscious. Judging by the extent to which you've pursued a tenuous interpretative theory of the subconscious views of a complete stranger through a distorting media such as the internet, I can only conclude that you must have some sort of compulsive sub-conscious desire to hunt down misogynists.

A desire to highlight biases that can further ingrain existing inequalities maybe...

And as has been stated (to repeat), it's a common type of semantic phrase in my lexicon. You can read anything from or into anything if you're determined enough. I would have said the same phrase regarding men/women/trans people, black/white/asian/ethnicity or racial subtype of your choice. Sexuality? I would have phrased it the same, with either straight, gay, bi, pan, or whichever you would prefer. Depending on the inserted word though, using your current method of diagnosis, you can prove I'm biased against all of those people/things! Which...well, doesn't say much for it, really.

But then you didn't. There's a lot more to what people say than most care to admit (or accept).

So what you're saying now is that you seized upon a statement somebody made, and then wrung a meaning that really was in no way implied out of it in order to make a more general point? Without thinking through the implications of indicating that another poster was sexist, sub-consciously or otherwise?

There's a big difference between sexism/racism/insert appropriate'ism and sub-conscious bias and I think you are missing this point. Sub-conscious bias can lead to racism but they aren't the same. I highlighted a point on subconscious bias, not on sexism.

You missed the point. The point being that 'revealing the truth' isn't always an excuse for acting like a *insert expletive of choice*. And when your 'truth' was based upon such a tenuous, flimsy, and frankly, twisted interpretation of a statement like that one was, it's certainly not an excuse. We're all perfectly aware of what a 'sub-conscious bias' is, and explaining them doesn't require a target example.
In future, please kindly make your somewhat grandiloquent revelations of 'truth' with a touch more evidence, and a modicum more respect towards strangers, if you'd be so kind. It's not much to ask for.

I know what I read and can interpret things just fine; if I think something is worth highlighting then I will. The rest is up to you to interpret.

You were so outraged about the seeming unfairness of the selection process that you were criticising it and thinking about lodging an FOI request. I took you seriously, and assumed that to hold such strong views, you'd possess a basic understanding of the thing you were criticising, and thus be aware of the natural implication of your words. It's not often I get people telling me they wished I assumed them more ignorant!

Outraged ? I'm not sure I ever said I was outraged. More concern that a fair and equality based employment process may not have been undertaken to ensure the best candidate had been chosen and that if it hadn't there was a risk of bias creeping in when it is something that parliament and governments consistently want to avoid. Still if that is what you want to believe, but I think this sub-conscious interpretation issue is creeping in again! Rest assured I wasn't outraged.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Whirlwind

Yes, you're right in saying that cuts to the NHS and things like food price increases at the shops will effect even people like me, but as I said to you before, thank God for devolution, because I'm spared a lot of the crackpot Tory ideas that are implemented down in England and Wales.

NHS Scotland is devolved, and although the funding does come from the central funding, we have a competent party in charge at Edinburgh, so things are not as bad as they could be.

Plus, air passenger duty will be going to Edinburgh, and something like 20% of income tax raised in Scotland will stay in Scotland because of the new Scotland Act powers coming into play, so the SNP have a few more pounds to spend on stuff.

The overall settlement Scotland gets though is still decided by Westminster. From a purely proportional settlement point of view if relative amount of taxes goes down 20% overall then Scotland is likely to see an equivalent of 20% in it's settlement. That's still the same issue - less money mean less services.

Whenever my family's doctors have advised us To use a non-prescription drug that was cheaper than the cost of a prescription, they have advised us to buy it from Boots because it is cheaper than a prescription.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Whenever my family's doctors have advised us To use a non-prescription drug that was cheaper than the cost of a prescription, they have advised us to buy it from Boots because it is cheaper than a prescription.

I would assume that there are some who get free prescriptions ask for or get basic cheap medications prescribed by GP's

It would be interesting to find out how many prescriptions are filled for paracetamol and Ibuprofen, plasters even.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Whenever my family's doctors have advised us To use a non-prescription drug that was cheaper than the cost of a prescription, they have advised us to buy it from Boots because it is cheaper than a prescription.

