|
Does BJ think we are all stupid by repeating the £350m claim after so many showed that the figures were flawed first time around!?
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 17 Sep 17 at 22:49
|
|
You think those who believed it first time round got brighter somehow?
|
|
I'm surprised BBD hasn't commented.
|
>> Does BJ think we are all stupid
Yes he does. I genuinely believe that he thinks he is super intelligent and everyone else is completely stupid.
|
|
£350m? Crikey. Vic Reeves says there's a girl down the park that'll do owt for sixpence.
|
I genuinely believe that he thinks he is super intelligent and everyone
>> else is completely stupid.
>>
I guess it's easy for him to come to that conclusion when you look at some of his colleagues.
|
|
Trust a politician? Aye right!
|
>> Yes he does. I genuinely believe that he thinks he is super intelligent and everyone
>> else is completely stupid.
There are lots of people like that, and most of them are nowhere near as bright as Boris.
He was very careful with his words this time if I heard him aright, so he can claim he hasn't lied. But he might still have misled.
|
|
People who doubt Boris's intelligence should study his standards of education and achievements before writing him off. It's also worth looking up some of his absorbing and entertaining newspaper pieces to glean an idea of the real Boris.
|
>> People who doubt Boris's intelligence should study his standards of education and achievements before writing
>> him off. It's also worth looking up some of his absorbing and entertaining newspaper pieces
>> to glean an idea of the real Boris.
I don't doubt his intelligence or his skills as a writer. Much more bothered by his lack of application and his track record for lying. The latter trait had him sacked from the Telegraph and again by Michael Howard as a shadow minister.
Recently read Ken Clarke's memoir 'A Kind of Blue'. A somewhat self serving record of his life in politics but his description of Boris's antics as Mayor of London ring true. I don't mean his messing about on zip wires and such stunts but rather accounts of serious meetings over stuff like crime. Clarke's summary is 'Boris doesn't do detail'.
It's also almost certainly the case that if he'd followed his previously expressed pro EU views and suported remain that leave, with only Gove, Grayling and Pretti Patel as public faces would have lost. It was only naked ambition thinking that as star of losing leave he'd be well positioned to succeed Cameron (who'd already said he wouldn't do full term).
|
>> People who doubt Boris's intelligence should study his standards of education and achievements before writing
>> him off.
He has a public school and oxbridge education for sure but his achievements and judgements are poor. He is as much of a d******** as he appears
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 11:39
|
|
He went to Oxford. Don't drag Cambridge into it, they don't want him.
|
|
I used the portmanteau pejoratively.
|
|
I believe rule one taught at an Oxbridge level education is "Whatever you do, don't get caught".
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 13:59
|
Wonder why no one scrutinized Labour's free everything scheme :-)
If UK does not make £30 billion EU divorce payment, then £30b/£350m = NHS can get the money for 86 weeks at least.
|
>> If UK does not make £30 billion EU divorce payment, then £30b/£350m = NHS can
>> get the money for 86 weeks at least.
Pretty clear we're going to have some sort of transition during which we continue to pay 'subs' to be part of the Single Market etc. Even previously hard line outies like David Davis now seem to accept that. Pretty much no serious politician is any longer advocating hard Brexit. A divorce payment covering stuff we're already signed up to is also inevitable.
|
Vince Cable calls for Boris Johnson to be sacked
The Liberal Democrat leader criticized the foreign secretary for being ‘volatile’ with ‘Trump-like characteristics.’
www.politico.eu/article/vince-cable-calls-for-boris-johnson-to-be-sacked/
|
>> The Liberal Democrat leader criticized the foreign secretary for being ‘volatile’ with ‘Trump-like characteristics.’
Trump with a Thesaurus according to one tweet Mrs B read out to me this morning.
|
My employer, being a financial institution, has undertaken some risk analysis re Brexit and different assessed levels like, hard, soft and medium and we get fed snippets in our general risk briefings.
The hard Brexit is unthinkable in terms of the chaos it would cause. Think banks not being able to transfer funds to companies / banks within the EU, lines of credit would quickly dry up and goods would not be delivered.
Fresh products could perish at the docks. Goods could be held up for weeks at customs.
People could be prevented from travelling home from holiday or even reaching their holiday destinations. They may not be able to draw currency whilst there.
We are looking closely at our clients that use a high proportion of EU nationals as employees. There is a risk that they may not have their workforce in a worst case scenario.
