The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 33 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 394 Fun & Games
- 102 BA Predictor Threads
- 32 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 289 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 112 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 25 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 389 Match Threads
- 61 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 54 Internationals
- 47 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 117 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 267 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
I really hope that clip doesn't go viral with that shirt in full dispaly.
re. education, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ;ok
Sorry, you simply cannot assess the education levels of the entire nation based on a single interview. That makes no sense whatsoever.
The first young man seemed, from what I could tell, to be borderline special educational needs, and therefore entirely unrepresentative.
I found it really interesting when someone made a solid argument for either side in the referendum, a viewpoint that held water with regard exactly what the EU is and does and why they would or wouldn't like to be a part of it, sadly it all too often came down to the quoting of some belief held which was based around misinformation. As a brief example so many people quoted to me that they were worried about Syrian refugees flooding the UK, it was of course not possible for the EU to impose upon us any acceptance of Syrian Refugees as we had an opt out which we exercised, but so many did not know this. This is just one example of why I think this referendum was a great tragedy, as it was about perceptions all too often rather than the realities. There was certainly a case to leave and a case to remain but I so rarely heard it being made too articulately, and it really deserved to be articulated well, as it was an incredibly important moment in the history of this current century for us I feel.
Most people have the potential to think rationally, inform themselves and follow through arguments, but a lot allow emotional responses to get in the way.
One of my best friends is a genuinely nice man, who would go out of his way to help anyone in need (regardless of race or colour), but he is a full-hearted racist.
He is easily clever enough to realise the inconsistencies in his feelings and attitudes, but doesn't choose to.
It started with an agreement on coal and steel, then the Treaty provisions of the EEC talked about a common commitment to "an ever closer Union".
It's not as if the subsequent Single Act created a completely new organization, each phase of the Union developed after democratic discussion debate and decision, from the previous.
And those changes were widely debated, discussed and had to be passed by every single national Pariament every time. We can't start having a referendum every time one aspect of other of the ECSC/EEC/EU changes.
At some stage we have to decide what is the sovereign law making and approving institution in the country and I have always been happy about that being the UK Parliament as a reasonably faithful and consistent interpreter of the will of the people.
I would certainly agree that Parliament must debate whether Article 50 should be referred by the Government. Just as I would if there was a referendum to approve capital punishment. The Parliament shoud still be the final arbiter.
We are now moving away from that and the once sovereign Parliament is losing its power, not because of the EU but because of idiots like Cameron who keep calling referendums because they won't take their responsibiities as democratically elected members of parliament.
And by the way Mrs Thatcher pushed the Single Act provisions through the House of Commons and repeatedly refused to call a referendum on it. That's what gave us the Single Market and its corollary the freedom of movement of people within the EU: Can't have one without the other.
I would not expect a referendum on every change only major ones - Thatcher refused a referendum because of the chance of it being rejected by the British People, same as happened in other countries at the time forcing it to be amended to get it past. Also at the time we had opted out of the Social Chapter, and had a hat full of other opt outs and veto's that successive Gov't have given up.
Then there was the Lisbon treaty which Brown refused to allow a referendum on (despite an expectation there would be one) - this was also rejected by Ireland but was amended again to get them to agree to it and a second run so he could not afford to allow it. Strangely enough I remember at the time it being intimated by the Establishment that general population did not have the educational ability to understand it so they could not be trusted to make the 'right' decisions - which infuriated people.
I think the way forwards was for all political parties to include a statement of their intent where Europe was concerned in their manifestos for wider discussion instead of hiding it away, concentration on only the issues that would get them elected. That way the whole European involvement would have been more in the political sphere and debated better with a better public perception. As it is a lot of people feel Europe speaks and we Jump, don't think it helps with their choice of titles of information they send out, for instance Directive.
I would love to see the EU go back to what it was intended to be, a common market designed to make trade easier within Europe not the creation of a layer of un-elected bureaucracy over and above national governments within Europe, but whether it will happen in my lifetime I have no idea.
And now, as Brexit looms, South Korea is falling over themselves to strike a new trade deal.
So, erm, who do you think they see as getting the best out of this bargain ;hmm
The UK currently has a negative trade deficit (we import more than we export). To improve our balance of trade, we need to start exporting more, don't we?
So how is S. Korea scrambling to be first in line to sell us more stuff 'a bit more positive'?
Or am I missing something obvious?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911
Also, some of the criticisms made by the Chilcot enquiry are very similar to those made of the Leave campaign. In fact, you could almost think that Chilcot in some instances was commenting on it.
(24 billion in the first 3 months of this year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit ) so, erm, would it not also imply that they would also benefit from a free trade agreement? It also begs to ask the question why? If Europe under the EU is a level playing field then why were the Germans 246 billion euros in surplus last year ;hmm maybe free trade with Europe isnt so beneficial to the UK
I wonder how much independent research (apart from reading the Mail or the Sun) the white people who were interviewed in "How white is Brexit" (see above - a really offensive and skewed piece I might add) must have done.
