***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 41 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 4 Nov 16 at 16:34
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37670091
>>
>> 8-}
Good for a laugh at BoJo's expense but i'm not sure what it really tells us. He's a journalist, his professional skill will be that he can knock off a thousand words on nay subject under the sun.
|
>>but i'm not sure what it really tells us
It just confirms that he is a two faced politician and reinforces suggestions that he was in the Brexit camp just to further his career.
|
|
Or had two views on the subject?
|
|
I don't think he has any particular view on the subject. Willing to jump on any bandwagon as long as it enhances his career. I cannot for the life of me see what virtues Theresa May see in this man apart form recognising a fellow opportunist.
|
>> I cannot for the life of me see what virtues Theresa May see in this man....
At certain lofty levels, a gaffe-prone individual is quite an effective way of diverting attention away from oneself. I've seen it done quite effectively in various companies where I've worked.
|
|
Lacking any other explanation that seems plausible.
|
>> >>but i'm not sure what it really tells us
>>
>> It just confirms that he is a two faced politician and reinforces suggestions that he
>> was in the Brexit camp just to further his career.
I don't think so. His "heartache" decision was announced two days later when he said he would campaign for Brexit. We have no way of knowing whether the heartache was over which was the right decision for the country, or for his career.
OK, so a lot of people muttered about Boris going against Cameron to further his career in some devious way; but why prefer that over the simpler explanation, that he was telling the truth?
|
>> OK, so a lot of people muttered about Boris going against Cameron to further his
>> career in some devious way; but why prefer that over the simpler explanation, that he
>> was telling the truth?
Boris and the truth are not natural companions. He's been sacked twice for lying. First by Max Hastings over journalistic matters and secondly by Michael Howard over one of his extra-marital shenanigans.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-we-so-surprised-that-boris-johnson-lied-when-he-s-been-sacked-for-lying-twice-before-a7105976.html
|
Previous convictions!
Eddie Mair is one of my radio heroes. Boris took the floor here to promote himself, and ended up nailed to it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxA-9D4X3o
But I still think it's unlikely that Johnson would passionately argue for Brexit when he wanted the opposite.
|
>>But I still think it's unlikely that Johnson would passionately argue for Brexit when he wanted the opposite.
Boris's normal style of communication, be it written or spoken, can come across as "passionate", I guess. I don't think Boris particularly 'wants' anything above anything else, but whichever he decides to support at any time, he will most certainly argue for convincingly.
If the referendum had resulted in a decision for Remain, he would probably have done very well indeed.
|
|
Another 200 signatures in half an hour!
|
“For those determined to undo a result they did not anticipate, and still don’t understand, that means using the exercise of “parliamentary scrutiny†to delay or dilute the impact of the
referendum verdict. It means continually seeking to delegitimise the people’s decision by attributing any manifestation of prejudice to the “xenophobia†allegedly unleashed by the campaign. It requires them to interpret any piece of adverse economic news as a Brexit-inspired blow to growth. And above all it means defining principled adherence to the mandate secured on June 23 as wild pursuit of a “Hard Brexit†which, like learning hard lessons, facing a hard landing or doing hard labour, is clearly only attractive to a deluded masochist.
My, humbly offered and sincerely meant, piece of helpful advice to those, from Tim Farron to Ed Miliband, Nicola Sturgeon to Owen Jones, intent on going down this path is, for your own sake, and the credibility of any other cause you hold dear, please don’t. Because you are repeating all the mistakes you made in the referendum campaign. Without the excuse that you couldn’t know better.â€
~Gove on the last Remoaners.
|
“And above all it means defining principled adherence to the mandate secured on June 23 as wild pursuit of a “Hard Brexit†which, like learning hard lessons, facing a hard landing or doing hard labour, is clearly only attractive to a deluded masochist.â€
So, I think that means that he does *NOT* favour a hard exit? So therefore presumably favours a "soft exit"? How fortunate that he does not need to define what either is.
Isn't "soft exit" seeking something similar to Norway's arrangements? Where the country still contributes to the EU budget, still has to allow free movement in as well as using it out, and still has to give free access to its markets in order to get free access to the EU market? It would mean still adhering to EU rules and standards and maintaining the alignment between those and the national rules and standards.
i.e. being a member of the EU in every way except not being an actual member so not getting a vote?
Bear in mind Gove knows exactly what he is saying and is not confused. He just understands the audience he's trying to appeal to with this speech. And, to be fair, it would seem to be working.
The problem is that the audience he is appealing to largely don't understand the real complexity and so like easy to understand, albeit meaningless, terms which can be written in big letters at the top of a newspaper page such as "Hard Exit".
Try this.....
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
And understand this...
The UK *WILL* compromise on immigration, free movement, etc in order to maintain the access it does want.
What will happen is that the UK will take ownership of its own immigration rules. And Farage and his minions will cheer and shout from the ramparts about their glorious victory.
And then the UK, with its new found sovereignty will agree to adopt the current EU rules, but only because it wants to, not because the EU told it to. So there, nyaah, nyaah.
Ditto standards and measures. Ditto contractual terms. Ditto labour laws, laws around discrimination and human rights, etc. etc.
Believe me, the rules 10 years from now will be little different to today. But we won't actually be called a member so presumably many will be happy.
Which is OK for me, because as I have said before, what the EU *is* doesn't bother me a jot. Though what the EU wanted to become in the future, did. And this will stop the EU becoming more. I think.