There is a real danger that some medicines imported from the EU would also be in short supply.
The consensus by those doing the analysis is that we are heading for a soft Brexit, but that doesn't take in to account a numpty becoming PM and burning all our bridges.
|
>> The hard Brexit is unthinkable in terms of the chaos it would cause
Well you will have to get used to that one. There is only the so called "hard brexit" the other one isn't really brexit at all. It is the worst of all worlds; having to comply with the EU rules, ECJ etc and not having any influence at all. Why would we want that?
i.e. leave the club and have no say but have to abide by the rules etc.?
The rest of your post is basically scaremongering. But you do have a really valid point amongst the rhetoric. Namely that we need to be prepared for the no deal scenario so that all the customs checks etc. work as smoothly as possible. This could be all worked out in the time, but not if we keep on aiming at some kind of utopian deal which is what they seem to be doing at the moment.
I really doubt we will have a deal. This should not come as a shock to anyone.
Whatever Barnier comes up with on the EU side will have to be agreed by the 27 other nations. Does anyone really think that will happen in the next 5 years?
Even the Canadian trade deal has taken years of negotiations and still hasn't been signed off by the 28 countries.
So we should be aiming for WTO - no up-front payments and then make agreements from this position.
... and I don't happen to believe it is all that bad. There are many many positives. Just that no-one is saying them.
|
>> the other one isn't really brexit at all. It is the worst of all worlds; having to comply with the EU rules, ECJ etc and not having any influence at all. Why would we want that?
Nobody would want that. But its what we're going to get. I have said from the start that this is the inevitable result. Utterly inevitable.
Even if hard Brexit happened, which it won't, it will very quickly reverse into the soft exit position.
|
>>The rest of your post is basically scaremongering.
To put it into context, the company has over 20,000 employees in the UK and significantly more worldwide.
They are studying risks inherent in Brexit so that they can be mitigated or protected against.
What was in my previous posts is what they see as potential risks that may impact people and companies within the UK. They are being prudent and cautious, they have to be, they have shareholders and customers assets to consider.
Things that have been considering are: What happens if the Monday shift doesn't turn up at a client's factory because they can't get through immigration. The client can't make their goods, they don't get paid for goods not made, they can't repay their loans to us.
Or what happens to a client's cash-flow if its goods are held at the port for 3 weeks, adding 3 weeks to the payment cycle?
No one said this is going to happen, but what may happen given certain scenarios. It is an a-political risk review and to do otherwise would be reckless. It is based on several scenarios, including what would happen if the UK just crashed out or came to a negotiated hard Brexit etc.
I suspect T May of aiming for a soft Brexit and yes, I realise how potentially ridiculous that is, paying for a club that we have no impact over, but her speeches have commented on how we risk losing significant investments from both EU based companies as well as companies outside of the EU that like to use the UK as an access point to the Single Market.
Now, what would be interesting is a new referendum at the end of the negotiations to see if UK citizens still wanted in or out based on the deal on the table at the time. I doubt any politician is is brave enough for that. Remember, Farage said if the results were close, then it wouldn't be a done deal. Well the results were close, so play fair!
|
>> The consensus by those doing the analysis is that we are heading for a soft Brexit, but that doesn't take in to account a numpty becoming PM and burning all our bridges.
So the team is doing their analysis (!) based on assumptions which would work in their favour and making no effort to perform analysis if things don't go in their own way.
>> The hard Brexit is unthinkable in terms of the chaos it would cause
If there is good news, then it is because we haven't left EU yet, if there is bad news then it is because of Brexit. Head I win, tail you lose :-)
Last edited by: movilogo on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 14:34
|
Movilogo, I must confess that I really do not understand you; pretty much every mobile person i have ever met believes the world should be more open than it is. Certainly everyone who has made a success of it and who was doing it by choice. .
You, having made your move, now want it as closed as possible. Obviously I do not know you, but I rather suspect that you're not a very pleasant person.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 15:29
|
>> the world should be more open than it is
That is your opinion - my view is different, a country should have the ability to select whom to allow entry (and prevent those who are deemed dangerous/harmful).
>> but I rather suspect that you're not a very pleasant person
People usually stoop down to personal insult when they feel they have lost the argument.
|
>> >> the world should be more open than it is
>>
>> That is your opinion - my view is different
I suspect, as a non European immigrant, your view may be considered by some as a little hypocritical.
|
>> I suspect, as a non European immigrant, your view may be considered by some as
>> a little hypocritical.
