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.
As I understand it from talking to fowks who know people working at Gleneagles etc, it's basically just one gang of jerks being jerks and nicking stuff.
Broadly speaking, insurance is covering the whole thing.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, I get the political leaning of the Guardian Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
And yes people come and go for all sorts of reasons, it just saddens me that people who chose to come to Britain and worked to build a life here, are now leaving because they no longer feel welcome.
Well this finally hit closer to me a few days ago. Of course it's anecdotal but an acquaintance of mine has just left his job in the UK (Lewes, to be precise) because of one bad experience too much. Over the last months he's been told to leave as many times as in the previous 8 years.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, I get the political leaning of the Guardian Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
And yes people come and go for all sorts of reasons, it just saddens me that people who chose to come to Britain and worked to build a life here, are now leaving because they no longer feel welcome.
Well this finally hit closer to me a few days ago. Of course it's anecdotal but an acquaintance of mine has just left his job in the UK (Lewes, to be precise) because of one bad experience too much. Over the last months he's been told to leave as many times as in the previous 8 years.
Did he even try to assimilate? If he just adopted a more bitter, venal, small-minded attitude, and carried a copy of The Mail .... and I can't be bothered. We suck, but sovereignties or something. Good luck to your departing pal, I hope he finds a more welcoming society somewhere, if shouldn't be much of a challenge.
No.10 saying one thing on Brexit, Hammond another, Hunt pops up to get his tuppence worth, and the nation looks on bemused
12 months down the drain since June23rd.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It already is. Banks are leaving; scientists are leaving; European agencies are being divided up to go to other countries taking the high expertise jobs with them; aerospace companies are warning of reduced investment, airlines are moving part of their bases to the EU. There's lots going on, just not anything useful from our government who are about as useful as a sack of mouldy potatoes and completely rudderless.
In the meantime the Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are complaining that after complaining that the EU were too lax on security checks, that now that the EU has tightened these checks, they Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are now complaining when they went on holiday they had to wait longer because they weren't in the Schengen region. Someone needs to point out to them that they reap what they sow and they need to get used to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/02 15:39:59
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
From what I read this morning, officials in Spain are deliberately dragging their heels processing people as part of action against being overworked. Taking 10 minutes per person will quickly back up a queue.
But the Mail doesn't seem all that contradictory to me, given that lack of controls have contributed to a situation now hard to manage. The extra checks being piled in now are specifically in response to the fact that schengen open movement policies have allowed people to move freely around Europe, the Paris attackers came through Greece and moved around unmonitored.
Having few systems in place, and then trying to play catch up and stretch your staff and resources much further than normally expected of them results in these sorts of problems.
Howard A Treesong wrote: From what I read this morning, officials in Spain are deliberately dragging their heels processing people as part of action against being overworked. Taking 10 minutes per person will quickly back up a queue.
There are two unrelated things happening at the moment. One is the EU-wide introduction of tighter controls on non-EU nationals because of a terror alert.
Also there's a partial strike on the security guards manning the X-ray machines asking for higher pay and more people on site.
It already is. Banks are leaving; scientists are leaving; European agencies are being divided up to go to other countries taking the high expertise jobs with them; aerospace companies are warning of reduced investment, airlines are moving part of their bases to the EU. There's lots going on, just not anything useful from our government who are about as useful as a sack of mouldy potatoes and completely rudderless.
In the meantime the Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are complaining that after complaining that the EU were too lax on security checks, that now that the EU has tightened these checks, they Daily Fail and Sunday Distress are now complaining when they went on holiday they had to wait longer because they weren't in the Schengen region. Someone needs to point out to them that they reap what they sow and they need to get used to it.
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
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,
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Last week, France announced it would nationalise shipbuilding yards in Saint-Nazaire. The yards had been the target of a takeover bid by Italian firm Fincantieri. But the French government intervened. Nationalisation will safeguard jobs and protect France’s security interests, said President Emmanuel Macron.
This is exactly the type of decisive intervention we are often told is not allowed by the rules of the single market. And it has huge implications for what future British governments can do in the field of state aid, nationalisation and public procurement.
Firstly, members of the single market are able to decide whether most public services and social security systems are privatised or not. If a national government does choose to put services out to tender, then the rules of the single market often require that any company from within the EU can apply to run them. But the decision about whether to outsource, or to keep services in-house, is a matter for our government.