Thus, the thought of leaving the EU doesn't hugely bother me, although I don't think its a good idea. I still believe we could have achieved much more with massively less disruption, by being in the EU and taking the game seriously. I mean, the people we voted in as MEPs pretty much sums up how seriously the majority of the electorate was taking the matter.
www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps/list-meps-by-region.html
But the Daily Mail lookers will realise, if they both look and understand, is that insofar as what they thought they were voting for is concerned, they will have achieved nothing other than changes in names.
And in the meantime, we will have 10 years of perceived 'change'. The problem with change is not actually the change itself, even in a case such as this where there is likely to be little. The problem with 'change' is that it allows and encourages manipulation and speculation.
And economically that is not a good thing. It facilitates and results in unpredictability. The one thing that investors will not deal with.
What does bother me about all this are the fools that voted for it. Not the people that voted for it for reasons they believed to be sound, not those that voted for it out of perceived self-interest, but the "fools" motivated by silly emotional headlines, who get their panties twisted over immigration, and the bogey man in Brussels telling them what to do, and all the rest of the Farage-esque garbage.
And the garbage that Farage comes out with is not so much a reflection on him, its a reflection of his opinion and judgement of his target audience. Farage is not foolish or stupid, he's just targeting those that are.
As with Trump and Clinton, the issue is never the politician, it is the people who vote for them that are the worry.
|
|
Hmm, remoaners rant still going on .....
|
|
I guess if reading is beyond you, then there is no point in expecting you to be able to understand difficult stuff.
|
I don't think it's too much of a rant is it? I too am disappointed by the outcome of the referendum, but now that we have that out of the way, what I now want to see is the best possible outcome from the situation we face. Reasoned debate on how that can best be achieved should interest us all, no matter how we voted shouldn't it?
An embargo on expressing opinions, thoughts, concerns and fears leads to political disenfranchisement.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Mon 17 Oct 16 at 15:05
|
>>Reasoned debate on how that can best be achieved should interest us all,
Absolutely. But that requires understanding of the issues and possibilities. Which rather limits the possibilites with several here.
What the lemmings want will never happen so it shouldn't be a big deal to ignore their mindless tabloid-inspired chatter. Its just that I find stupidity one of the most annoying things around.
|
Well, I still believe that we are suffering, and will long term continue to suffer, from the effects of a huge self inflicted wound.
However, we now need to learn how to deal with disabilities it leaves us with and work together towards recovery. That will be much harder to achieve while there continues to be an attitude that nigh on half the voting population no longer has any right to an opinion and should put up and shut up. We're going to need all our best brains on this, no matter which side of the Brexit debate they stood on.
|
>> Well, I still believe that we are suffering, and will long term continue to suffer,
>> from the effects of a huge self inflicted wound.
Your opinion is at least as valid as mine - long term forecasts are extremely speculative. Shame they were presented as fact by both sides.
>>
>> However, we now need to learn how to deal with disabilities it leaves us with pick our battles carefully, maximise opportunities, make the best compromises
>> and work together towards recovery. That will be much harder to achieve while there continues
>> to be an attitude that nigh on half the voting population no longer has any
>> right to an opinion and should put up and shut up were stupid, racist or selfish to vote as they did
>>. We're going to need
>> all our best brains on this, no matter which side of the Brexit debate they
>> stood on.
I agree. But I'd pay least attention to the most extreme Europhobes and Europhiles. Nothing is all bad, including the EU.
|
If that law is passed then I guess I can apply for refugee status is Spain or maybe Syria. Every time I see the news it just gets so diabolically funny it is actually a serious problem.
I hate Brexit and have made me feeling very very clear but I wish no personal harm to the leave voters.
|
>> If that law is passed then I guess I can apply for refugee status is
>> Spain or maybe Syria.
Oh don't be such a drama queen. It takes you months to decide which bus to catch to go on holiday, like you would be capable of emigrating.
>> I hate Brexit and have made me feeling very very clear
Why? There's no real reason. Its not like its a good thing, but the world will keep on spinning. Economies have recovered from much worse and there are most certainly bigger issues in the UK than whether or not it is part of the EU.
>>but I wish no personal harm to the leave voters.
I should hope not. Or to anybody else for their voting decisions.
|
That is not a rant - it is a well presented 'statement of the nation'.
I suggest you read it in its entirety and decide which of the outers groups you fall into.
|
>> I suggest you read it in its entirety and decide which of the outers groups
>> you fall into.
But only if you are prepared to go along with the embedded complex question fallacy.
I am still of the opinion that there is no right answer to Brexit, only better or poorer choices along whichever path is taken. In the near term we will be poorer as a result of the vote it seems, but Mervyn King is sanguine about a lower pound and a bit of inflation. It will do me personally no good at all, but deflating the balloon more gently, and sooner rather than later, might be the lesser of the evils on offer.
The euro project has utterly failed and the longer the day of judgement is put off, the harder the landing will be.
"Pound sterling collapse a 'welcome change', says former Bank of England governor Mervyn King"
Independent goo.gl/cf8dE0
"We are now in a better position to rebalance the UK economy"
“An unfortunate aspect of the campaign was the government forecasts of what the consequences of Brexit might be, which inevitably were highly speculative, in particular for the long run."
"Euro is a 'house of cards' ready to collapse, key single currency architect warns"
Independent goo.gl/EENT0P
"Prof Issing said there is no escape from the currency union’s problems without a political union which is unlikely to happen."
|
Our pound is collapsing at the moment.I just can't see the point of Brexit to me it makes no economic sense.