And I just bet these became your much vaunted views *after* your own move.
|
>>as a non European immigrant, your view may be considered by some as a little hypocritical
At present EU citizens has unlimited access to UK. However, all non-EU citizens have to come via work permit route.
I want same process for everyone outside UK. There should not be any special privileges to anyone (just because someone born in Europe).
In my view that is a fair and open system.
|
>> At present EU citizens has unlimited access to UK. However, all non-EU citizens have to
>> come via work permit route.
EU citizens can come here to work. No work = limited rights and limited benefits. UK citizens have reciprocal rights in Europe. Untangling that will be a beggars muddle for little gain.
|
How was that an insult? I said I don't think you are very nice. That is my opinion.
And what argument have I lost? That I suspect that you are not very nice? Because I don't think I said anything else.
I equally suspect that you're not all that bright. But who knows?
|
Zippy said >>People usually stoop down to personal insult when they feel they have lost the argument<<
No FM2R said>>I equally suspect that you're not all that bright. But who knows?<<
Zippy 1
No FM2R Nil
:)
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 17:01
|
I stand corrected CG, it was Movilogo!
The score remains the same though....an avid Leicester fan would call it a home goal:)
Pat
|
Well maybe I'm being thick or have missed something earlier, but where did you get the Movilogo = closed from? Not sure I understood his post.
Apart from that I totally agree with you on openness.
|
I have not the slightest idea what is going on here, other than Pat making her usual and gloating about something which makes no sense.
I swear I have no idea why the most important thing in Pat's world is to make stuff personal. Other than her deep desire to tell us, repeatedly, how roughty-toughty she is. Personally I have never met a genuinely tough person who spent their time saying that they were.
And WTF is so sad that they keep score on a forum? Jeez, some of you are so limited.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 19:41
|
I have never met or encountered a person so confident that they would speak out no matter what who has felt the need to say that they will speak out no matter what.
Only those who are trying to promote their own image of themselves ever seem to feel the need to repeatedly say so.
Its similar to how the truly hard are never mouthy bullies, its only the wannabes who constantly feel the need to tell others how tough they are. The truly tough just are.
|
Since I've had no broadband again since midnight last night I'll keep this short and sweet.
I may well be all of those things Mark, I really couldn't care less, because at least I've still got my sense of humour.
There's nothing better than watching someone digging a hole and then keep digging it deeper:)
Pat
|
>> There's nothing better than watching someone digging a hole and then keep digging it deeper:)
We know.
|
>> Well maybe I'm being thick or have missed something earlier, but where did you get
>> the Movilogo = closed from?
If you've followed his posts here over last couple of years it's a reasonable conclusion
|
For remainers, every Brexit supporter is unpleasant, xenophobe, uneducated, stupid etc. by default :-)
|
|
Of course they aren't but there is proportion who are are all or some of those things. A sufficient proportion to give the supporters of Brexit a majority.
|
"Of course they aren't but there is proportion who are are all or some of those things."
I don't believe that all Remain voters are short-sighted, self-righteous, Guardian-reading twerps - but there was a sufficient proportion to make the referendum a close-run thing.
|
It's not just a matter of being a remainer or a brexiteer!
I'm a democrat, though not with a capital "D" and the Liberal prefix I should point out.
I voted remain, however the country voted leave so let's get on a b***** well leave!!!!
|
I don't know why it now matters what people voted for. I certainly can see no point in silly, petty nicknames for the "other" group. We are where we are, and that vote is past.
Make no mistake, any Government, or opposition party, that thought it could get into power or maintain control by cancelling Brexit would do so in a second. Across the board they care about little more than remaining in power and will do whatever they think is most likely to maintain that.
And that doesn't necessarily mean a clean decision for one or the other, it can mean simply dicking about in the middle making confusing statements which will simply fudge the issue.
However, we are staggering in a direction, presumably aiming for a state of existence that we can call "non-membership". And that is all it will be. Political prevarication and pedantic dancing representing a position where we can say we have left, but will actually continue to follow all the same processes and approaches.
Does anybody genuinely believe that it will be more than "non-membership" with everything else pretty much the same? I don't mean "do you want it?", or "do you think it should happen?", I mean "do you think it will happen?"?
Because you're in for a pretty big disappointment if you do.
|
Tend to agree with that, however unpalatable it might be for some. There is just too much to unravel and re-invent in a short time, even if it was desirable by all parties to do so.
