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.
Mario wrote: Others have already addressed it but now people are complaining about the name of the contest instead of the rules? Is that really a hill worth dying on? "EU vs. Europe" in a name? "EU Capital of Culture" wouldn't even be correct because it allows cities to participate that are not yet part of the EU. It's a simple name, be happy it's not some sort of EU bureaucratic mess that would need three lines and half a minute to pronounce.
And the point about how it should be open to all European countries despite it being an EU funded project. Wasn't there a lot of whining from Brexiters about how the UK is paying more into the EU than it gets out. And now you want the EU to finance this thing for anyone, even countries that don't pay into the EU, really?
I'm afraid you are coming across the "we want to keep the nice things, but don't want to pay". If we want to remain in the 'competition' then we would need to continue supporting the EU as it is an EU competition. If we don't contribute we don't get a say, it is simple as this. The argument that they shouldn't use the name Europe is only applied here but not to the things like UEFA's Euros (which includes countries not in Europe) and the Eurovision (likewise) and is also based on which countries support those organisations. In the end it is just EU bashing because they can.
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent.
I think you need to look into the EU a bit more and not just read the headlines. Populism is always to be resisted because it is exploitation by a few to get what they want regardless of the consequences. It's the peddling by such people of simple solutions (that to the untrained seemed reasonable) and that reinforces prejudices whilst using false information to argue against scientific and data based evidence. It's the politics of the 'mob'. It's what allowed the rise of fascism in Germany in 30's. The EU is a democratic organisation, everyone is elected at some level. And the proposals are to increase that to allow a greater democratic process. As for elitism that is a western world/money issue whether that be in the US/EU/China/Russia etc. As for their immigration policies, the question is whether we should turn our back on people that have (for no fault of their own) been thrown into the middle of a warzone with no infrastructure or basic supplies (water, food etc). The EU decided to open the doors but yes that has generated resentment among some parts of the EU populace that have in built prejudices against see their little area change. For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics.
On other news. Well this is going to go down like a lead balloon. The EU want the UK to remain committed to new rules during the transition period but without a say on them. I can understand the logic, to protect the EU form the UK introducing day one rules that allow a flood of cheap goods into the EU. However I don't expected the hard Wrexiters like Boris the Clown will like this at all. Still it was warned by leaving it was likely we would still have to comply even though we'd have no say.
The UK could be required to follow new rules implemented by the European Union during a transition period after Brexit according to leaked plans reportedly drawn up by Brussels’ chief negotiator.
The position set out by Michel Barnier would make the application of new EU rules a condition of a transitional deal, meaning Britain could be subject to further Brussels’ regulations for about two years after leaving the bloc.
Theresa May hopes to secure an implementation period between the UK’s formal exit date and the commencement of any post-Brexit trade deal in order to give businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, but accepting the imposition of new rules could trigger a revolt by Eurosceptics.
It would also go against the approach to an implementation period set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech, where she said the “framework for this strictly time-limited period … would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”.
But the Independent obtained a presentation drawn up by Mr Barnier for representatives of the 27 remaining EU members which said a transitional deal would involve the “automatic application in the UK of new EU rules post-30 March 2019”.
It also makes clear that after leaving the bloc the UK would have “no institutional rights, no presence in the institutions” and “no voting rights” – indicating that the UK would have no say over rules it would have to implement in the period.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has already indicated that accepting further regulations from Brussels would cross a red line, the Press Association reported.
He told the Sun in September: “You heard the Prime Minister say very clearly in Florence that she envisages the transition period being run under existing arrangements – that was the phrase she used, ‘The existing rules’.”
The Prime Minister wants talks on a trade deal and an implementation period to be given the green light by EU counterparts at the European Council on December 14-15.
But she has been warned by European Council president Donald Tusk that while that was possible it would be a “huge challenge”.
He has given her until December 4 to make progress on issues including the Brexit divorce bill and the thorny problem of the Irish border.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/26 10:15:54
It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
I have even seen Polish neo-nazis parading through the streets of Boston in protest of the rise of Islamification. Maybe it was some sort of exchange program?