Half Brexit full Brexit it is all sounding daft to me.
|
What do you think the ideal GBP-EUR and GBP-USD exchange rates should be?
|
>> What do you think the ideal GBP-EUR and GBP-USD exchange rates should be?
>>
>>
>>
If he could answer that he would not be wasting life away here!
|
>> But only if you are prepared to go along with the embedded complex question fallacy.
I have absolutely no idea what that is or what it means. Never mind how it might fit into anything I said, nor why it would be a precondition to reading what anybody wrote.
|
>>
>> >> But only if you are prepared to go along with the embedded complex question
>> fallacy.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea what that is or what it means. Never mind how
>> it might fit into anything I said, nor why it would be a precondition to
>> reading what anybody wrote.
Sorry, I had jumped to the conclusion that Sherlock had turned your words into a loaded question. having just re read it, it wasn't that bad. As you were.
|
Now as can be seen, several people have put their little frownie faces on my posts, and Movilogo has made some devastatingly informative observations - at least insofar as he is able.
But lets assume that you're not all spineless planks, and lets assume that at least some of you are sentient;
Question: If you voted to leave, what material change(s) did you believe that voting would actually bring?
As I have tried to say before, there are many people who voted out for well thought out and reasoned motivations, whether or not I think they are right - its very difficult to know what will come anyway, so its all opinion. In any case, as I have been saying for months and as Manatee said today, there isn't really a right or wrong answer per se, it depends on what you want, for yourself or the country, and what you think you or your country will get.
I believe that many people, and that includes most [but not all] of the people here, have no idea, no understanding and no clue beyond a Farage speech or a Mail headline.
Does it not bother you that these issues are beyond you? If you read something written by an intelligent person, on either side of the political debate, don't you worry that it is all outside your understanding?
It would me. I think comprehension and understanding are really very important. Much more so than agreement and most certainly more than immature sycophancy.
And as Manatee [I think] also said, the extreme idiots on both sides should be totally ignored. Most certainly the politicians should be ignored. For sure the tabloids are full of emotive and over simplified garbage.
You need to research, understand and make your own mind up. Listen to many opinions or statements, from whichever perspective of preference. Balance statements and expectations with your own experiences and observations.
And really, I do sympathize with the level of challenge that must represent for some of you. No wonder you prefer not to try and simple resort to frownies and smilies.
|
>> Question: If you voted to leave, what material change(s) did you believe that voting would actually bring?
We've asked before what leavers hope for compared to staying in the EU. They either won't or can't answer that. It's probably a bit of both.
What I can't see is how exiting the EU initially can be anything other than a 'hard' exit if the rules are followed. We cannot negotiate new trade deals until we have left. So for some time (might be brief) we will have to be on world trade organisation tariffs.
The only way to avoid that is to be allowed to negotiate with the EU and other countries/blocs before we actually leave the EU. Which I don't think is allowed even after article 50 has been triggered. We have to actually leave the EU first.
|
>> >> Question: If you voted to leave, what material change(s) did you believe that voting
>> would actually bring?
I would imagine that the answer is the same as any other vote. Many people vote on instinct, gut feelings, a general feeling of things being better, something wholly qualitative. Facts and figures only go so far. We are still driven by emotions and feelings rather than logic.
But this is nothing new, perhaps it's brought it into light or perhaps it's surprised some people after this particular vote.
|
>> What I can't see is how exiting the EU initially can be anything other than
>> a 'hard' exit if the rules are followed.
>>
Cameron and Osborne agree with you:
twitter.com/brexittruths/status/782611463697563648/video/1
Government will implement decision
twitter.com/BadEvilDick/status/786307838578659328
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Mon 17 Oct 16 at 19:16
|
|
And what value did your post add?
|
>> And what value did your post add?
>>
Can't help you except to say "none so blind as those that will not see".
|
I voted for Brexit - to leave the European Union, pure and simple. Immigration played no part in my decision to vote Leave. I'm an incomer anyway down here in Cornwall, and have been referred to as an outsider, a forriner, an unnatural, and yes, even an immigrant, but I'm still here (you bar stewards) after 20 years.
Whether Brexit is hard-boiled, or soft, remains to be seen. I'm pleased, at the moment, with May and her team, and can well understand how it will take years to finally exit the EU.
My main reason for voting leave was actually for the future of this great country, as an independent nation, making its own laws, and not being dictated to by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels but, we've been over and over this ground before, many, many times so, as Humph and others say, lets get on with the job now and work together towards recovery, and beyond.
Re: the frownies - it just looks like someone having a giraffe to me. Ignore them, like I ignore you, most of the time.
|
>> I voted for Brexit - to leave the European Union, pure and simple.
But what do you all want leaving the EU to mean? Do you want us to still have tariff free trade with the single market? Dog you say you didn't vote because of immigration so you might want us to have free trade/movement of people and have access to the single market. This is possible outside of the EU.
These are the details some of us (well me) are curious about.
|
>>Dog you say you didn't vote because of immigration so you might want us to have free trade/movement of people and have access to the single market.
>>These are the details some of us (well me) are curious about.
As I've said, we've been over this again and again in the past. We'll have to just wait and see what May and her team pull out of the hat in the coming months.
Obviously I want what is best for Great Britain - but not at the expense of staying in the European Union.
|
I'm wondering whether there is, really, any point in replying to Mark's post higher up.
It is so utterly condescending to most of the members of the forum (and to one in particular), whom Mark believes to be too intellectually challenged to cope with the concepts of political debate*, that this is what strikes one, rather than what is actually being discussed.