If the daily £350m bonus ever existed I suspect it is being spent many times over in advance by all the workstreams which there are to achieve BREXIT, both those in the public eye and those alluded to by Zippy somewhere above.
I think it's a bit daft to say we should just get on with it. I think they are getting on with it and it is a massive task.
|
>>
>> I think it's a bit daft to say we should just get on with it.
>> I think they are getting on with it and it is a massive task.
>>
That's what I meant - rather than discuss what type of brexit we will get, and the implications for remainers etc, let's simply let our elected gov get on with it in the hope that they get the best deal.
Once there is a deal we can then praise or critique as we like.
|
>>, let's simply let our elected gov get on with
>> it in the hope that they get the best deal
Even if the elected gov were comprised of a competent united and well informed team untainted by personal ambition I'd need more than hope that deal would be best.
And we're nowhere near that dream team.
|
>> And we're nowhere near that dream team.
Nor could any conceivable combination of current politicians provide such a thing. From any part of the spectrum.
|
>>
>> >> And we're nowhere near that dream team.
>>
Do you include yourself in the "we", haven't you gone expat in Chile?
|
>> >>
>> >> >> And we're nowhere near that dream team.
>> >>
>>
>> Do you include yourself in the "we", haven't you gone expat in Chile?
>>
Bromp is in Chile as well?
|
>> Bromp is in Chile as well?
>>
We can but hope. :-)
|
>> >> Bromp is in Chile as well?
>> >>
>>
>> We can but hope. :-)
Bit mean. I disagree with him on pretty much everything political, but I'd really enjoy a beer with him. No hypocrisy from him, and he can stand his ground. (And round).
|
>> And we're nowhere near that dream team.
>>
absolutely, and with the currently available "players" of whatever side, there are no likely dream teams waiting in the wings.
It doesn't help that the opposition seems to have written most of the rules of the game
|
That's because we have a weak willed leader who is allowing them to.
She talks the talk but can't walk the walk.
I sort of expected this of her when she refused to nail her Brexit/Remain colours to the mast until she realised who was most likely to win the vote.
But most Politicians look after their own interests and careers first so why did we think she would be any different?
Pat
|
>> Once there is a deal we can then praise or critique as we like.
The referendum was a simple binary in/out of the EU question. Providing we are technically out of the EU by March 2019 then job done. Nobody can complain if we're in or out of the single market or contributing to EU funds or not. It will be what it will be. There were no promises of what Brexit would look like after we leave the EU. If we still have freedom of movement of EU residents so be it - again nobody said there'd definitely be controls or not.
There will be those who supported remain and those that wanted to leave that are disappointed in March 2019.
|
|
I read his article and I understood he said something along the lines of: SOME of the £350 million for the NHS.
|
He did Roger, but never let the truth stand in the way of a good smear campaign.
Pat
|
>> He did Roger, but never let the truth stand in the way of a good
>> smear campaign.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Its that the £350m is likely a lie not where it will go. The net figure is nearer £190m. Still a lot, but not £350m.
BJ actually wrote: "Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS" which sort of suggests that most would go to the NHS.
And it is control of £350m which is broadly correct, but the inference is that it would be actually £350m extra, which it is not.
|
>> Once there is a deal we can then praise or critique as we like.
Yes, but as they haven't told us what deal they are going for, we won't be able to judge whether they were successful or not.
>>The referendum was a simple binary in/out of the EU question
Pointed out elsewhere on this board. That was its fault. Voters didn't really know what they were voting for, leavers or stayers (because the EU is also changing).
>>There will be those who supported remain and those that wanted to leave that are disappointed in March 2019.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time".
|
>>Voters didn't really know what they were voting for, leavers or stayers (because the EU is also changing). <<
I'd like to bet that if the vote had gone to remain we would never have heard that phrase uttered once by anyone!
Pat
|
>> >>Voters didn't really know what they were voting for, leavers or stayers (because the EU
>> is also changing). <<
>>
>> I'd like to bet that if the vote had gone to remain we would never
>> have heard that phrase uttered once by anyone!
>>
>> Pat
>>
It's always changing and has since its inception. I think it was a given that it would continue as such.
Change isn't always bad though, the USA has gone through a lot of changes since its inception and I don't see any states there wishing to exit the Union. They even have a single currency and even though they have had issues with the free movement of people and goods within the Union they have learnt to accept it.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 19 Sep 17 at 17:03
|
@ Pat
I'd like to bet that if the vote had gone to remain by such a small percentage as it went to Leave, you wouldn't have just put up and shut up, as you seem to think remainers ought.