Regardless, the right wing has been allowed to raise immigration to this status in the public imagination because the left wing has not done it's job properly. There were 12 million refugees from Syria, half the population. Doctors, receptionists, builders, schoolchildren who have fled the country temporarily until the war has finished. Most of the surrounding countries have taken their share, for example Turkey took 3 million.
The UK took 4500.
And of those there were reports of people demanding we check their dental records.
We need a fething kick up the arse, it's a fething disgrace that that is the best we can do, or are even prepared to do. And anyone who says we're too full or other bollocks could do with looking at what our grandparents managed to do. During the second world war we accepted 100'000 Jewish refugees, alongside the thousands of others from all over Europe and the commonwealth.
When our resources were most stretched during time of war, we still opened our doors and welcomed these people in. Now, we're just letting old gentlemen like Murdoch forge the narrative.
We need to take a long hard look at ourselves, these are people, not fething swarms.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
The same could be said for the UK though. That doesn't mean the majority of the population hold those beliefs. It's those on the border that have 'concerns' but aren't in the ultra nationalistic regime that really make or break such policies (effectively the conservatives that are becoming more conservative). If the more liberal types relocate then their voices are diminished relatively and hence there is no balance to the arguments as the politics becomes more polarised. That leads to emboldening of those with ultra right views and hence more often seen.
The reality is that this is only the beginning. As climate change starts kicking in we are going to see more migration/asylum (whether that is wars over resources or just lack of). No country will be able to avoid this regardless of how many walls it builds.
I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
All of which is true, in localized areas. Just look at how places like Tower Hamlets or Bradford have changed over the years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/26 14:16:33
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
While 60K people is remarkable it's still a tiny minority.
Poland seems to be the country with the highest support for the EU even accounting for the refugee stuff. 6 points higher than Germany proper for example.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
While 60K people is remarkable it's still a tiny minority.
Poland seems to be the country with the highest support for the EU even accounting for the refugee stuff. 6 points higher than Germany proper for example.
The thing that made it noteworthy is the fact that the Polish government backed the rally while people walked around with banners reading "A white Poland for white people" and the like that is blatantly racist (in the classical, colonial-imperialist sense of the word). The Polish government really is proving to be more and more unhinged by the month.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Yeah, one of them being the Irish. The other being the Northern Irish.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Darkjim wrote: The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
You mean like the population of Northern Ireland?
I do wonder why there are many people who seem opposed to the idea of self determination when it comes to the population of NI.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
The Irish Government has got a bit more diplomacy and sophistication than I have presented in my brief outline of the situation.
I have come around to the idea that re-unification would suit the situation the best. It would complete the peace process, solve the border problem, give the Northern Irish their democratic wish to stay in the EU< and best of all, it would feth the DUP up the arse sideways with a pineapple and destroy the Tory Government.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
The Irish Government has got a bit more diplomacy and sophistication than I have presented in my brief outline of the situation.
I have come around to the idea that re-unification would suit the situation the best. It would complete the peace process, solve the border problem, give the Northern Irish their democratic wish to stay in the EU< and best of all, it would feth the DUP up the arse sideways with a pineapple and destroy the Tory Government.
And instantly restart The Troubles.
Do you think its worth another bloodbath just to feth over the Tories?
Are you sure? All of those that want NI to be part of the UK will be pissed.
I mean, it's the only option that seems like it'd work, but it's going to need a serious security presence for a decade or so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It was nice of May to refuse to reimburse the cities for their wasted expendature. Like she's refused to pay for the Manchester terror costs.
She's U-Turned again and is stumping up the entire £17bn (?) for the costs associated with the Manchester terror attack. Shame she needs to be shamed into doing the right thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/26 20:37:04
Shows what you know. There’s a hardline loyalist element here who wouldn’t hesitate to start violently resisting rule from Dublin. It would be the troubles in reverse; Protestant loyalists fighting to reunite with Britain.