In some cases, current laws require that a service should be open to private competition. But governments have considerable scope to determine what standards should be met by providers. The government could – like Germany, the Netherlands and France, for example – enable its own state-owned companies to run the majority of domestic passenger rail services. But it chooses not to – even going as far as to actively prohibit state-owned companies from bidding. And this is despite allowing the Dutch government, for example, to run passenger services across Greater Anglia.
Indeed, the government has, over the past 40 years, chosen to privatise far more than most other EU governments, selling off whole chunks of British industry and public services because of an ideological preference for the private sector over public provision. But that has been a political choice, not a requirement of the single market.
Secondly, the single market does not prevent governments acting in the national interest where security is a concern, or in cases of market failure. The EU has allowed governments to support domestic steel industries in countries like Germany and Italy. And the government here could have done the same, but chose not to. Governments can also provide support through training, research funds for growing industry, and regenerating local economies.
Thirdly, national governments are allowed to use their considerable buying power to promote decent conditions and fair treatment of workers and local communities. Here again, though, the poor choices made by British governments shine through.
When the government transposed the latest EU directive into law in 2015, it watered-down rules to make contractors comply with national and international labour standards, and to take social, economic, equality and environmental criteria into consideration, rather than basing decisions solely on price. Wherever possible, the UK government opted to use guidance rather than regulation, ensuring the lightest possible interpretation of those EU rules designed to protect and enhance public services.
The EU’s rules on public procurement are rather more progressive than the practices of British governments during the past few decades. Far from EU law prohibiting it, the government could choose to require those bidding for government contracts to train people, use local labour and pay decent wages – all while remaining within EU law.
Fourthly, the EU’s rules on fair competition work both ways – protecting our industries from unfair competition. Take the steel industry, for example. The EU used its fair market measures to take action against Chinese steel dumping, despite attempts by the British government to prevent that.
The common thread is the ideological refusal of the government to intervene more decisively in industry and the economy – not the rules of the EU or the single market in preventing such action.
A future Labour government might, for example, want to support strategically important industries or specify that public money is spent only with companies that invest in training local people. Such manifesto promises can clearly be fulfilled with Britain remaining inside the single market.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership would be possible, too. New EU rules that come into effect in 2020 will oblige member states to open domestic passenger services to competitive tendering. But there is nothing to prohibit state-owned companies from bidding and winning those contracts, should the government choose to allow it. And there is an exception to allow direct awarding of contracts to state-owned companies when done on the basis of objective efficiency and performance criteria.
Leaving the single market, on the other hand, would be unlikely to increase the freedom for government to intervene – or to ‘take back control’ as some might say. In fact, it may lead to government intervention in industry and privatised services becoming harder.
If we want to make a new trade deal with the EU from outside, they will want us to sign up to the existing EU rules on state aid anyway. That’s part of the negotiating terms that the European Council has set out. And the EU may be less sympathetic to arguments about how strategic an industry is when put forward by a non-member than when a member makes that argument.
If we do free trade deals with other nations outside the EU, they too will require rules on state intervention – possibly much tougher than the single market’s rules. The US government wants much more freedom for its private health companies to run the NHS for example. Even if we just fell back on WTO rules, they also place constraints on state aid.
Remaining in the single market would not prevent a future government from intervening in the economy. Governments like France and Germany already do that. But leaving the single market could damage the economy, raising prices and cutting wages. And nobody voted for that.
[/spoiler]
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
So in conclusion we are now saying that the best reason for Wrexit is to educate the public because, in general, they are too 'stupid' to recognise that current and previous governments have just blamed the EU for everything that is wrong with the country. Is that really a sound reason to Wrexit
On the other hand I fully expect current and future governments to continue to blame the EU after we have left because "they didn't let us get the best possible deal". On the above assumption of the populace being too 'stupid' to recognise more of the same bullgak I think it's unlikely that much will change at all...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/05 09:09:17
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I think we should start making a sticky at the front so that we can easily point to every Wrexit argument as they are debunked....
As I see it, in fairly simple terms, UK governing parties have long used membership of the EU as an excuse to execute - or not - policy changes and law. The EU is a convenient plot device in whatever machinations our ruling parties decide to partake in.