That's democracy innit... :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 19 Sep 17 at 17:10
|
Of course I would have accepted it totally.....as would many of my colleagues.
That is our understanding of a democracy.
We understand we have to accept the will of the majority and make the best of whatever that may be.
That's why we are so incensed that remainers aren't prepared to do the same.......or didn't you realise that?
Pat
|
What's with the 'innit'?
Childish or what?
Pat
|
>> What's with the 'innit'?
>>
It's short for "isn't it ?", long used by cockneys and Londoners, signifying that something is bleeding obvious.
Traditional English has an infinite list of such contractions - doesn't it, can't we, shouldn't they, mustn't he, etc - but some languages don't do that, and Indians and Welsh in particular have picked up "isn't it" as a general-purpose phrase suiting all such situations.
Now "innit" has taken over that role, but with the strong implication that if you weren't so stupid you would see it my way too.
|
Not many online sources, including me (am I an online source??) agree with the second half of your first and third sentences.
Those bits make it out to be an almost insulting word which I don't think it is, anyway that wasn't my intent. I was just being childish. :-)
|
>>Of course I would have accepted it totally.....as would many of my colleagues.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-52-48_uk_5820dc7ce4b020461a1d5fd9
Farage said a 52-48 vote would be unfinished business.
Well it was 52 - 48 so, leavers shouldn't be too surprised that stayers want another vote.
|
Pat and her colleagues may well accept close remain by clearly Nige would not. Neither for lonvwould likes of Rees Mogg, Gove and Grayling or the right wing press. Bo Jo might have done, surely his plan in expectation of Remain win.
|
There's certainly a lot to deal with before we can properly leave. I hope they get a positive outcome on this one.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41240643
|
dislike the BBC news but I just accidentlaly caught a bit...
"....even Brexit hardliners agree that the UK should continue to pay its EU contributions for a while after exit....."
Do they? Really? I don't expect that they do.
And how long is "a while".
As I said,"non-membership" is the only thing that will change.
|
>>As I said,"non-membership" is the only thing that will change.
Never, no way, not on your nelly.....
... oh hang on....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41342580
Guess we'll be waiting a bit longer for Boris's £350m/wk
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 21 Sep 17 at 20:57
|
I think there has been a lot of deliberate obfuscation of meaning over the £350m.
It seems to me obvious that the situation is, we pay currently the EU 350, and get in return say 200 spent on things they decide. If we left there would be an immediate net gain of only 150 to spend on other things, but also would be free to determine what the whole 350 was spent on.
So we could blow it all on the NHS, at the cost of cutting the other things, or we could just accept that we've not got an extra 350 after all. But the real point is WE would decide, not the EU.
|
>> dislike the BBC news but I just accidentlaly caught a bit...
>>
>> "....even Brexit hardliners agree that the UK should continue to pay its EU contributions for
>> a while after exit....."
>>
>> Do they? Really? I don't expect that they do.
No - we do not!
|
Guess you will have to live with it then. It seems it's just a matter of agreeing a sum. Not less than the £20Billion I guess, probably a lot more.
It's all all heading for an "An out but In" solution. All of the obligations but none of the decision making.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 22 Sep 17 at 15:05
|
>> There's certainly a lot to deal with before we can properly leave
That's right. For example I hadn't quite appreciated the scale of even the legislative job.
The first thing is to move all EU regs and laws into our own statute book so things carry on in the same way as much as possible. However, the current EU laws refer to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and there is no direct british counter part for this, so things have to be redrafted with reference to judges etc.
It's a big job. To be fair most of it can be done by minions in Whitehall, but there is the danger of unintended consequences where something slips in under the radar as part of the rework which later on some political party can use in a different context purely for auspicious ends.
.. and then as I might have said before there is a load of trade tariff automation stuff to be done in the case that we fall back on WTO tariffs.
|
And there's plenty of things that need doing that none of us have even thought of.
We all know we need some agreements for aircraft to even to be able to fly. Then for the customs stuff, HMRC are introducing a new Customs Declaration Service but that was not scaled for the size of the task when we are not in the single market... so it will have to be made bigger. And it might not be ready in time either. So a fallback might be to expand the very old (25 years?) Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system that originally ran on ICL mainframes and now will be running on virtualised mainframes on x64 hardware under emulation. But it's going to cost money that's for sure.
www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/13/customs_union/
And if neither the new or expanded old system are up to the job, I guess it might cost the country even more in lost revenue.
|
>>Mainframe to x64
Worked on a bank project in the naughties converting from Wang mainframe to Microsoft server as Wang wouldn't support the mission critical hardware after a certain date.
