Problem is the limited jobs for students qualified in Robin Hood Studies or The Psychology of Ghosts.
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.
Good thing those aren't actual subjects then.
Fair enough - the fact they're so unusual though shows they're obviously not that widespread. It's a bit silly to claim that those few courses are the reason people aren't getting jobs.
Yes I know. And I'm not. But I think it is fair to say that some courses are really over-subscribed.
More time and effort should go into degree apprenticeships and vocational courses. It's not just creating them it's making them attractive to youngsters.
I have shop floor engineers here that are not degree qualified yet they regularly P60 £70k+ with overtime.
Mother of godThere is nothing to disagree with here, but its not the end of the story!
Investment in London and the South East is nothing new and has been building for centuries, but the rate of London/SE gobbling up investment and new areas of possible employment has taken off significantly since the UK's membership of the EU, helping to deprive the rest of the country of the investment it needs, mainly because of geography! Of course there have been half hearted attempts to 'off set' this, the latest wheeze is the 'Northern Powerhouse'. Yes of course the cotton industry died out years ago, I mentioned it specifically as a point in time when the UK government should have been seeking to address this loss, not by subsidies but by incentives and investment. There was plenty of warnings and time to plan ahead, but neither 'colour' of UK Government did (for the reasons I mentioned previously) to any large degree. It is true that some areas as you mentioned in Sunderland and Swindon were helped by foreign investment, but large enticements had to be given to attract such investment and this was eventually undermined by EU regulations and edicts. Our Governments, successive governments of whichever persuasion have not sought to, for example, set up a National Investment Bank (que Jeremy Corbyn), they have left it to the 'markets' and to the overview and control of the EU, with its 'structural funding', which except for the odd success, have in the UK as a whole failed. This was mainly because the funding was insufficient, did not last long enough, or was a complete shambles of planning to start with and totally inappropriate to the natural resources (or lack of them) in these areas.
What I am trying to convey is that for many millions of people in the UK being in the EU has made no significant difference to their personal view of the world and where they fit in, its at best been seen as confusing and when it was ruling on things like straight bananas etc. seen as downright foolish, at the level of 'fiddling whilst Rome burned', or 'rearranging the decks chairs on the titanic' etc. For these millions of people the interactive aspects of the EU operations, trade, politics etc. is something they don't trust. The sheer irony of sending so many anti-EU candidates back to the EU Parliament is an example of this mistrust. For these millions the EU is at best a nonentity in their lives, at worst an interfering nonentity that cost them money! Hence the vote in 2016
People in the Uk have been force fed that everything EU is bad and everything British is great, it is why the Remain side find it hard to promote what they see as the benefits of the EU and why people voted to leave in 2016.
Obviously the opposite isn't true either but large numbers of the UK population will ,I'm certain, see what the benefits of the EU were after they UK has left. Simple things that they currently take for granted.
Afterwards what is the UK government going to do to improve people's lives at the same time as trying to deal with the fallout of Brexit. Tories privatise everything and Labour nationalise everything, both recipes for disaster to add to the problems the UK voters have brought on themselves.
You may take our lives but you'll never take our
That's quite interesting.
So. Now we know.
Boris is the next PM.
And no deal is to be the outcome.
Great.
Lets all plan for being worse off then.
Boris is the next PM.
And no deal is to be the outcome.
Great.
Lets all plan for being worse off then.
I think the first part of this is true to a large degree, not sure about the second, the UK itself has had its share of 'clusterf**ks'.
The EU will be eventually missed in many areas in the UK, in particular those who receive subsidies, project funding, you never know what you've got till you lose it etc., but in many others it wont make much difference. Prices may vary on some goods, food ranges will vary, prices of some things rising others falling, nobody knows for certain which adds to the 'fear factor' Strangely however the UK leaving may prompt the EU itself to do some real reform, something its promised, but never accomplishes, e.g. waste of money in moving between Strasburg and Brussels is a something they steadfastly refuse to address and other such 'wastages' will come under greater scrutiny.