I have long felt that leaving the EU would be a drastic, but necessary step in unravelling the mess we have made for ourselves with our divisive politics.
So in conclusion we are now saying that the best reason for Wrexit is to educate the public because, in general, they are too 'stupid' to recognise that current and previous governments have just blamed the EU for everything that is wrong with the country. Is that really a sound reason to Wrexit
On the other hand I fully expect current and future governments to continue to blame the EU after we have left because "they didn't let us get the best possible deal". On the above assumption of the populace being too 'stupid' to recognise more of the same bullgak I think it's unlikely that much will change at all...
I don't feel the population is stupid. Rather we are all happy to abide by the status quo while being able to grumble a bit about those 'un-elected brussels bureaucrats'.
Since emotions play a rather big part in most peoples decision making processes I would imagine that it would seem a sound reason to leave for many.
And yes, Those same un-elected technocrats will be blamed for our political short comings for some time to come. All the more reason to call out our politicians when they do use such excuses.
I don't feel the population is stupid. Rather we are all happy to abide by the status quo while being able to grumble a bit about those 'un-elected brussels bureaucrats'.
Since emotions play a rather big part in most peoples decision making processes I would imagine that it would seem a sound reason to leave for many.
And yes, Those same un-elected technocrats will be blamed for our political short comings for some time to come. All the more reason to call out our politicians when they do use such excuses.
Except that might be exactly called 'stupidity' by the populace. If we are happy to carry on and just blame a distant organisation for our own failings then nothing will ever improve and only get worse as it lacks any foresight as to why things are going wrong which leads to further escalation of the problems that the populace face. That then gets blamed on an organisation again that allows us to ignore out responsibilities and the cycle repeats. That in essence is a type of stupidity.
In other news it appears that the EU are so confused about how ill prepared we are for Brexit they think it could all be part of a cunning plan.
I would suggest the cunning plan is something akin to this type of cunning plan.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Both remain AND Leave campaigners never ever expected a leave result. I'll stand by that assertion till the day I die.
The vote wont kill us, the preparedness of those tasked with negotiation and our subsequent future will.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Not helping what, exactly?
Your sense of excitement for being part of a very foolish decision, and how it should be about us breaking new ground and forging a new path? Sorry to piss on your chips, but the reality is that this is going to cost us, for quite some time, people will lose their jobs, and we will decline. That will happen.
How far we decline depends very much on the competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
There is no realistic scenario here where the UK comes out of this ahead of the game. Real, serious commentators and business leaders know this, Brexit is about damage limitation, not opening exciting new trade opportunities.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Not helping what, exactly?
Your sense of excitement for being part of a very foolish decision, and how it should be about us breaking new ground and forging a new path? Sorry to piss on your chips, but the reality is that this is going to cost us, for quite some time, people will lose their jobs, and we will decline. That will happen.
How far we decline depends very much on the competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
There is no realistic scenario here where the UK comes out of this ahead of the game. Real, serious commentators and business leaders know this, Brexit is about damage limitation, not opening exciting new trade opportunities.
In my lifetime, nearly 5 decades, people have been predicting the demise of Britain for quite some time. It's ironic that a Scottish nationalist like myself is leaping to the defence of Britain.
You and I are just ordinary voters, and I don't hold you personally responsible for the big guns on the Remain side, but honestly, they are the most feeble bunch I've ever encountered in a long time.
Rather than roll up their sleeves and plan ahead for the future, they're still fighting June 23rd, and they've spent a whole year trying to fight it in the courts, in the Commons, and in the newspapers, and they're still losing. None of this is your fault, but the bottom line is that Remain lost to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
Not exactly Napoleon and Churchill, is it?
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody once said: "if you can't dazzle the with brilliance, then baffle them with bullgak."
The no plan plan? Sounds good.
On a serious note, I know it's people jobs and livelihoods at stake here, and I don't want to make light of that, but on the other hand, for some people to predict the 7 plagues of Egypt falling onto the UK, is not helping either.
Both remain AND Leave campaigners never ever expected a leave result. I'll stand by that assertion till the day I die.
The vote wont kill us, the preparedness of those tasked with negotiation and our subsequent future will.
