I don't think distancing themselves means they don't want it... It's just what you are supposed to say
Gove particularly I think has been looking for this... A brexiteer who showed party loyalty in backing may.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Gove particularly I think has been looking for this... A brexiteer who showed party loyalty in backing may.
Quite right.
There were essentially two primary options to overcome the global financial crisis.
Grow your way out by stimulating the economy taking advantage of the very low interest rates. This would entail increased public spending in the short term.
Austerity. The government chose the latter but as we saw this has been a dismal failure.
Firstly it didn't work because it has had to abandon it's fiscal targets.
And secondly it had to resort to quantitative easing by printing money.
The problem with austerity is that it leaves significant collateral damage to public services which take years and lots of money to repair.
The government was warned by economic experts to persue a mix of actions but being Conservatives they seemed to enjoy austerity.
IMO there cannot be 'a good deal' in terms purely of economics, because of the reasons I have already outlined previously. Hypothetically a 'good deal' would have to incorporate variations to the Four freedoms to suit the UK's requirements and this would effectively be a breach of (primarily) the Treaty of Rome for the EU and which it cannot allow for any member; hence we have to leave before we can negotiate freely.
Well if you take the old adage about "If I were you I wouldn't start from here..." but here, is were we are, then it does make sense. One of the reasons we are in this position is because the former trading block (i.e. common market, entry to which was subject to a referendum) has now become something more, its now a political as well as trading entity the EU, and this was all done over the last forty years without any reference to whether the UK public wanted it or not. Now we are effectively comparing different entities, leavers were predominantly voting on the 'political union', aspect whilst remain voters mainly about economics and trade.
I have. You can be registered as employed even though you may have had no real work in weeks/months. You also have no protection from getting booted out the door on a whim, no sick pay, etc.... Feck all that.
I did. No work for a week and then suddenly a text message at 6 in the morning "shift in Aberdeen 12 hours starts at midday. Respond ok to accept". Aberdeen 3 1/2 hours drive from where I am. Basically it was a shit fest because if you said "no" to a single shift then you were blacklisted. It was like that for about 8 months.
Left that shithole of a job to get a cushy public sector number, and that company went bust a couple of years ago.
I had one for about 5 years, all the way through college and uni. Was great, worked extra in the holidays, turned down shifts at exam time.
My company offers zero hours too. We have a bank of staff we call on when our perm staff are ill or on annual leave. Most of them have full time jobs elsewhere (it’s a specialist field) so they just get extra shifts for money when needed. If we can’t use those staff because they’re busy or whatever, we have to use an agency, which costs more (we’re a charity).
Zero hours contacts aren’t a problem when used sensibly. The problem is places like sports direct who use it to shave their rota down to the minimum amount of hours. Trouble is those places are already shifting to 8 hr contracts or shorter, which is barely better and a ban on zero hrs contracts wouldn’t stop that practice.
Likely from NI so it’s a valid fear
Not wanting a hard border isn't enough if you put yourself in a position where countries are legally obliged to have one and/or not having one leaves them open to potential litigation. You have to actually come up with ways to avoid placing yourself in that position, which the UK have so far been unable to do. Just saying "we won't implement it" doesn't solve the problem.
The EU really is an appalling organisation. It has at its heart a project which envisages a union with full economic and political integration - basically the demise of nation states in favour of something which seems to me to be vaguely Orwellian - but it understands that this is still unpopular with the majority of its citizens. It has therefore created this monster in which free trade is somehow linked with various aspects of political union, and perpetuated the myth that you can't have one without the other (even though every other free trade agreement in the world manages it quite nicely). This basically forces people to decide between having both free trade (popular) and increasing levels of integration (unpopular), or having neither of them.
The best outcome for most people in the EU would be for the organisation to revert to being a trading bloc, and to abandon its ambitions for political and economic integration. However, the introduction of the Euro was a major step in the direction of integration, and it would now be very difficult to unwind. The UK was a significant voice inside the EU for putting the brakes on integration, but the argument was already lost. In the longer term, our relationship with the EU was always going to have to change: either we would commit to the integration agenda, or we would walk away. I still very much hope we do the latter as soon as possible.
Well we'll just disagree on that one i think mate.
Also the intentions of the EU project have been pretty clear from the start as far as i know, to form closer bonds between the European powers and try to create an environment where frequent wars between countries in Europe were a thing of the past. Trade was only a part of that endeavour.
But i would be interested in your answer to the question at the end of my last post?
To condense that further basically i would like to know how you think the UK could have made No Deal the plan from the start when it's pretty much incompatible with the GFA?
Yet Australia did just or rather managed to.avoud recession with big public spending.
Ever heard of the New Deal?
I had a part-time job when I was a student without the need for zero hour contracts.
If you're lucky that's still the case. However, lots of places only offer zero hours contracts nowadays.
I know quite a few people on them that would rather work 35 hours per week every week, which when the business deems it necessary they do, however it's an easy punishment for any slight disagreement to reduce your hours whilst giving more to others.
High drama at RAWK!:
I ask this because you seem to have given the subject a lot of thought... From which rules are you most looking forward to us being free?
Also, what would be the downside of any demise of nation states?
I had three zero hour contract jobs at once a few years ago to make ends meet. Two of them with the same company in different areas of the business (which was valued as the world's most profitable in its field at that time).
I can tell you from that experience that Colin is talking out of his arse. I know people in their 40s, 50s and 60s still doing those jobs without a chance that they will ever be taken on permanently, because that company knows it's not in their interests. No sick pay, no bonuses, no pensions to worry about, and if it's a quiet day, they can send staff home or phone them up beforehand at the drop of a hat and cancel their shifts. The only people that really benefit from their existence are the big companies that exploit the workers who have no other choice.