It is written by someone who believes himself to be qualified, from his position of superior intellect, to give out advice as to how we should "...research, understand and make your own mind up. Listen to many opinions or statements, from whichever perspective of preference. Balance statements and expectations with your own experiences and observations."
Perhaps quite a lot of us do this anyway and reach different conclusions from the Superior One; and we do not need to assert our imagined superiority.
Whether he likes it or not, in a democratic process even the really stupid and ignorant person may cast a vote that carries equal weight with that of the most intellectually gifted, well-informed and reflective individual.
"And really, I do sympathize with the level of challenge that must represent for some of you." Ugh. We can do without insincere sympathy - or is it sarcasm?
* "... lets assume that at least some of you are sentient... I believe that many people, and that includes most [but not all] of the people here, have no idea..."
P.S. Those frownies, Mark, may not be the inarticulate responses to your arguments; they may be saying something else about you.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 18 Oct 16 at 00:20
|
>> I'm wondering whether there is, really, any point in replying to Mark's post higher up.
>>
Best to do what Dog does with those posts. Don't even bother reading him, or if you do, do not give him the satisfaction. As someone keeps repeating in the US presidential campaign: when they go low, you go high.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Tue 18 Oct 16 at 10:45
|
>> P.S. Those frownies, Mark, may not be the inarticulate responses to your arguments; they may be saying something else about you.
I thought that as well. Just a theory of course.
|
NFM
Thank you for seeking clarification - I had been looking at Ms post and panicking, thinking that I had picked up the wrong examination paper!
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 17 Oct 16 at 18:52
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHFp3-qE_T8
Probably over the heads of The Mail readers - but a well presented explanation.
|
|
It's a reasonable analysis in itself but comparisons with Switzerland are not particularly useful. The UK is a much larger economy and seeing as we import so much from China, one could argue that places us in a very much stronger position for any negotiations.
|
>>>comparisons with Switzerland are not particularly useful.<<<
It was not a comparison, merely an example of a deal. for a target audience with an attention span of 2 minutes.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 17 Oct 16 at 19:47
|
We have been here before. Those who see the level of the pound as a barometer of economic health should read this.
www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/16/let-the-pound-fall-and-the-economy-rise
Belief in the Emperor's old clothes is beginning to fray around the edges, and people without reputations for swivelling eyes, or large excavator factories in Staffordshire, are now beginning to say so.
Even the economics editor of the Guardian is now prepared to say it.
"Britain has discovered a way of living beyond its means. Assets are sold to overseas buyers bringing capital into the country to offset the balance of payments deficit. It is the equivalent of a once well-to-do household that has fallen on hard times pawning the silver to keep up appearances. At some point, referendum or no referendum, the financial markets were going to say enough is enough and it is delusional to think otherwise.
Running permanent balance of payment deficits amounts to borrowing growth from the future. Sooner or later, it has to be paid back and Brexit means it will be sooner. A weaker pound works by making exports cheaper and imports dearer. The effect, as after all the other devaluations and depreciations of the past 100 years – 1931, 1949, 1967, 1976, 1992 and 2007 – will make the economy less dependent on consumers and more reliant on producers. Lord Mervyn King, a former governor of the Bank of England, thinks the latest fall in sterling is a good thing and he is right."
I'm not a masochist, and I won't enjoy being poorer; but as with household deficits, the sooner it is dealt with, the better. The Brexit shock may well achieve what no government, here or in Europe apparently, has the balls to do which is to balance the books.
|
|
I suppose reducing your debts by lettting inflation rip and therby shortchanging those from whom you have borrowed is an economic policy of a sort but it tends to make borrowing in the future a lot more expensive.
|
>> I suppose reducing your debts by letting inflation rip and thereby shortchanging those from whom
>> you have borrowed is an economic policy of a sort but it tends to make
>> borrowing in the future a lot more expensive.
Absolutely right. And wasn't that always the only realistic economic policy? You are aware that under Dr. Osborne's treatment it was going up, rather than down? Osborne stoked a consumer-led economy by further pumping up already unaffordable house prices, probably with exactly that in mind. His only plan was to get the value of money going down faster than the debt was going up.
I for one will be delighted if inflation only gets to the recently forecasted 2.6% next year.
As I said, I am no masochist. I own 99.5% of my house, and have meaningful savings and no debt, so it's no good to me - but better now than in another five years, when the cliff would have been twice as high - I would say the prospect of a repeat of the late 70s/early 80s has just receded slightly. I would rather be 10% poorer than almost wiped out.
|
The problem with the "pay off your debts with inflation" idea is that , apart from any moral issues involved, that in the long term it does not work.
The UK's chronic problem is lack of productivity. A bout of inflation surely reduces debt and allows for the illusison of economic growth but sooner or later it all ends in tears and we end up with another recession. Until the UK is able to improve productivity there is no long term solution to our woes.
|
>> The problem with the "pay off your debts with inflation" idea is that , apart
>> from any moral issues involved, that in the long term it does not work.
I'd agree that a violent bout of extreme inflation is not a good plan. And inflation brings its own problems. But there is no possibility of paying off the whole debt in real terms, which is why HMG is very wary of issuing too many index linked bonds.
I hope the inflation we see over the next few years is "helpful" inflation, not the runaway kind.
There is a third option, which is to default in a more structured way. I think that would create bigger problems.
>> The UK's chronic problem is lack of productivity.
I assume you mean labour productivity, which is basically output (value) per hour worked. I agree.