All sorts of problems ensued in testing for a system that handled only about 20,000 specialised clients.
Least of which, was the fact that the systems both stored numbers to different precisions. The difference was pennies per transaction but tens of thousands over the portfolio. The accountants were pulling their hair out over how there could be differences and of course managers didn't like losses on their accounts and clients didn't like seeing their account balance change from one b/fwd figure to a new one because the system had changed. So on switchover weekend we had to dump the data from the old system and cross check the individual accounts individually to ensure the balances matched to the penny and make adjustments where they didn't. Luckily most of it was done automatically.
Tracking what other systems the original system provided data to was a nightmare and ensuring compatibility to things like SAP took an age to get right.
We didn't use an emulator. We employed an American company to convert the code line by line so that it could be updated as needed. It took 35 programmers a year to do it and it cost a fortune!
|
|
I was a tech for Wang for many years Zippy. Supported them through Y2K but the customer base had declined rapidly after a reckless CEO called out that the line was going to be killed off (mid 90s IIRC It wasn't, for quite some years after he said that, but many corporates heard that and started planning the shift away.
|
What really hacks me off at the moment is how politicians of all colours are treating this money as the States!
It is our £350m per week. That's £18.2 billion a year.
Over 30.4m individual tax payers that is just shy of £600 each and it would nice if it were given back!
|
Roger, Pat, et al must be ecstatic... not!
"Theresa May urges EU to retain trade terms for two years after Brexit"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642
This is not going well for the UK is it. A period of "about two years". Of course the UK may tell us no.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 23 Sep 17 at 00:32
|
....She also suggested that the UK and EU would continue working together on projects promoting long-term economic development and the UK would want to "make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved".
As NoFM2R and others have said since the start: we'll end up effectively still in the EU with all of the costs and none of the clout.
|
I give you again my thoughts I posted here directly after the referendumb........ I have had no reason at all to change my views...
I'm not entirely surprised about the referendum result; I broadly outlined in a response to Zeddo before he flounced the level of dissatisfaction in the provinces (particularly the North) and the lack of any perspective of this in the London/SE-centric view of both it's inhabitants and Parliament.
I'm certainly persuaded that sufficient an element of the vote to cross the threshold was based more on a desire to put two fingers up to the establishment than simply to exit the EU.
The situation we now find ourselves in is reprehensible, largely the legacy of weak, self-seeking individuals, and the main players now jostling for position have already proven themselves constitutionally unsuitable to sort any of the mess out.
We've instigated a referendum on European Union membership for reasons that had very little to do with a desire to be in or out, and a lot to do with internecine war in the Tory party.
We've had the "leave" camp led by people who had very little interest in us leaving, and a considerable interest in furthering their own ambitions.
We've had a vote where a significant number of people were simply trying to "stick it" to the government, and another significant number were voting for "promises" of change that could never be delivered, and are/have already been retracted (NHS funding, immigration, etc), or will have to be retracted simply to keep the UK (or England) remotely viable.
There has been absolutely no planning of how to handle any fall-out (either in the leave campaign or the extant government). Worse than that, even after the result senior Tory party members were entirely oblivious to the level of impact ("Good, now it's over, we can get back to delivering the rest of our manifesto" - and just how much parliamentary/civil service bandwidth is going to be available for that in the next 2+ years if we are to handle exit negotiations without getting royally screwed?).
Incidentally, IMO (and others more informed) we simply do not have the skills and capabilities in Government and the Civil Service to successfully support such a major renegotiation. I dread a resolution based on advice from PWC, Accenture, Deloittes, et al, never mind the Merchant Banks.
We have a Chancellor who has gone AWOL whilst the markets are in chaos; a PM who has washed his hands of any responsibility for sorting the mess out ("don't blame me, I only called the referendum"!); no defined leadership or direction (much of it being tied up in the ongoing internecine war), and no timescale for resolution; so, in the interim, big business is (not entirely surprisingly) taking contingency action for the worst case (and generally, these actions are not in the best interest of the UK).