What the UK Government will do post Brexit is the main question. Many people have expressed a wish to 'see the future' in a post Brexit world, but you can ask the same question if we remained, seeing the future is a gift we would all wish to have. As we all know many of our problems, are our (UK)problems and will be the same after Brexit as they were before, some will be made worse, others may be improved. Whatever the world will still turn, the UK will not however be on its way to becoming part of the United States of Europe and those countries in the EU who wish to follow that route will find a large obstacle removed and they can move more quickly towards their goal. When the dust settles things will continue we will trade with the EU and with other countries, if you believe the Leave rhetoric trade deals will be more 'customized' to the UK's individual needs, if somewhat more expensive; if you believe the Remain rhetoric it will be 'one size fits all' type trade deals , but less expensive.
One thing is for certain post Brexit the UK will have to start doing certain things it hasn't done for years and stop doing some of the things it has been doing, and whichever political party comes up with the best plan for this will get the job of running the country. (ps. note last night Gove seemed to be saying he has a plan...for everything!!)
The subsidies are only a very small part of the benefits of the EU, believe, somewhere around 5 or 6 bn per year, whereas UK budget expenditure is around 900bn per year so it's not the EU that ever was going to be responsible for funding the UK, it's up to the UK to manage its finances better which is down to the government.
I have a different outlook to being in the EU. I moved specifically to France and love the french way of life and France is fortunately part of the EU but is a sovereign country and the laws on the whole are made by the french government.
I do not see a United States of Europe certainly not in the foreseeable future nor do I see EU laws dominate the UK as typically people can never name one other than straight bananas and I've not even seen a straight banana either.
There will be thousands of small details in people's every day lives which will change.
Regarding trade and pricing, I do not see where the UK are heading, the public have been told that they will be doing trade deals with the USA etc which they couldn't do before which is another lie. I've probably said this a dozen times but the UK's biggest customer is the USA and their biggest export to them (and China) are cars but by voting Brexit and thus making car manufacturing not longer viable for the foreign investors the UK are effectively destroying the industry that provided them with the exports to the countries they say they want to trade with. It makes no sense whatsoever.
If the UK don't introduce tariffs and let the whole world export to them, the UK will become the dumping ground of the world, Trump and China will be ecstatic,If they do the people will be paying more for everything because they'll never get the same deals a large group like the EU can.
This is serious but not as serious as the gravest problem which if a closed border is introduced for goods the UK will not be able to cope with the documentation and delays . This is where people will suffer the most.
I have not bothered to follow the Tory leadership contest that closely as from what little I've seen they just lie about renegotiating the WA. They're all a waste of space. Not one of the parties or leaders has a credible plan, that's clear.
That's certainly true, in fact its not just the party leaders its the whole Parliament has no idea where to go next. The possibility of revoking A50 existed actually and 'politically' up to the 29th March, when Mrs May had lost three attempts to pass the WA, where she could have said with some degree of credibility " we can't seem to agree on what should happen, so I am choosing the status quo and revoking A50", what's the worst that could have happened to her...loose her job?
It still is actually in play (although with all those anti-EU MEPs returning possibly not to many EU members would be happy about it) but 'politically 'in the UK the position is too far gone now for revoking A50, too much water under the bridge etc.
I can't see the EU offering anymore time, even for a GE or second referendum (should any UK leader actually put that forward) to take place, it would take far too long and eat into other EU business and priority schedules, therefore it will be an official 'no deal', although in reality it will become a 'managed no deal' that both sides can live with in order to minimise disruption and declare a 0-0 draw!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48682933
They all say that a second referendum is, somehow, undemocratic and would be damaging to the country and our faith in democracy etc, the usual shit.
I just don't get it, did anyone ever ask them why?
They all say that a second referendum is, somehow, undemocratic and would be damaging to the country and our faith in democracy etc, the usual shit.
I just don't get it, did anyone ever ask them why?
Is it not obvious?
They know they will lose a 2nd referendum?
British democracy now means having an unelected PM for two and a half years.
Are other countries different? Genuine question, I know the vice-president would step up in the US, but I've no idea about France and so on.
Most, or possibly all, parliamentary systems are the same. The head of government is not directly elected.
To be fair a lot of prime ministers have been unelected. It’s parties we vote for, not prime ministers.
Appreciate that is zero comfort when we are staring into the abyss, however.
Technically it's individuals and not parties - after all a sitting MP can switch to a different party if they want.
I think you have to go back and examine why the vote happened.
It seems to me that the two major factors were immigration and a deep sense of discontent with the political class/system, and the European Union became a proxy for both. There's nothing wrong with having a second referendum, but to do so before the result of the first is enacted risks turning that discontent into something much more dangerous in my view.