I have been trying to understand the productivity story, but I am not quite there yet. Most articles on the subject just throw around the term "productivity" but most seem to mean labour productivity. On the face of it, loss of jobs in highly automated and high added value industries, plus a growth low value jobs, may well have had a distorting effect - but this seems too simplistic.
In any case, my concern is mainly with the way labour productivity is used, to imply that it is somehow the workers' fault. Maybe there are some cultural issues, but the recognised drivers of productivity are -
- investment. Workers become more productive when more capital is employed.
- innovation and enterprise - better production techniques, seizing new opportunities
- labour force skill levels
- the competitive environment
Worker attitude does not appear on that list.
I suspect the stubborn flatline in labour productivity since 2008 has everything to do with banks' attitudes to lending, especially in the areas of innovation and new enterprise. They have become completely focused on secured lending, impairment, and rebuilding capital and have been giving newer, innovative, small, and medium sized businesses where the productivity gains tend to come from a relatively hard time.
|
>>the recognised drivers of productivity are ..... Worker attitude does not appear on that list.
Authors of this list should note a main finding of the Hawthorne experiments - labour productivity improved when managers expressed an interest in what workers were doing.
|
>> Authors of this list should note a main finding of the Hawthorne experiments - labour
>> productivity improved when managers expressed an interest in what workers were doing.
I'm familiar with the "Hawthorne effect", named after a General Electric plant IIRC, but I've never heard its absence referred to as a factor in general malaise!
Probably true though. Usually it gets dragged up when some barmy new scheme appears to have improved results and then the effect wears off. As you say, the fact of people suddenly paying what seems like favourable attention to what they are doing tends to motivate people.
I think they changed the lighting or something at the Hawthorne plant, but they eventually put the productivity improvements down to the workers being treated as special by being put into a trial.
Edit - Western Electric, just looked it up.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 19 Oct 16 at 16:31
|
I caught the first, fascinating 5 minutes of this radio programme in the car this morning. It's a Conservative couple talking about their experience campaigning for Leave in the North East:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b07z441z
|
|
As one politician said Brexit means Brexit.
|
Welcome back Fluffy. Thought you had Brexited.
|
|
Just remember Fluffy means Fluffy.
|
I know fluffy means fluffy.
That is why I said it.
|
That's good Fluffy. There"'s a bit of the philosopher in you.
|
>> Welcome back Fluffy. Thought you had Brexited.
Nah, it's half term this week.
|
Easy to tell when it's Half Term in my part of the world...The hills are alive with the sound ( and sight) of DofE groups.
Fortunately they have good weather at the moment, but I do feel sorry for them carrying these huge packs. As a serious backpacker myself in recent years, if they only had modern lightweight gear they would enjoy it so much more, cutting their pack weight by half. It probably puts 99% of them off for life, which is a great shame.
|
|
The pack weight is set for them at a maximum of 25% body weight with allowances made for disabled walkers. Pack size wasn't an issue when my daughter did hers a few years back.
|
Thanks for that info...the 5 young girls I spoke to on Saturday were struggling with their huge packs. Or huge to me.
My lightweight kit wasn't cheap, and I suppose you can't expect to look after kit as well as people who gave bought it themselves.
I've often wondered if they are taught how to pack a rucksack properly, use of internal dry bags, compartmentalise stuff etc. I suppose they must, but one girl that I spent a two week back packing trip with, and who was in charge of D of E at a very posh girls boarding school, was clueless and had a huge pack. On day three we diverted to a post office and after sorting it out I posted a lot of it home otherwise she would not have completed the trip. No way was I carrying her stuff!
|
At last, some good Brexit news.
"Bob Geldof has said he will consider moving back to Ireland if the UK opts for a hard Brexit"
Bye then ;)
www.independent.ie/business/brexit/geldof-considers-an-irish-homecoming-to-escape-dangers-of-brexit-fallout-35153523.html
|
>> Nissan to make new car models in UK as economy defies Brexit fears
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/27/nissan-to-make-new-qashqai-and-x-trail-models-in-britain
As a result of assurances etc from UK Govt. We don't yet know what they are.
Alternatively and cynically govt know that incentives breach EU state aid rules and Brussels' attempts to overrule will stoke the fire.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Oct 16 at 19:57
|
Alternatively and cynically govt know that incentives breach EU state aid rules and Brussels' attempts
>> to overrule will stoke the fire.....
>>
Or they could have given assurances to start post EU membership, when they aren't any (or less) rules to worry about?
|
>> Nissan to make new car models in UK as economy defies Brexit fears
Nissan was convinced to stay in the UK with a promise of no tariffs or extra bureaucratic burdens on the car industry after Brexit, the business secretary has finally revealed, prompting fears that sector-by-sector deals could cost the taxpayer “colossal amounts of moneyâ€.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers
|
The UK's service sector helped the economy to grow faster than expected in the three months after the Brexit vote, official figures have indicated.
The economy expanded by 0.5% in the July-to-September period, according to the Office for National Statistics.
That was slower than the 0.7% rate in the previous quarter, but stronger than analysts' estimates of about 0.3%.
"There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote," the ONS said.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37786467
"Brexit supporters will take these figures as a sign that warnings about the economic costs of voting to leave the EU were nothing more than scaremongering."
"Remain supporters will argue that only prompt action by the Bank of England saved the economy and that worse is to come. "
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 27 Oct 16 at 13:34
|
How much more would the economy have grown if we voted to remain in the UK? Is good news about Nissan I can't deny that.
However I we are still int he EU and the single market, we won't know what will happen until we actually leave.
|
>> How much more would the economy have grown if we voted to remain in the UK?