The myth that the 1975 referendum was purely about joining /staying in an economic market is long dead. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Having a FTA with the EU is not going to solve the problems the UK will experience being outside the Customs Union or the Single Market.
Being sent to Aberdeen alone is enough exploitation!
History has nothing to do with that post. We're talking about present time here. WTO rules lead to hard borders. So either the UK choose to have a hard border with Ireland else it has to remove all borders with everyone else. Sure strictly speaking things can go smoothly in that way unless someone (ie 169 WTO members) complains. However we all know that is next to impossible. Someone WILL complain. That's why Hammond and Karen Bradley had said that in an event of a no deal brexit hard borders will be necessary
PS The EU will expect Ireland to protect the single market from the 'food' and non EU complaint products the British will have to accept following any trade deals set after Brexit. As said the integrity of the single market is key here.
Last edited:
Northern Ireland stays in the Single Market and the Custom's Union one way or another.
I'll take your last question first. The concept of the nation state isn't perfect, but I think it has served us fairly well for several centuries. It also supports a reasonable level of accountability of the government to the governed (in democracies at least). The notion of replacing nation states with larger agglomerations seems to me to be an experiment in which there are no obvious upsides. There is evidence already of tensions between the interests of the EU as a bloc, and the interests of the populations of individual states. It is going to be interesting to see how these play out as I don't see them going away any time soon.
To your first question, I accept that, as non-participants in the Euro or Schengen, we already avoid some of the 'rules' (though I doubt the long term viability of our form of EU membership). I would nevertheless like us to be able to set aside the free movement of people within the EU, and to craft policies which can be adapted to suit our specific needs (see below). I would also like to take us out of the jurisdiction of any EU legislature - as a mature democracy, we're perfectly capable of crafting and maintaining our own laws. In addition, I'd like us to be the masters of our own marine environment.
I understand that the first reaction of many people to suggestions about taking away 'free movement' is that this is based on some kind of xenophobia, or ignorance about the contribution made by immigrants to our economy and culture. To be clear, I'm not an opponent of immigration, but I do believe a country has a responsibility to manage it. By 'manage', I don't mean the setting of crude numerical targets - it seems to me that these fail to account for the fact that immigration generally benefits our economy and helps to compensate for our worsening demographic. Management of immigration would entail favouring people with particular skills, ensuring the impacts of immigration are spread, having policies to minimise 'ghettoisation', and procedures in place to quickly integrate new arrivals into our culture and way of life. Free movement as defined by the EU makes such management virtually impossible.
@Steerpike
You understand the whole picture.
The EU is a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries and moves towards a fully integrated EU so the next step is to have a European President.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/220193/factsheet/en
About immigration, Germany shows the way
https://codastory.com/migration-cri...efugees-pays-one-euro-an-hour-sometimes-less/
You understand the whole picture.
The EU is a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries and moves towards a fully integrated EU so the next step is to have a European President.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/220193/factsheet/en
About immigration, Germany shows the way
https://codastory.com/migration-cri...efugees-pays-one-euro-an-hour-sometimes-less/
Worked for many years under zero hours contracts. Had a few situations where a manager had a strop with me and my hours were halved for a number of weeks. Horrible way to work.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to delve far into the nation state issue, except to point out a potential for less war and tribalism in general. Maybe less competition for resources etc. But I was really just wanting to know your objections because I haven't really given the subject much thought.
We are fully capable of making our own rules, potentially at least. It is our governments which have failed in this task. I don't see how the EU have stopped us from dealing with the migraton related issues you mention. We have had higher immigration from south asia than from the EU in most years, until very recently. Our governments simply aren't interested in long term planning, unless their shares portfolio is involved. Or, to be more accurate. Labour kind of tried to help integration, but never went nearly far enough because the press love stories of money going to immigrants. Then the consevatives came along in 2010 and ripped it all up under the guise of austerity.
That’s quite good. Stealing this and going to pass it off as my own quote in real life
I think your comment on our governments not being interested in long term planning is very apt. Our democracy, and maybe democracy in general, has a weakness in that the full effect of policies may take decades to unfold, but we hold our governments to account (hold elections) much more frequently. A change in government all too often means a change of direction (though thankfully the convention is that new governments don't simply repeal the legislation introduced by their predecessors). I've tended to the view that our first past the post system leads to stable and durable government, but I'm starting to think that a PR based system may give us more sensible government.
I'm not in favour of another vote, but I suspect it's going to happen. In order for the vote to be fair, I think there would have to be 2 questions: -
1. Should the UK stay in the EU or leave (i.e. a repeat of the 2016 referendum).
2. In the event of a vote to leave, should this be on the basis of the deal presented by the government, or should it be on a different premise which would have to be negotiated after we have left (i.e. leaving without a deal in place).
The second question would only become relevant if the answer to the first question was 'leave'.
I would also make it absolutely clear that the referendum result was binding.
"It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus"
R.I.P. satire 2019.
R.I.P. satire 2019.
This would make for great comedy if only people saw it as such instead of buying into BoJo's shit. He can go feck himself
Surprised it wasn't a Churchill quote.
I honestly don't know how the parallels between the enslavement of ancient Hebrews in Egypt and Brexit have escaped me up until this point. How could I have missed Boris as Moses? His first act as PM? Ten plagues on Europe until they set the UK free.
Boris predicts the future.
40 years of wandering in the wilderness and refused entry to the promised land aka sunlit uplands.
I know the average Brexit voter is slightly older but I'm not sure that 3000+ year old references are going to work that well. It was suggested that it was discussed today that some of her MP's might get on board with her deal in exchange for her setting out her departure, in line with the Sun's front page, but Johnson's comments (when you ignore his usual bullshit nonsense) indicate that isn't the case.