The problem is that the ruling political party have no palatable way with which they can implement it right now.
Indeed. The essential problem here is that you have a policy without a government. The majority in parliament is clearly in favour of remaining in the European Union, and the same probably applies to the civil service and possibly the Judiciary as well. The constitutional crisis that has enveloped British politics ever since the vote was entirely predictable therefore and can't be described as surprising in a country where parliament is sovereign. There's a fundamental clash of legitimacy at play.
You really have to question the wisdom of having referendums in such a set up in the first place.
Last edited:
Great. Our next PM thinks contingency planning is planning for failure.
Pompidou died two years before the end of his mandate and new elections were held and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was elected.
Well theoretically you vote for your MP, when you do are you voting for him/her personally, for the party , or for the leader (possible PM).
Right. I find it hard to get my head round presidents, being used to prime ministers as I am. I suppose here the prime minister has always been elected by their party on top of being elected by their constituents, not the whole nation, just their own constituency. I don't know what's best really, but I do like the way a vote of no confidence can cause a general election I must admit.
Conclusion: Brexit can't happen without a backstop without also violating the GFA. Duh! Now hands up those leavers in GB who had any idea (or even gave a toss to check) that North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland was enshrined in the GFA.
Last edited:
A United Ireland draws ever closer.
The vote happened because David Cameron wanted to control the pro and anti EU split in the Tory party.
Nearly a decade of austerity and cuts to public services left the UK a worse place to be for residents. The media and Tory party deflected blame on this decline away from their terrible policies over these years. They found a useful scapegoat, immigrants and the EU.
Hence, a very marginal win for leave. Such a tiny percentage it can hardly be called "the will of the people".
true... i could see Boris invading because nothing can be allowed to stop Brexit!
Arlene Foster has played this badly.
I was referring to the reasons behind the Leave vote, not the decision to hold the actual referendum.
Austerity probably paid a part but I think it goes much deeper than that. Given the deindustrialisation of much of the midlands and North of England under the Thatcher government in the 1980s and the deep long lasting effect of such policies on whole towns and communities, it's hardly surprising a Leave vote was delivered in said regions. Regions which you'd call Labour's traditional heartlands.
I don't live in Britain, so I can only talk about immigration in a general sense. Facts have to be the starting point for discussion however, and it is a fact that the level of immigration into Britain since the late '90s has been unprecedented in modern British history. It's hardly surprising therefore that the Leave vote corresponded with those areas which experienced the highest rates of population change. Of course the cruel irony is that the level of immigration from countries outside the EU far outweighed that from inside.
I think it's important to remember in all of this that Britain, and England specifically, has always had a strong 'eurosceptic' tradition. It forms such a significant part of its history and identity. And when particular issues are allowed fester (for want of a better word), then certain feelings may manifest.
The fault for the mess Britain finds itself in doesn't lie with the likes of Nigel Farage, UKIP and so on; it lies with successive British governments. If government doesn't heed the concerns and sentiments of the citizens of the state, then a price will be paid somewhere down the line. Britain is currently paying the price.
True. I think it would be much better though if those campaigning for a second referendum, focus their attention on having it after the result of the first has been enacted, as opposed to before.
Last edited:
I dunno - hard brexit looks more likely than ever... and she seems to find that preferable to Mays deal
Well, she's in bed with a bunch of people who will sacrifice NI without a second thought.
Until Boris crosses their palms with silver.
Is there 'chink of light' appearing from the EU to break the dead-lock, or just mischief-making?
At lunchtime today the Dutch PM, in a TV interview with the BBC's Senior European Correspondent, declared that the idea of a United States of Europe has now been removed from the EU's future? Whether this was just a reaction to the likelihood of a Boris UK PM, or whether its is a genuine shift in long term EU aims remains to be seen. Perhaps its a calculation that around 20% of the hard Brexit Tories are more concerned with this aspect of Brexit than anything else and could be turned if this statement was confirmed by the full Commission?
At lunchtime today the Dutch PM, in a TV interview with the BBC's Senior European Correspondent, declared that the idea of a United States of Europe has now been removed from the EU's future? Whether this was just a reaction to the likelihood of a Boris UK PM, or whether its is a genuine shift in long term EU aims remains to be seen. Perhaps its a calculation that around 20% of the hard Brexit Tories are more concerned with this aspect of Brexit than anything else and could be turned if this statement was confirmed by the full Commission?