Shows what you know. There’s a hardline loyalist element here who wouldn’t hesitate to start violently resisting rule from Dublin. It would be the troubles in reverse; Protestant loyalists fighting to reunite with Britain.
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK, the English and Welsh simply don't give enough of a gak about the province, and certainly wouldn't want to be dragged back into it again no matter how many people the Loyalists kill.
Brexit is the best chance that the republicans have of gaining a unified Ireland, and the DUP can gnash and wail all they want, but they'll be sold down the river by the Tories the second it's expedient to do so.
The only saving grace is that the slippery slope that reunification leads for the Govt. Gibraltar & Cyprus, they could be next.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Just for reference this is Article 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. I've highlighted the relevant bit for this debate.
Bunreacht na hÉireann wrote:Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
This is the version adopted after the Good Friday agreement through the Nineteenth Amendment, with 94% support on a turnout of 56% (representing a straight majority of the entire electorate).
By my interpretation the UK can disown Northern Ireland if it likes, force it to be independent, but it can't surrender it to the Republic without the support of the populace in a democratic vote. Hopefully this will lay to rest some of the more outlandish notions being expressed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/26 23:23:03
Has anyone thought to actually ask the Northern Irish people?
We know that a significant majority voted to remain in the EU, but has anyone actually investigated the general public feeling towards reunification (i.e. not the opinions of the various partisan groups on either side)? Because if there’s significant popular feeling (opposition or support) that has considerable bearing. I genuinely haven’t seen anything in the media on this topic, it’s all been posturing from the various players.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent. And the V4 nations are right to be leery. The fear of the Big Bad Bear is what drove these countries into NATO and the EU to begin with, and Brussels treats them like they have them by the balls because of that (in addition to being rising economies that have enjoyed some of the economic benefits of EU membership). And finally, the V4 nations are watching the EU's attempts to "punish" Great Britain for having the gall to leave their little clubhouse. And many of them don't like what they see.
That is a big reason for the closer political/military ties with the U.S. under the NATO umbrella. Eventually, if things keep going as is, those nations may follow Britain's lead and leave the EU. With the European Union being in relatively secure position, their true colors and arrogance have come out in spades. Between a hypothetical threat from Putin's Russia and an increasingly antagonistic Turkey, and the dangerous subtle soft tyranny of the EUSSR, there are those that think that standing together in a separate V4 bloc is a better bet and decide to go it alone. If they decide to stay in NATO (which they likely will; and thanks to the dominance of the United States in the North Atlantic alliance, the EU can't do a damn thing about it), they could pull it off.
The EU isn't monolithic. And people in the member-states are getting tired of the BS steaming out of Brussels.
This whole comment sounds like you get your information about the EU an Europe from the same type of "journalists" who also proclaim that Stockholm is the rape capital of the world because of Arabic immigration/refugees without any actual evidence at best, or fabricates bs at worst. And yes it's completely and totally plausible that those countries will try to align themselves with the USA like that's somehow the solutions to all problems in the world. I don't know where you got your info from (and I don't want to read that drivel) but it all sounds rather biases (to put it very, very mildly) and you just don't seem to care about, I don't know… reality as it is, and would rather confirm your own opinions and biases?
Whirlwind wrote:I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
World War II prompted the largest displacement of human beings the world has ever seen—although today’s refugee crisis is starting to approach its unprecedented scale. But even with millions of European Jews displaced from their homes, the United States had a poor track record offering asylum. Most notoriously, in June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust.
Government officials from the State Department to the FBI to President Franklin Roosevelt himself argued that refugees posed a serious threat to national security. Yet today, historians believe that Bahr’s case was practically unique—and the concern about refugee spies was blown far out of proportion.
The thing that made it noteworthy is the fact that the Polish government backed the rally while people walked around with banners reading "A white Poland for white people" and the like that is blatantly racist (in the classical, colonial-imperialist sense of the word). The Polish government really is proving to be more and more unhinged by the month.