For some pills the interwebs are your friend. I have allergies that on a bad day leave me incapacitated. Branded pills off the shelf, a years worth is £120 (33p/pill). Same concentration of active ingredient unbranded from the net - less than £9 (2.5p/pill). Pill prices are crazy and the extra amount that people will pay for a known brand over unbranded is bonkers. Every time I see a Piriteze advert I feel the urge to yell #@#kers, both at the buggers who sell it and the morons who buy it.

Yup, which includes the NHS, if I take my father at his word. I've always thought, "you know, that's probably the sort of thing the government really kinda means when it talks about efficiency savings." As opposed to the whole sorta thing that ends up in people dying...

It's clear that a lot more joined up thinking is needed in the NHS, the end result being that more money is saved.

@whirlwind. I think you've made a good case for Scottish independence there

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, but that's when you laugh at them and go to Asda and get it for 20 pence. Otherwise you, personally are paying £7.50 immediately and someone wouldn't do that, unless it was a not-off-the-shelf kind... - Which, a lot of the time, it isn't.

It's basically a microcosm of the "tragedy of the commons" in a way, in my view.

Prescriptions are entirely free in Scotland, for everyone. One of the drawbacks is that includes stuff like paracetamol (and why it's costing us so much to satisfy is crazy - we're presumably paying above the odds for the actual pills, plus a huge amount in admin work). To be honest I don't know why they don't just have a box of paracetamol/asparin/ibuprofen that the doctor can just hand over directly.

There's a huge amount of little things we can do to save money across the NHS but that seems to involve actual work an investment* when it's easier to just underfund it and then sell it off to your friends.

* For instance, hiring a triage nurse at a GP practice, to act as a GP gate keeper. Still run drop-in appointments and emergency clinics etc, but you only get to waste the GPs time if you need it. A huge amount of GP visits up here is for things that can be dealt with by pharmacists or just staying at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Outraged ? I'm not sure I ever said I was outraged. More concern that a fair and equality based employment process may not have been undertaken to ensure the best candidate had been chosen and that if it hadn't there was a risk of bias creeping in when it is something that parliament and governments consistently want to avoid. Still if that is what you want to believe, but I think this sub-conscious interpretation issue is creeping in again! Rest assured I wasn't outraged.

I'm wondering if May had known about the resignation for a while and has had time to find a replacement. I'm assuming this all came out of a disagreement about muddled thinking, and she's either asked him to step down or suspected he was going to do so.

I don't know if that's better than her being caught out and hiring the first person she could find (he was replaced within, what, a day?)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meh.

I don't mean to belittle my fellow countrymen and women on this forum, especially if you have a mortgage or a loan to worry about, and I accept that the coming months ahead could be tough for my fellow dakka members, but when you're at the bottom like me, this sort of news washes over you.

Obviously, I care what happens to our country, and see the bigger picture, and hope that things work out well, but I'm under the radar on this one.

Thing is like it or not that's going to affect you. Things go bad for UK and it's the poor and middle class that will pay the most of the brunt.

You claim you have nothing to lose. You are wrong.

Back to the potential 'leave the single market'

Can the class tell me exactly what it is Britain has that other countries want?

Because...erm....I'm just not seeing it.

Especially as when we leave, we're not going to have the same financial industry appeal.....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Back to the potential 'leave the single market'

Can the class tell me exactly what it is Britain has that other countries want?

Because...erm....I'm just not seeing it.

Especially as when we leave, we're not going to have the same financial industry appeal.....

As things stand, the British economy has multiple legs upon which to stand, and the financial services sector, whilst important, is not mortally vulnerable to hard Brexit even if it will take a bit of a hit.

It may sound strange, but Britain is something of a brand. We essentially sell education, research, style, and stability.