And now, rather too late, we are having the "what did the Romans ever do for us" moment, and discovering that there are rather a lot of EU-based things we'd either like or need to retain, but aren't at all well placed to (re)negotiate. (for example, much of our Financial Services (the main underpinning of our economy) rely on EU "passporting", and given the difficult history of retaining concessions in this area whilst we were IN the EU, being OUT is going to pose some interesting problems).
Fundamentally, it would appear that (unless there is someone man (or woman) enough to take some real control), we are going to spend an awful amount of effort, an awful amount of risk, and probably a big hit economically, to end up being outside the EU, but with most of the costs and trappings still in place because we can't exist without them. This alongside little of the promised "benefits" being realised.
If I'd been responsible for such a mess in my previous career, I'd have been out on my a*se already.
|
"we simply do not have the skills and capabilities in Government and the Civil Service to successfully support such a major renegotiation."
Quite - It worries me that having sold off the family silver, we have now contracted out the ability to govern ourselves. We should never have allowed ourselves to be sucked into the grand European superstate dream in the first place.
|
>> Quite - It worries me that having sold off the family silver,
What family silver? we joined the Eu because that had been pawned years before, the country was in a sheet state.
|
The UK was awful in the 70s.
I remember going to the continent back then and marvelling at the newer cars, nicer homes, better transport systems, lack of bomb sites (we still had some here in the 2000s!) etc.
We looked at Germany in envy.
Who knows, we may get that feeling of awe again! ;-
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 23 Sep 17 at 12:57
|
>>Incidentally, IMO (and others more informed) we simply do not have the skills and >>capabilities in Government and the Civil Service to successfully support such a major >>renegotiation.
As a country (and even as a species) I think we don't value the type of person that is a solid organiser / completer / detail type person and it happens all the time.
I worked at a well respected and secure financial company in the financial crash which purchased a bust one at the strong recommendation of the Govt.
The well respected co should have walked away but didn't.
Anyway, considering what happened to the bust one, about 70% of their managers got promoted to head the departments of the once sound institution, because they were sales people and had the appearance of being suitable but all they wanted to do was increase turnover an sell.
I wasn't in management so it didn't effect me, directly, but when a sales director with no background in risk or finance is put in charge of a central risk division and on day one orders a significant loosening of credit policy - just in the middle of the financial crisis - you know that you are on to a looser, especially when you saw what that type of policy did to the predecessor.
One small example of the risk decision: £2m loan secured on a 10 year old printing press that was valued at £300k and a new one was £1m! Risky at the best of times, but when the borrower was loss making it was madness.
|
>> Roger, Pat, et al must be ecstatic... not!
The sell-out has begun in earnest.
|
>> >> Roger, Pat, et al must be ecstatic... not!
>>
>> The sell-out has begun in earnest.
Your fault. Still, price worth paying.
|
|
I would boot all the plastic brexiteers such as May out and bring in Farage and Rees-Mogg to sort the mess out.
|
|
I rather think that Mrs May is trying her best to sort out the problem caused by those you name.
|
>> bring in Farage
That made me chuckle :-) Anyway he's not even an MP - and I don't think he should be allowed to be an MEP either.
|
Over a period of time the Brexit referendum will be ignored and business as usual whatever that is.
|
>> >> bring in Farage
>>
>> That made me chuckle :-) Anyway he's not even an MP - and I don't
>> think he should be allowed to be an MEP either.
>>
Well, he did campaign to make British MEPs, like himself, redundant.
|
>> Well, he did campaign to make British MEPs, like himself, redundant.
Is that why he milked the gravy train for all he could, even putting his German wife on the payroll as a "secretary"?
|
>> Your fault.
A terminological inexactitude. :-)
|
|
Two fingers to them. We should just leave without a 'deal', we won't legally owe them a centime.
|
I also think we should just up and leave and tell them to poke it.
As a bonus I get to see all those who voted for the upheaval start whining about what a crap state we are in and its all the fault of the bremainers.
|
Likewise
I want to see London turned into a (bigger) stinking ghetto, and the pensioners who helped it happen have their pensions shrunk back down to size.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 25 Sep 17 at 21:19
|
"the pensioners who helped it happen have their pensions shrunk back down to size."
No need to be bitter, Lygo, you should move down south; the GPs around here are paid so much that they only need to work a 3-day week.
|
>>you should move down south; the GPs around here are paid so much that they only need to work a 3-day week.