Well the rate was 0.7% in the previous quarter. So, by my reckoning, not very much, if at all.
|
Rats, your glass is half empty again:)
Pat
|
|
I believe Honda have also said that Brexit does not alter their plans for the UK.
|
>>Brexit supporters will take these figures as a sign that warnings about the economic costs of voting to leave the EU were nothing more than scaremongering."
Mostly nonsense. Too early to tell as we've not exited yet.
>>"Remain supporters will argue that only prompt action by the Bank of England saved the economy and that worse is to come. "
Complete nonsense. The lag time between a change in interest rates and the effect on the economy is typically 12 to 18 months.
The fact is it's too early to tell. Once we know what Brexit deal is hammered out we will know more.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Thu 27 Oct 16 at 19:44
|
There are real signs of problems in the economy that are hidden by quantitative easing and very low interest rates.
I work with many businesses that are effectively zombies. Their turnover is static (so in real terms falling). They are borrowing to their maximum facilities and would be loss making if the base rate rose to 2%.
|
>> I work with many businesses that are effectively zombies. Their turnover is static (so in
>> real terms falling). They are borrowing to their maximum facilities and would be loss making
>> if the base rate rose to 2%.
>>
The same could be said of most, if not all, companies in the world - if their country's base rate goes up eight fold (i.e. comparing with UK current 0.25% going up by a factor of eight to 2.00%).
|
>> The same could be said of most, if not all, companies in the world -
>> if their country's base rate goes up eight fold (i.e. comparing with UK current 0.25%
>> going up by a factor of eight to 2.00%).
>>
>>
Rates were 2% in 2008 and higher previously. If inflation kicks off then expect rates to rise.
|
Hope you savoury spread lovers stocked up
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37801847
|
|
Yes, Brexit does provide a convenient reason for a price rise doesn't it - especially when you consider that it made in the UK from by products of the brewing industry and salt - which I expect has to be imported from the Dead Sea.
|
|
I hope anyone wanting a new Apple computer bought one before yesterday (when the new Macbook Pros were announced). Most Mac prices went up - some by quite a lot.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 28 Oct 16 at 16:51
|
Tony Blair is pushing for a second referendum as he does not like the result of the first one.
OK - What happens if "Leave" wins again, eh?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:21
|
|
I don't think very many are interested in what that individual has to say.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:22
|
Tony Blair is a smooth talking conman very clever but he has number one written on his forehead.
He has a point,me thinks we got ourself in a almighty cock up.>:)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:22
|
It's odd though isn't it because if the Referendum had gone the other way and Remain won by a small margin, what their response would be towards those who are asking for a second vote etc.
I suspect something along the lines: " it's democracy, you lost, put up with it, eff off etc. "
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:22
|
>> I suspect something along the lines: " it's democracy, you lost, put up with it,
>> eff off etc. "
Farage said that if Leave lost by a few percentage points then as far as he was concerned, it would not be game over. So what's good for the goose!?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:22
|
|
He's more of a cock than a gander.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Oct 16 at 05:21
|
>>
>> Farage said that if Leave lost by a few percentage points then as far as
>> he was concerned, it would not be game over. So what's good for the goose!?
>>
So has anyone got the point yet that referendums are divisive and undemocratic, taking responsibility for decisions away from elected politicians and casting it to the mob?
|
|
I seem to remember making that point when the referendum was announced.
|
>> I seem to remember making that point when the referendum was announced.
>>
It occurred to me at the time of the Scottish referendum, and before that the referendums on devolution.
An extreme case of the inherent falsity of the concept was well illustrated at the time of the plebiscite in the Sudetenland in 1938.
In any mass head-counting exercise the result is usually the same - one side just wins, the other side just loses, so large numbers of people having been led to believe they were meaningfully being consulted usually end up angry and resentful.
That's not necessarily the case in a representative parliamentary election, because even after a rare landslide outcome, individual policies and outcomes are still arguable and the representatives can still be swayed by reason and debate.
|
>> So has anyone got the point yet that referendums are divisive and undemocratic, taking responsibility
>> for decisions away from elected politicians and casting it to the mob?
As exemplified by wannabee UKIP leader proposing a referendum on banning the niqab
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/28/ukip-leadership-candidate-raheem-kassam-donald-trump-niqab-referendum
|
>> As exemplified by wannabee UKIP leader proposing a referendum on banning the niqab
Kassam is a person quite unsuitable to lead any party.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 31 Oct 16 at 01:20
|
Following posting is not mine, but I read in readers' comment section of Daily Express. I just copy pasted here as I found it an interesting reading.
------------------------------------------
I find it amusing that a number of people (remainiacs) are on here posting how it's a bad thing, how the costs of things will go up etc.
However as someone who knows more than a little about supply and demand economics, I can confirm this. The poor and the modest earners gain absolutely ZERO benefit overall from mass immigration, the only ones who truly benefit are the well paid and the owners of companies.
The reasons are very simple.
1.) It drives down low/no skilled wages.
2.) those on those lower wages, then need "top ups" from the government to survive.
3.) it drives up the cost of housing massively due to much higher demand
4.) it increases the strain on the NHS, local authorities etc, due to more people, whilst adding more "low paid" people into the equation who are net beneficiaries of the system not net contributors.
But what benefits does that mass immigration bring?
1.) it drives down wages, so companies can afford to pay less for the same job.
2.) It allows companies to be subsidised by government through things such as housing benefit and tax credits, so they know people can/will accept a job for a wage they cannot afford to live on.