What that translates to is things like pharmaceuticals, luxury goods for rich people, a place to invest your money and get a solid return with little worries about government overthrow, complex pieces of machinery like aerospace components, a great place to go on holiday, cutting edge materials development which is then licensed out, a recognisably neutral location to have court battles, high quality foods, and so forth.

In physical terms, that doesn't translate to much, but they are still things people want to buy which they have difficulty obtaining elsewhere. At the end of the day, any country can manufacture low end industrial materials and components, but it's considerably more difficult to set up a top class research institute (as Dubai, Kazkhstan, and even France have recently learned).

Whether it will be sufficient to absorb Brexit? I would speculate (with many caveats) that it's quite a resilient formula for the most part, and the data so far does seem to be bearing that out. But it's still extremely early days yet, and I wouldn't dream of stating anything for certain.

Except our Financial Industry isn't about to take a hit, so much as have to relocate to mainland Europe....

One of the reasons we've grown such a solid financial industry is because we're in Europe.

And if they want to continue to trade within Europe, EU laws requires them to have a base there.....

Then we have various EU grants going away, which let's face it The Tories have absolutely no interest in replacing because it doesn't make them or their chums any wealthier - not directly.

So leaving The Single Market is an incredibly stupid idea.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Except our Financial Industry isn't about to take a hit, so much as have to relocate to mainland Europe....

One of the reasons we've grown such a solid financial industry is because we're in Europe.

And if they want to continue to trade within Europe, EU laws requires them to have a base there.....

Then we have various EU grants going away, which let's face it The Tories have absolutely no interest in replacing because it doesn't make them or their chums any wealthier - not directly.

So leaving The Single Market is an incredibly stupid idea.

The financial sector isn't going to 'relocate' to Europe. It's not a cohesive entity in that regard, and Brexit isn't some sort of fatal event to the industry as a whole, any more than WW2 or the crash of '08 was.

I'm not being rude or offensive here; but are you actually interested in discussing the potential repercussions, or are you one of the 'Everything is doomed/Everything will be amazing' crowds? I like discussing these sorts of things, and even enjoy debate on it, but I seem to end up in too many discussions with people convinced either the world is about to end, or we're about to move into a new age of prosperity. It doesn't half wear you down when multiple times you type out several paragraphs only to realise that the question being asked was merely a rhetorical one to support a political viewpoint that isn't ever going to shift as opposed to actual economics....

It's more realism.

If (sadly, quite possibly when) we leave the Single Market, our much vaunted financial industry is going to have to take a look at what serves it best.

We've already had major banks signal they'd have to move their operations. That hits the wider industry.

In the UK, we ultimately have very little the rest of the world really needs. Very little indeed. And yet the swivel-eyed amongst the Brexiteers (Farage and Co, those utterly detached from reality) seem to think we can get the upper hand in negotiations with the likes of China, US and indeed Europe - but not one of the lunatic fringe have anything like the foggiest notion of exactly how that is to be achieved.

So far, Brexit has been nothing but an absolute pack of lies and damned lies. Pretty much everything Leavers claimed was outright wrong. Every promise made {by those in no position to make it come to pass} just isn't going to happen.

And it all boils down to Little Englands ridiculous fear of the foreign. They genuinely believe in Schrodinger's Immigrant - simultaneously taking your jurbs, and claiming all your benefits. It's pathetic, and frankly embarrassing.

The Empire is done. The world is globalised. And thanks to a duplicitous campaign by a bunch of racist idiots, we're about to try and stand on our own.....

We're going to be crushed, economically speaking.

I think this sums up how I see those baying for a Hard Brexit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's more realism.

If (sadly, quite possibly when) we leave the Single Market, our much vaunted financial industry is going to have to take a look at what serves it best.

We've already had major banks signal they'd have to move their operations. That hits the wider industry.

In the UK, we ultimately have very little the rest of the world really needs. Very little indeed. And yet the swivel-eyed amongst the Brexiteers (Farage and Co, those utterly detached from reality) seem to think we can get the upper hand in negotiations with the likes of China, US and indeed Europe - but not one of the lunatic fringe have anything like the foggiest notion of exactly how that is to be achieved.