It's a similar pattern everywhere. If you have left wing protests the police often ends up instigating violence (read about the recent G20 meeting in Hamburg, link in german) but blaming it all on the anarchists while protecting Neo-Nazi rallies against counter protests. Neo-Nazi protestors literary do things that are unlawful under German law and the police ignores it because the police is by default institutionally a right wing authoritarian organisation and also tends to include quite a few extremists itself. There were recent Neo-Nazi rallies in Germany and all that resulting violence and injuries weren't seen as being related to either Neo-Nazis or right wing extremism but if one person throws a brick through a window the hand-wringing about left wing violence begins.
Suddenly there's also a worry about Neo-nazis in the German police and military and questions about their motivation. I don't want to excuse that Polish rally (and I don't know any details about the Polish government) but we have the same stuff happening in every developed country, people have just ignored or downplayed right wing extremism and violence for a long time because it mostly didn't affect them yet.
monarda wrote: Just for reference this is Article 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. I've highlighted the relevant bit for this debate.
Bunreacht na hÉireann wrote:Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
This is the version adopted after the Good Friday agreement through the Nineteenth Amendment, with 94% support on a turnout of 56% (representing a straight majority of the entire electorate).
By my interpretation the UK can disown Northern Ireland if it likes, force it to be independent, but it can't surrender it to the Republic without the support of the populace in a democratic vote. Hopefully this will lay to rest some of the more outlandish notions being expressed.
I'm sure that they would be happy to amend that in the event of the UK deciding to dump the province. After all it is still their will to unite the Island of Ireland through peaceful means. At the time the inclusion of the vote was believed to be the only way it was seen that the UK could be split, and for unionists to sign up to the agreement. If the UK is willing, then I'm sure a way would be found around the voting.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK
It's been a couple of generations already, and what would you do in the interim; ignore them or send I'm the army?
Giving both Ireland a vote on reunification and hoping the majority goes for it, stamping down hard on any extremism, sounds like the only option, but it's still going to involve bloodsed on all sides.
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK
It's been a couple of generations already, and what would you do in the interim; ignore them or send I'm the army?
Giving both Ireland a vote on reunification and hoping the majority goes for it, stamping down hard on any extremism, sounds like the only option, but it's still going to involve bloodsed on all sides.
Whereas the easiest, less controversial solution would still be a border on the sea.
This poll seems to imply that the sea border gets a majority support even among Protestants and Leave voters. The quote refers to support about an Irish sea border (or east-west border as opposed to north-south border)
Overall, 64% agreed and 25% disagreed (with 11% undecided). But this time the relationship with certain critical groups was reversed. Support was strongest among supporters of nationalist parties (75%), Remain voters (73%) and Catholics (68%) – but it was also high among unionist supporters (56%), Leave voters (also 56%) and Protestants (60%).
If DUP gets his way it is against the will of the majority of their constituency.
I am proud to join both Democratic and Republican colleagues in Congress in reiterating our stance that there must be no hard border on the island of Ireland. On this point, the EU, Ireland, and USA stand united. @liamstack
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/27 08:49:12
He may not be everybody's cup of tea, but Robert Peston has been plugging his book these last couple of months, and some of his interviews contain a lot of sense.
Instead of branding Leave voters as racists/bigots/idiots etc etc
Peston has actually hit upon the novel idea of asking people why they voted Leave, and the answers were interesting.
One thing he has been banging on about is the productivity gap between London and the SE, and the rest of the UK, and boy, it's a shocker
The difference is like night and day.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
"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 best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Aye! Ireland should be unified under British control, and all those damnable rebels should leave the country.
That's what you meant, right?
Well either way really.
I presume we will fudge our way to something eventually that allows a deal on Brexit to proceed, too much at stake not to - but there still doesn't seem to be any solution that doesn't at least raise the risk of Irish politics returning to discussion by attaching things to cars.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/27 11:07:34
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Education and skills is needed for a high quality workforce, obviously, but energy supply is also needed, and Britain is well placed for wave and wind energy, but we seem to be fething it up
But yeah, growth and productivity are now my middle names
"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