3.) It drives down the cost of "things" such as food, clothes etc as it's slightly cheaper to bring them to the market.
I can't tell you exactly what the numbers are, but I can tell you this, the slight reduction in costs of things such as food are vastly outweighed by the increased costs of housing. So even before we take wages into account the low/no skilled are already worse off and that's before we even consider that their exorbitant rents are subsidised by housing benefits, but where do those high rents go?
Yes you've got it, to the people who are already "well off" or rich.
So in simple terms, mass immigration is a significant driving force in the wealth gap, that has widened substantially over the last 15 years. It also has been a substantial driving force in the widening of the gap between public sector and private sector pay. Are you honestly telling me that you think that the person who looks after you when your ill, is worth double that, of the person who allows you to feed yourself?
The market determines what a "job" is worth, mostly based on supply and demand, that's why the price of plumbers went up massively a decade or 2 ago and has now come back down again.
But at the end of the day, even the lowliest job has to be worth a wage sufficient to live on.
Possibly the oddest thing is that the so called socialists are the biggest fans of mass immigration, despite the fact that it 100% shafts the low/no skilled.
As for the suggestion that the NHS will collapse etc, ask yourself, why do we need so many extra nurses and doctors, predominantly foreign? Might the massive population increase have something to do with it? Might the rise of the numbers of people living on handouts and being less generally healthy have something to do with it?
Anyone that thinks that mass immigration is of benefit to the normal people of the UK, is either well off and does benefit, or hasn't thought about it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Nov 16 at 01:28
|
|
Did you think the primary assumptions (wage depression, and NHS demand increase, due to immigration) were accurate? Or that the author has troubled to examine any evidence at all?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Nov 16 at 01:28
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Parliament must be involved in article 50.
|
|
Thus the Establishment's betrayal starts.
|
>> Thus the Establishment's betrayal starts.
Not a fan of parliamentary democracy ;)
Something like this was bound to happen, using obscure rules from the 17th century was always going to leave her on shaky ground.
|
"Thus the Establishment's betrayal starts."
Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised; aren't these the same twerps who sustain the work of Mr Vazeline?
|
Most likely parliament won't block it as that would be mockery of democracy. However, they'd water down Brexit as much as possible so that it would be Brexit only in namesake. Then they'd demand a further referendum within 10 years where people would gladly vote to join in.
Thus the life continues as usual.
|
I make no apologies for reposting here a Tweet that has had wide circulation!
So, next steps for #Brexit and #Article50 could be a UK Government appeal to the European Court of Justice. How hilarious would that be.
|
Telegraph:
3 NOVEMBER 2016 • 12:09PM
The Bank of England has almost doubled its economic growth forecast for 2017 and scrapped its planned interest rate cut, in a dramatic u-turn on its earlier warnings that the economy would suffer a severe post-referendum crunch.
The pound spiked against the dollar and euro on Thursday after the Bank predicted Britain's economy would grow by 1.4pc next year, almost double the 0.8pc it predicted just three months ago.
This represents the biggest upgrade the Bank has ever made to its forecasts.
As a result there is no longer any need to cut interest rates further or to increase the current programme of quantitative easing, the rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee said.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 13:14
|
|
These figures are at best guesses, I have seen more accurate weather forecasts.
|
>> These figures are at best guesses, I have seen more accurate weather forecasts.
>>
You know that, I know that, but does the BoE or BBC know that?
Here's the BBC headline as if "forecasts" are facts:
"Brexit economic pain delayed, not cancelled"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37861669
|
|
Surely this reported change of heart is as a result of uncertainty as to whether brexit will actually be BREXIT.
|
>> Surely this reported change of heart is as a result of uncertainty as to whether
>> brexit will actually be BREXIT.
>>
Probably a condition of the renewal of Carney's contract. Was he made an offer he couldn't refuse?
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 13:23
|
Brexit legal challenge: Labour says it will still push for UK to leave the EU after High Court ruling
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-article-50-high-court-ruling-jeremy-corbyn-a7395101.html
Must be the something to do with most labour consituencies wanting Brexit :-)
|
I thought Gina Miller put the issue very well
What we're saying is, very simply, you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it."
Ms Miller added that the challenge was about more than Brexit.
"This case is far more fundamental than that.
"It is about any government, any prime minister, in the future being able to take away people's rights without consulting Parliament.
"We cannot have a democracy like that. That isn't a democracy, that is verging on dictatorship."
|
A vote by MPs should not be to avoid leaving the EU - that is decided. But bypassing parliament sets a bad precedent. What else might be forced through.
In fact what's stopping Parliament overturning the power May intends using before we even get to March.
Those in charge of negotiating to leave are making such a poor go of it you'd think they are hoping they will fail.
As I see it, nothing much can be debated and certainly not agreed until we leave the EU. So have a vote tomorrow on Article 50 and get on with it. The sooner the country gets screwed up the sooner we can get on with fixing it.
|
|
Mr batten undermines his own argument about half way through, i think he hopes no one notices.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_2Ml4af74&feature=youtu.be
Extract from BBC news where Gerard Batten, an UKIP MEP, 'destroys the legal arguments against Brexit'.
Former BT salesman beats the country's greatest legal minds.
Yeah Right,
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 18:23
|
No he's well informed and even wrote a booklet on it. And he thinks it should be left to parliament.... so a vote on it then. What a prat.
I wonder if he goes back to selling BT products when he's out of a job soon?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 18:29
|
So if the Parliament is effectively going to decide on Brexit, wtf was the point of a referendum?