So far, Brexit has been nothing but an absolute pack of lies and damned lies. Pretty much everything Leavers claimed was outright wrong. Every promise made {by those in no position to make it come to pass} just isn't going to happen.

And it all boils down to Little Englands ridiculous fear of the foreign. They genuinely believe in Schrodinger's Immigrant - simultaneously taking your jurbs, and claiming all your benefits. It's pathetic, and frankly embarrassing.

The Empire is done. The world is globalised. And thanks to a duplicitous campaign by a bunch of racist idiots, we're about to try and stand on our own.....

We're going to be crushed, economically speaking.

I think this sums up how I see those baying for a Hard Brexit.

Errr......I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason that we don't produce anything much is the reason that our economy is actually reasonably resilient to this sort of shock. If we were a nation that relied extensively on manufacturing and exporting goods like Germany, we'd be highly vulnerable to the potential trade tariffs leaving the Eurozone would chuck up. As things stand? Not so much. The only sector particularly exposed is the financial one, and examining it in any sort of detail rapidly reveals that some areas of it are more vulnerable than others, and many sections of it wouldn't benefit in the slightest from relocating.

But I sense I'm unlikely to convince you of that, so I'll press swiftly on with fresh news. Ol' Martin McGuiness has stepped down:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38561507

Don't bother engaging with him, he'll just end up calling you a bigot or a Little Englander.

He does have a point though - a large proportion of people did vote to leave based on a fear of what immigration is doing/has done/will do to the country.

It's all and well good for a bunch of slightly more opinionated and possibly better informed people on a forum to say otherwise, but it happened.

Going back to Northern Ireland, I wonder what will happen now? I can't see Arlene stepping down anytime soon even if she has *technically* lost her job.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If (sadly, quite possibly when) we leave the Single Market, our much vaunted financial industry is going to have to take a look at what serves it best.

We've already had major banks signal they'd have to move their operations. That hits the wider industry.

This is true. We have reports of banks having already Due Diligence for moving their operations (and for those unaware that effectively means the final last checks before the signature, which wouldn't be until the banks know what will happen). However it does show that they are readying for what they consider the worse scenario. IIRC from a previous discussion in this topic the Banking Industry makes up about 9-10% of the UKs GVA (gross value added) which is about 43bn or so. It's doubtful all of this would go immediately but losing passporting rights will mean at least some of this goes to the continent. Even a 25% is significant amount of money and isn't something that is recoverable overnight. I can imagine the initial shock would be mainly felt by London (perhaps Edinburgh). However the loss of taxes at a time when we are still trying to reduce our budget deficit would be problematic and is likely to lead to even more strains on public services (and something is likely to have to give). Manufacturing makes up about the same percentage (but more widely distributed), but isn't likely to see enough of an increase in the short to medium term to offset this loss. Manufacturing will also have to try and be more competitive. It's all well and good saying we will have open trade with everyone but that only works if they can compete at that level as open trade works both ways. The tax agreements that protected the EU also protected us even if it cost some manufacturers. However like the steel industry all manufacturers will then have to start off competing against everyone (I'd point out the EU wanted to put tariffs on cheap Chinese steel but it was the UK that blocked it). If ultimately we aren't competitive then we could also see a long term decline in manufacturing (apart from tea and biscuits apparently )

So far, Brexit has been nothing but an absolute pack of lies and damned lies. Pretty much everything Leavers claimed was outright wrong. Every promise made {by those in no position to make it come to pass} just isn't going to happen.

Pretty much. Wrexit has now become pretty much nothing more than a need to control our borders mantra (I'm not sure how many voted with this as their prime concern) but it is effectively becoming the defining issue.

And it all boils down to Little Englands ridiculous fear of the foreign. They genuinely believe in Schrodinger's Immigrant - simultaneously taking your jurbs, and claiming all your benefits. It's pathetic, and frankly embarrassing.