Funnily enough I'm thinking of reducing my commitment to 3 days/week ;-)
Pensions and the NHS are the largest costs to the Exchequer - I'd rather shrink both a bit and push for a highly educated population (more teachers and free degree level education again) that takes responsibility for their own outcomes a bit more seriously.
|
"I'd rather shrink both a bit and push for a highly educated population (more teachers and free degree level education again) that takes responsibility for their own outcomes a bit more seriously."
It would be nice if it could happen like that but, alas, personal debt levels have increased vastly since hordes more folk were enticed into 'degree-level' education. And, of course, the present Ponzi system of student loans is in no way sustainable.
"Funnily enough I'm thinking of reducing my commitment to 3 days/week ;-)"
Very sensible, though when my wife reduced her teaching hours, she went down from 5 to 3 days ....... but found that she was still, in effect, working 4 ......... but still getting paid for 3 ;-)
|
>> when my wife reduced her teaching hours, she went down from 5 to 3 days ....... but found that she was still, in effect, working 4 ......... but still getting paid for 3
The gaffer has noted similar at her school although she has been doing extra days of cover which are a day's pay for less than a day's work so it evens out a bit.
>>present Ponzi system of student loans
Can't say I've calculated the figures but it looks like a massively inefficient scheme that drains money into the Loans Companies.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 26 Sep 17 at 11:40
|
|
Abolish all public sector pensions would be my solution. Private sector workers don't get these guaranteed pensions.
|
>> Abolish all public sector pensions would be my solution. Private sector workers don't get these
>> guaranteed pensions.
>>
Nothing too extreme then. ;-)
|
>>Abolish all public sector pensions would be my solution. Private sector workers don't get these guaranteed pensions.
Currently NHS workers pay more in pension contributions than the government is paying out.
Nice big deficit in decades to come but then the same will happen with the private Ponzi investments when the population growth ends I guess :-)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 26 Sep 17 at 18:16
|
>>As a bonus I get to see all those who voted for the upheaval start whining about what a crap state we are in and its all the fault of the bremainers.
It will make a change from the bitter whinging Remainiacs who have been whining on and on and on for over a year.
|
This is my hypotheses of what would happen to Brexit.
Although referendum result was 52:48 favoring Leave, the MPs were 25:75 on the topic. So clearly, majority of MPs didn't want to leave EU. Leaving EU is a big task and most MPs have no vested interest in doing additional work. Few MPs took this as an opportunity to rise (we all know who are they) and advocated Leave side strongly (at least publically).
Several others (including TM, JC) could not figure out which way is better for themselves (I think they still could not figure out).
After the referendum result, no leader is able to openly support Remain (except few ones e.g. ex-Lib Dem leader, who are not relevant anymore).
Labour has claimed they could keep UK indefinitely in transition period, as I fear that's what is going to happen in reality.
Politicians don't want to provide clear, unambiguous answer. It is not in their DNA. So they prefer to be as vague as possible so that both remainers and leavers can think discussion is going in their way.
Very few of the electorates are actually interested in politics. Public memory is very short. Soon public will forget about Brexit and they would get busy with whatever happens. Until next election, Brexit will gradually disappear from most people's radars.
Uncertainty is not necessarily a bad thing. Because of "uncertainty" businesses won't be able to figure out whether they would be better of inside or outside UK. This will cause delay in moving any business out of UK (this is very expensive exercise and businesses want to be sure it is better for them before taking such drastic action).
EU immigration to UK would fall because many immigrants would avoid uncertainty and might prefer to go other EU countries or try to improve their living condition in their home country.
Merkel would be weaker (CDU vote share is historical low), far right anti-immigration influence will grow and spread over other EU countries.
By this time EU would see that UK has not impacted much. This might encourage Leave for other EU members (by this time all EU would realize life outside EU is not that bad).
Noting this change, EU might be ready to come down from hard position and might offer to negotiate in UK's terms.
By that time politicians would show EU has reformed so no need for leave. The support for Leave might slow down as it would be portrayed as if UK is no longer in EU anyway after 2019.
Whether leavers or remainers be happy depends on whether you see it has glass half full or half empty.
On leavers side house price would come down, net immigration might indeed fall, economy won't be any worse (might even improve) etc.
On remainers side UK may still effectively remain in EU (even under transition disguise).
There could be another referendum by 2025.
Of course, whatever I said could all be wrong. There could be a "Black Swan" event tomorrow and everything might go topsy-turvy.
|
BJ for £350m - CGNorwich