However, Remoaners haven't won yet. Never underestimate the self-serving interests of MPs. Any MP whose constituency voted Leave will almost definitely vote for Brexit in order to keep their seat.
Cameron has a lot to answer for.
|
>> Any MP whose constituency voted Leave will almost definitely vote for Brexit in order to keep their seat.
Likely - otherwise a Remain MP may not remain an MP for long.
|
>> So if the Parliament is effectively going to decide on Brexit, wtf was the point of a referendum?
Who has said the MPs won't vote for this. There just needs to be a debate about this. It's called democracy.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 20:05
|
>> Any MP whose constituency voted Leave will almost definitely vote for Brexit in order to keep their seat.
A constituency may have had a majority to leave in the Referendum based on votes from across parties. Don't assume they would all vote for one pro-EU exit party.
|
If there is an election soon, it will be effectively another EU referendum. Party policies will become irrelevant. People will cast votes based on what party they think will make Brexit happen and which one would back remain.
Next election might see a partnership between Brexit Conservatives and UKIP. The Labour party is likely to suffer the most.
|
>> If there is an election soon, it will be effectively another EU referendum.
Probably.
>> Party policies will become irrelevant.
No it won't. The winning party will then govern for 5 years. The party does matter.
>> Next election might see a partnership between ...
Or a coalition involving say the Liberals. And no overall majority and coalition means no out-right leadership so harder to get a deal. For that reason an election is a bad idea and will be avoided.
|
>>I thought Gina Miller put the issue very well
Here here!
Ok, we are going to Brexit but it needs to be done legally!
I love the attitude of some right leaning tabloids in claiming the judges are trying to prevent Brexit and the people's choice and some of the comments from readers suggest the the judges should be strung up for being traitors!
These papers are stirring extremists views, implying that a dictatorship is what is needed to achieve Brexit.
The judges have just interpreted the law and given a ruling based on that. They have not said that we cannot Brexit!
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 3 Nov 16 at 20:31
|
The legal reasoning behind the judgement.
It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle
Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union.
|
We are not getting out of this quagmire are we?
Why not invoke article 50 now to have done with it.Next March is to far away and Theresa May must have known that.Or is it becoming a stich up to overturn the Brexit vote?
|
>> Why not invoke article 50 now to have done with it.
We can as soon as there is a debate and then a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
|
>>Why not invoke article 50 now to have done with it.Next March is to far away and Theresa May must have known that.Or is it becoming a stich up to overturn the Brexit vote?>>
For the simple reason that proper preparations must be undertaken to ensure that invoking Article 50 will be to ensure maximum benefit for the UK.
|
>>
>> Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s,
>> so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to
>> the European Union.
>>
True, but there is a developing expectation that referendums have some kind of over-riding power that trumps that of parliament. That is when the SNP believed, at least until they lost the independence vote. But they still believe it for a future referendum, at least so far as the result goes their way.
If referendums are to become an intrinsic part of the British constitutional convention, which does appear to be in the process of current evolution, then some way has to exist for causing the result to be implemented. So far we have been presented with two options;
1) A referendum result must be implemented as soon as possible without any further authority
or
2) A referendum result is no more than an official opinion poll and parliament alone can decide whether to implement it.
|
>> A referendum result must be implemented as soon as possible without any further authority
The govt. handout before the referendum did mention exactly same thing. Cameron gambled assuming IN would win. Now the genie is OUT of the bottle and can't be put back.
Without arguing whether Brexit is good or bad, it has proven parliamentary democracy is out of touch with public.
Based on 52:48 referendum outcome, if MPs represent common public then their own preference should have been in the range of 50:50 but in reality it is 75:25 in favour of IN
(source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946)
Which means MPs views are seriously out of sync with common public. That is the fundamental problem why people lost faith on representative parliamentary democracy.
I could not find any ratio for House of Lords but various newspapers say they are even more skewed towards pro-EU.
Naturally public (especially OUT group) are frustrated at this court ruling.
|
|
It was the case that the public favoured capital punishment, yet it has been repealed against the popular view, and is unlikely ever to return under a representative democracy. Despite all the foibles of our creaking system, I'd prefer Parliament to decide important matters rather than a volatile electorate. A buffer if you like, able, if not invariably, to consider with seriousness and some responsibility. And to reconsider if necessary! Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, but the exit faction want to prevent informed reconsideration of EU membership. In the light of events so far, the benefits of leaving appear to be small except possibly for the owners of the right wing press. Tax haven patriots.
|
>> Despite all the foibles of our creaking system, I'd prefer Parliament to decide important matters rather than a volatile electorate.
Why the referendum was offered then?
The question was whether UK should leave or remain in EU. The question was not whether parliament should debate leaving EU or about terms of leaving EU.
|
|
I had an inkling months ago that this may happen, when they stated that the referendum wasn't binding!
|
|
A toe-dipping exercise really, as the referendum was no more than advisory. And the result was very close, so not decisive. It could have been constructed (with measures to ensure that only a decisive or pre-set margin would prevailed, or even a bare majority either way) to mandate Parliament, but it wasn't. We cannot simply leave. It is not Farage la-la land yet. Even so, it will fall to Parliament to decide whether the outcome of negotiations are acceptable. Or whether to call an election. Or any other possible ways out of this dog's breakfast where the UK remains intact and relatively prosperous. It could be a long haul….
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 4 Nov 16 at 10:47
|
Boris Johnson's 'pro-EU' column revealed - Dog