The Empire is done. The world is globalised. And thanks to a duplicitous campaign by a bunch of racist idiots, we're about to try and stand on our own.....

Not everyone is like this. There were probably enough though to swing the vote in favour of Leaving. There were other reasons for leaving such as wanting parliamentary sovereignty, fishing policy and so on. The unfortunate thing was that the public weren't really given a good debate to understand the issues and it became about soundbites and populist movements because of it (and hence misled on a lot of it). But then the remain camp were just as bad (WWIII comments come to mind). However be careful about tarnishing everyone with the same brush (and instead consider people on their individual comments) otherwise the argument remains the same. I do appreciate you frustration though!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


Errr......I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason that we don't produce anything much is the reason that our economy is actually reasonably resilient to this sort of shock. If we were a nation that relied extensively on manufacturing and exporting goods like Germany, we'd be highly vulnerable to the potential trade tariffs leaving the Eurozone would chuck up. As things stand? Not so much. The only sector particularly exposed is the financial one, and examining it in any sort of detail rapidly reveals that some areas of it are more vulnerable than others, and many sections of it wouldn't benefit in the slightest from relocating.

Isn't it about 75% services, 10% banking, 10% manufacturing. So it's still reasonably significant and could still be considered an engine for bringing in new money (with banking).

I'm not surprised at McGuinness's resignation. Once Foster declared that she wasn't standing down it was only a matter of time before he did. Now we'll have an early election. Unfortunately I don't see it breaking the DUPs support.

 Whirlwind wrote:


Not everyone is like this. There were probably enough though to swing the vote in favour of Leaving. There were other reasons for leaving such as wanting parliamentary sovereignty, fishing policy and so on. The unfortunate thing was that the public weren't really given a good debate to understand the issues and it became about soundbites and populist movements because of it (and hence misled on a lot of it). But then the remain camp were just as bad (WWIII comments come to mind). However be careful about tarnishing everyone with the same brush (and instead consider people on their individual comments) otherwise the argument remains the same. I do appreciate you frustration though!

I couldn't agree with this statement more. Have an exalt.

On the finance side of things, I will try and post a detailed breakdown on the likely impact of Brexit on the financial sector for the average layperson tomorrow. It's not entirely the doom and gloom many believe it is, and most financial types not giving soundbytes for the media have far more interesting and detailed things to say in their own reports and evaluations of the risks, challenges, and opportunities it brings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38561501

Please don't be shocked by this, his position re Europe has been known since the 70's


Also, anyone hear the Beeb asking him if he will resign over the NHS crisis...did they get their jezzas mixed up?

Magister wrote:

He does have a point though - a large proportion of people did vote to leave based on a fear of what immigration is doing/has done/will do to the country.

It's all and well good for a bunch of slightly more opinionated and possibly better informed people on a forum to say otherwise, but it happened.

Going back to Northern Ireland, I wonder what will happen now? I can't see Arlene stepping down anytime soon even if she has *technically* lost her job.

And I bet a lot of countries in Europe would vote to keep immigrants out if they had the choice. The Eurozone has handled the refugee crisis in such an appalling way that even immigrants are being blamed for the issue, a lot of the recent terrorist events in Europe have boiled down to the media going "Look! It's an evil immigrant!" And then the issues with capturing the person behind the German Market Lorry attack because he waltzed into 4 different countries before finally being killed.

But also be careful of tarring all Brexiters with the same brush, there are 17 million of us.

I'd like to apologise for not adding clarity to my previous post.

Just because a person voted Leave, doesn't mean they're part of the Little England I mentioned, nor does it make you a swivel eyed racist muppet like Farage and Co.

My point was simply that there's a demographic in the UK who swallow any and all nonsense Das Daily Heil, Express and The Scum vomit forth when it comes to migrants and migration - that they're only here to take your job, defile your hamster and claim all our benefits. Claims which are repeatedly debunked by actual studies (for instance, European migrants for the most part pay in for more than they take out) and by simple fact - we need migration of skilled workers, and that's largely what we're getting.