The minute I saw David Cameron leading the Remain camp, I knew we Leavers had a real chance of victory.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/05 12:47:03
"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 competence of our negotiating team, and their willingness to actually put the best interests of the population of the UK ahead of their personal and political affiliations.
I can give you the answer to this in a classic family fortune style.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Like I say, credit where it's due.
You can live without your legs, yet people aren't chopping their legs off to spite the "experts" at the NHS saying it's a terrible idea.
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.
The Tories propose festival to prove they are "hip" and "rad" and "down with the kids". Featuring up to 150 people, invite only and with lots of expensive alcohol, surely this is the way to really capture that youth vote!
The Tories propose festival to prove they are "hip" and "rad" and "down with the kids". Featuring up to 150 people, invite only and with lots of expensive alcohol, surely this is the way to really capture that youth vote!
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.
How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...In my lifetime, nearly 5 decades, people have been predicting the demise of Britain for quite some time. It's ironic that a Scottish nationalist like myself is leaping to the defence of Britain.
You and I are just ordinary voters, and I don't hold you personally responsible for the big guns on the Remain side, but honestly, they are the most feeble bunch I've ever encountered in a long time.
Rather than roll up their sleeves and plan ahead for the future, they're still fighting June 23rd, and they've spent a whole year trying to fight it in the courts, in the Commons, and in the newspapers, and they're still losing. None of this is your fault, but the bottom line is that Remain lost to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
Not exactly Napoleon and Churchill, is it?
I also think the EU deserves some credit for pulling off 2 of the greatest propaganda tricks in modern history:
1. Convincing people that the EU and Europe and one and the same, as though Europe never existed pre-1945
2. Convincing vast swathes of Europe that it's in their best interests to sign up to a neo-liberal racket, and that you couldn't survive without the EU.
Like I say, credit where it's due....
I've got to challenge a couple of assertions here. The loose association of "Remain" doesn't exist anymore, there are only individuals now acting on their own beliefs. Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.
The EU has not convinced people that the EU and Europe are the same thing, the only people who believe that are the lower end of the intellectual spectrum, usually the most anti-Europe/ EU. You know, the ones who actually believe that EU rules are strangling British business, but struggle to name what red tape is responsible for doing that strangling. They also regularly confuse both Europe and the EU in their ill-informed rants, especially if the thing that infuriates them is actually down to the British Government. Everyone else is perfectly aware that Europe and the EU are in fact distinct and separate entities, one is a continent, and the other is a political organisation for a start.
I agree that the spread of neo-liberal ideas is insidious, however it has led to a direct increase, in the main, for those nations who've adopted it's tenets. It needs careful control, and appropriate intervention in order to avoid the worst excess of capitalism, but this is what the EU encourages.
Finally, survival outside of the EU has not been contested. You're deliberately conflating people's reasonable, and as it turns out mostly accurate, concerns that leaving the EU will lead to a downturn and a decrease in our wealth and status, with some sort of apocalypse. Some commentators are using extreme language, about how far this will go, but no serious, or credible, commentator has suggested that Britain won't survive, just that we'll be much poorer as a result of following this path.
As an aside, I have to say that the supporters of Leave, by contrast, have done a spectacularly poor job of convincing anyone, except their own side, that this is a good thing, and that actually we are going to be OK, or even thrive. That should be their focus and concern, convincing people like me and others who disagreed with this whole debacle of the positives, and that it's going to be fine.
People constantly whinge about others "talking the UK down", where then is there counter? Where are the people "talking the UK up"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, it looks like the State Pension is being lined up for the chopping block. Not for the current generation of pensioners, obviously. The baby boomers will sleep soundly knowing their incessant teat suckling of the state will continue uninterrupted.
It will be left to those, just starting out or in the first 10 years of their working lives to carry the can for this. I expect a much later date for eligibility, much closer to actual fragility, increase in contributions, and means testing. That work pension you'll pay into will mean your final income once you retire will, be much slimmer than you expected.
It's depressingly inevitable. Triple lock is costing us fortune, and as we saw in the GE, any attempt to adjust this is electoral suicide.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/06 08:22:42
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Nothing here about Juncker, just the effect of Brexit on some individuals, on their lives.