However, they demonstrated just how flawed an idea it was to put the future of the nation directly in the hands of the "Great British Public". I wouldn't trust them with my cat.
You can argue that they were not representative of the "GBP", but I would argue that at a guess, they were well represented in the Leave camp, although I must admit there are very few, if any, on this forum.
I think it was interesting many of the comments were phrases/arguments directly from headlines or the columns of Katie Hopkins.
In the spring, it told its workforce that increased costs and uncertainty caused by the UK leaving the EU could make the UK a less attractive country to do business in.
The giant conglomerate also warned that its plans to export wind turbine blades from a new facility in Hull were being put ON HOLD.
The £310m manufacturing hub in the city will employ about 1,000 people.
The company has insisted this investment will continue and will be used to meet local demand, but Mr Kaeser said new trade barriers could make it uneconomical to export the blades to Denmark and Germany.
I am still glad we out ;biggrin
Let's face it,, we would probley had euro forced on us if the remain won ;weep
In 1992, the UK and EU signed a treaty under which we can opt out for as long as we want to.
#factattack
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/theresa-may-has-vowed-to-unite-britain-my-guess-is-against-the-poor
I'll giver you a good example: I recently had a South Korean made car for three years, it was a modest 1.6 CDR xi, one off the top level in its range, all the extras in with the price as standard. The Equivalent Audi A3, VW golf, BMW 116 and Mercedes cost between 4 - 7K more with extras at additional costs. The service intervals were longer (20K), mileage was better, Top speed was slightly less, but who actually drives at 135+ on British roads apart from idiots. It was a pleasure to drive it, very comfortable and easy to drive and handle, never had a problem with it.
Thanks to a change in company policy (mine being a French owned Company, decided to support it's own countries industry) resulted in me being given a French made Company car, which by the way cost almost 3K more then the South Korean car I previously had (I actually asked for the same model as new as the replacement), and I have had nothing but problems with it.
A higher price and Market name does not mean you are getting value for money or a better deal.
Siemens in the UK has issued a statement in which it has tried to allay fears about its intentions now that the UK has voted to leave the European Union (EU). Siemens’ new facility at Hull in the UK – which will build blades for offshore wind turbines for the UK domestic market – is approaching completion, but further investment decisions, particularly those that could have seen the UK exporting components to other markets for offshore wind, seem likely to have to wait until Brexit arrangements between the UK and the EU are finalised.
In the immediate aftermath of the vote last week in the referendum on UK membership of the EU – which saw a small majority of voters express the desire to leave – Siemens’ UK chief executive Juergen Maier suggested that although the company would press ahead with the blade factory for offshore wind turbines that it is building at Hull in the UK, further plans might be put in doubt or be put on hold.
This morning Siemens issued a further statement in which it said: “We are 100 per cent committed to our investment in Hull and the 1,000 new jobs. We have already hired 300 there. So far, Hull is primarily focused on the domestic market. However, if we and – very importantly – the much wider offshore industry located in the Humber, want to export in the longer term, we need to understand arrangements, such as for export and EU-funded R&D, between the UK and the EU.”
Speaking at the Global Offshore Wind conference and exhibition in Manchester last week, representatives of Siemens said that, overall, the facility in Hull will be larger than an existing facility at Esbjerg in Denmark the company uses for other projects, and would be a more efficient facility than the Danish plant, with important synergies between assembly and manufacture and logistics. Siemens officials said “thousands” of jobs had been created at the facility and in the supply chain, and highlighted the growing UK content of turbines produced there and the significant effect that investment has had in the region as a whole.
Addressing delegates at the conference, Ray Thompson, head of business development at Siemens wind power UK, said September 2016 would see the first blade produced at the new facility. Once fully operational, it will be capable of manufacturing 450 blades a year. An offshore service centre at the same facility is due to be completed in September and work on new quayside facilities is progressing well. At the pre-Brexit conference, Mr Thompson also told delegates that the new facility would, hopefully, export blades in due course.
So as they already stated, investment on hold pending the outcome of the trade agreements, current investment an jobs safe with more to come (currently 300 which will go up to 1,000, not including the supply chain jobs created) -they want to expand and export, all they are doing is waiting to see what the trade arrangement will be.
I don't think they'll hang around that long for Hull. If there are markets and opportunities to exploit, Siemens will surely get on with investing elsewhere, rather than sit on their hands until they are in a position to make a decision about whether or not to invest further in the Hull facility. (Since, even after the decisions is made, there will be a long lead time until production kicks in, surely)
And she will not be bullied at the negotiating table and rightly so
What's 'bullying' or 'tough' got to do with anything?
Negotiations hinge on what either party cannot afford not to have.
You can come over as hardline as you like, but if you really need something, eventually you have to give up what it takes to get it.