Brexit
- Thread starter Mrs Trellis
- Start date
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Four and a half years to get to a less favourable deal than the one we had, and judging by the noise on the DM website doesn't even satisfy the diehard Brexiters. And it means, that unless I make it rich in the next 10 years I'm unlikely to be able to retire to France.
StealthYak
New member
When you spend 4 years running the clock down because you know from the start that you can never deliver what you persuaded people to vote for all that is left is the choice between a very crap deal and an even worse no deal. Is that what you mean by a pragmatic choice ?
Pitlamp
Well-known member
As someone who always believed, on balance, that it would have been better to have stayed in, yesterday's news was far less bad than it could have been. But it's already history and there's nothing we can do now except pull together as a nation, look forwards rather than backwards - and make the best of it.
Hey, it'll be 2021 soon!
Hey, it'll be 2021 soon!
StealthYak said:
I told people before the referendum it was a choice being in the EU and what we have now, because there is no other logical outcome. All other outcomes are worse than being in the EU with no possibility of compensation elsewhere. It was never the situation that the UK got to choose some optimal state, there is another party with it?s own interests. And the UK is a threat given it?s size, we are not Iceland. So we are exactly where I thought we would end up.
I would point out that the large number of theoretical estimates used by the OBR on Brexit productivity impact are still way smaller than the gap that existed already in 2015 between the UK and most of NW Europe. That would be a good place to start thinking about stuff. If you have ever worked in Germany or the Netherlands you will be painfully aware of the embarrassing differences in efficiency. Which BTW extends to things like healthcare too.
People need to let go of old thinking and comfortable ways and take a risk. It?s not been happening enough. People are obsessed with dividing up what they think is a big pie and not anywhere near enough on making it bigger. To do that in a world where the return from manual labour is pitiful means upping overall skill levels to attract investment. Nearly 40% of kids still leave year 11 without grade 4 in maths and English. It?s appalling, and a lot of it is down to a lack of urgency or giving a shit, not time spent in class (11 years of education and half can?t do long multiplication properly). We spend more on education per child than France and Germany with a poorer outcome. It can?t go on like this if people want this standard of living.
Luckily it seems 600,000 HK Chinese are in the post. That should inject some urgency.
aardgoose
Member
No. I am not helping the people who I have no values in common with, I am not a collaborator. They have removed rights from me and my wider family. Those people are the ones who want to take us backwards, and further remove my rights. I am never working with the people who were quite happy for me to be jailed for existing, and would like those days to return. I am not supporting a country run by a party that is little short of the BNP.
Appeasement never works.
We have a government that relies on an uneducated and uninformed population to stay in power, we have a culture where ignorance is celebrated, where science and engineering are seen as something for the lower ranks. This isn't a moment where the country is moving forwards, we have made the country much less attractive to investors, to skilled people who can expect to face more hostility. We have hobbled our industry with more red tape than ever, with much of beyond our control.
The UK is a much poorer, nastier place and the damage will take decades to undo. There is nothing to look forward to.
pwhole
Well-known member
aardgoose pretty much saved me the typing. I look forward to the day when we can use Johnson as a giant pink pi?ata - metaphorically of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KrXfJzJlXk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KrXfJzJlXk
You know, Pitlamp, I?ve never really ?got? this:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Why should one go round changing things just because one can?
Perhaps what she should have said was:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can IF THEY NEED CHANGING,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Why should one go round changing things just because one can?
Perhaps what she should have said was:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can IF THEY NEED CHANGING,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
aardgoose
Member
that is more inline with the quote's original formulation. Though it isn't Ms O'Connor's fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
Although there is a great difference between accepting this countries descent into a Randian hellhole and actively encouraging it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
Although there is a great difference between accepting this countries descent into a Randian hellhole and actively encouraging it.
royfellows
Well-known member
Regardless of me regarding this whole thread as a waste of server space, I would like to make a few points.
The outcome of elections and referenda is decided by what is usually known as the ?silent majority?
They are called this because (a) They are silent. (b) They form the majority.
To expand the arguments, (a) is best described in terms of what they don?t do. I mean that they don?t wage keyboard battle on social media, march through the streets, wave placards, or attempt to make political points on caving website forums.
(b) Is simple in that as already stated they decide the outcome of elections and referendums. And as such, you never really know what they are thinking until the results are declared.
Now the thing to realise is that regardless of some people banging away at all of the various activities described above in (a), it doesn?t make a blinding bit of difference to (b).
Dead simple
Have good Christmas, what?s left of it, and hopefully a better New year.
The outcome of elections and referenda is decided by what is usually known as the ?silent majority?
They are called this because (a) They are silent. (b) They form the majority.
To expand the arguments, (a) is best described in terms of what they don?t do. I mean that they don?t wage keyboard battle on social media, march through the streets, wave placards, or attempt to make political points on caving website forums.
(b) Is simple in that as already stated they decide the outcome of elections and referendums. And as such, you never really know what they are thinking until the results are declared.
Now the thing to realise is that regardless of some people banging away at all of the various activities described above in (a), it doesn?t make a blinding bit of difference to (b).
Dead simple
Have good Christmas, what?s left of it, and hopefully a better New year.
aardgoose
Member
The description of the 'silent majority' is ahistorical. in that they are
a) rarely silent.
b) not a majority.
The term is used purely to foster a sense of victimhood in a group who's views are often already given greater weight than their number merit and seeks to silence any other opinions, for example the Goebbels inspired term 'The Will of the People' used to invalidate any dissent.
The majority gained in the referendum wasn't a single group. Multiple groups sometimes with mutually exclusive views were targeted with falsehoods, that had advertising standards applied would have declared illegal. For instance that Turkey would be joining the EU, whilst ignoring the fact the UK had a veto.
A referendum that disenfranchised many of those most effected by the result, should not have stood. For instance, people who had been living outside the UK for more than 15 years. Two members of my family were disenfranchised by this, but now live in the UK, and the rights of others in my family to live with their partner and children are diminished.
Very few economists see any positive outcome of brexit, and those that do envisage the destruction of UK agriculture and manufacturing industry (as admitted by Patrick Minford in a HoC Select Committee).
The future of this country is bleak, and sadly the most vulnerable in this society will be blamed, rather than those responsible. Racism has been deemed acceptable, dishonesty and corruption in government is now unchecked, I would like to think those on this forum were against such things, but they are the result of the referendum.
The damage from brexit is much more than leaving the EU. Democracy in the UK is greatly damaged. The power of parliament and the courts to hold the executive in check are being eroded. Ministers are no longer held accountable for their failures and behaviour. This isn't progress. It is the path to a failed state.
a) rarely silent.
b) not a majority.
The term is used purely to foster a sense of victimhood in a group who's views are often already given greater weight than their number merit and seeks to silence any other opinions, for example the Goebbels inspired term 'The Will of the People' used to invalidate any dissent.
The majority gained in the referendum wasn't a single group. Multiple groups sometimes with mutually exclusive views were targeted with falsehoods, that had advertising standards applied would have declared illegal. For instance that Turkey would be joining the EU, whilst ignoring the fact the UK had a veto.
A referendum that disenfranchised many of those most effected by the result, should not have stood. For instance, people who had been living outside the UK for more than 15 years. Two members of my family were disenfranchised by this, but now live in the UK, and the rights of others in my family to live with their partner and children are diminished.
Very few economists see any positive outcome of brexit, and those that do envisage the destruction of UK agriculture and manufacturing industry (as admitted by Patrick Minford in a HoC Select Committee).
The future of this country is bleak, and sadly the most vulnerable in this society will be blamed, rather than those responsible. Racism has been deemed acceptable, dishonesty and corruption in government is now unchecked, I would like to think those on this forum were against such things, but they are the result of the referendum.
The damage from brexit is much more than leaving the EU. Democracy in the UK is greatly damaged. The power of parliament and the courts to hold the executive in check are being eroded. Ministers are no longer held accountable for their failures and behaviour. This isn't progress. It is the path to a failed state.
langcliffe
Well-known member
Brains said:
Just to be clear, the "Removal of border checks" row is misleading. The UK and Ireland have always had border controls with the rest of the EU, not having signed the Schengen Agreement. Admittedly, the border checks may become more rigourous.
Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are non-EU countries who are within the Schengen area.
tony from suffolk
Well-known member
So now we're all pathetically grateful a deal's been signed & we're not getting the disastrous no-deal option. It's pretty well identical to May's proposal; you know, the one Johnson voted against. Now apparently it's the best thing since sliced bread because he "negotiated" it. There was a much better deal we could have had of course...
So here's a few things that we'll be sacrificing :-
So here's a few things that we'll be sacrificing :-
Purely out of interest, have you ever been on a flight which stopped in Europe before flying east? I regularly commuted to SE Asia and I know of none, and believe me I looked. If you fly to Schipol or Frankfurt, that is hub and spoke, not an onward flight. Who wants to short hop a 777 or (god forbid) a 380 - it's not a commuter bus.
For me the best options usually hub via the ME given I want to fly out of Manchester. Flying to Perth, KL or Singapore the best option was usually Qatar, and certainly the best deal in business class. All other reasonable options like hubbing via HK fly to London. Turkish Airlines is a viable option for many via Istanbul, and has decent planes.
Nothing will change in aviation. The British fly the most of any country in Europe. It's a business people want. If there was any chance of that falling, then maybe that would be good, but I somewhat doubt it will happen.
Finland are offering 90 day work permits, all expenses paid, to try and attract skilled workers. There is a shortage. I worked abroad before freedom of movement in Europe. There was zero issue if you had a job. If you want to live in another country then apply for citizenship if it takes your fancy. Or move to Finland (I have a lot of Finnish jokes if that will help).
For me the best options usually hub via the ME given I want to fly out of Manchester. Flying to Perth, KL or Singapore the best option was usually Qatar, and certainly the best deal in business class. All other reasonable options like hubbing via HK fly to London. Turkish Airlines is a viable option for many via Istanbul, and has decent planes.
Nothing will change in aviation. The British fly the most of any country in Europe. It's a business people want. If there was any chance of that falling, then maybe that would be good, but I somewhat doubt it will happen.
Finland are offering 90 day work permits, all expenses paid, to try and attract skilled workers. There is a shortage. I worked abroad before freedom of movement in Europe. There was zero issue if you had a job. If you want to live in another country then apply for citizenship if it takes your fancy. Or move to Finland (I have a lot of Finnish jokes if that will help).
