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
Along with a long winded visa process coming to a UK university will be more expensive for EU students than it is now when entry requirements change.
There is that too.
AdMe, I don't know but they'd have to really sort out the system. There was nonsense about people having to queue up all day at the police station to register when they arrived. I don't know if they've cleared that up in the last couple of years but those stories could put a lot of people off. You can see why it would have at least a short term effect given the lack of clarity around what exactly happens next.
UK degrees are of a high standard, we have waiting lists for most of our courses. The drop in student numbers will mean University's will have to drop entery level standards to attract students that might not have otherwise made the grade to keep the numbers up.
This will in the long term have a knock on effect in the quality of degree.
It isn't a case of just being respected.
Currently, as an example, we know a girl who is considering studying for a B Ed in the UK.
At the moment, that qualification is recognised in Greece, should she want to come back and teach here, because the UK is part of the EU.
Who is to say that will stay the same post Brexit?
Grey, perhaps a teaching or other professional qualification is different but with general degrees I don't think it's likely to change much. Many Europeans go and study in the US but their qualifications are recognised. Many from non-EU countries study in the UK and their qualifications are accepted.
For most general studies, I don't think there is any standard that is bound to the EU. For teaching, medicine etc. maybe but in other cases respect is what makes a degree valid.
Once again as with so many issues the line seems to be 'don't worry I' m sure it will be fine'.
It may well be. But that doesn't really help with decision making in the short-term.
That's not what I'm saying MrsGrey. I can see how Brexit will affect universities but I don't see how degrees are bound to EU membership unless member states decide to disqualify British ones. You'd expect they would then also not accept degrees from the US.
I've never seen a job in any type of organisation or country mention any need for a degree from an EU state.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/sshp/politics/news/BirkbeckDepartmentofPoliticsBrexitBriefing.pdf
It worries me more that people would support hanging and whipping full stop.
I run a company in Switzerland where they have referenda as part of their decision making structure and constitution, at different levels (it's a federal system) strictly controlled as to subject.
The Swiss public is well informed and the system works although it ensures that no politician ever rises above the parapet or makes a key decision that could be challenged. Can you name one Swiss politician now? ever?
It also yields results that the politicians dont like for example the Swiss turned down the free movement /migration aspect of the EU single market last year and thus promptly lost the ERASMUS programme, axed by the EU a week after the vote as I kind of spiteful "I told you so" measure.
We will get even worse treatment from the EU, by the way, once we are out...
The UK system is parliamentary democracy which saves us from stupid decisions voted by the general public made in single issue votes such as referenda. The idea is that we give our big choices to a local MP who will represent us in the Parliament, which is sovereign in its decisions, once signed by the Queen.
If capital punishment were a referendum subject it would be passed and we would have to implement capital punishment, although Parliament hasn't touched this in decades.
It was decided that EU membership was a fitting subject for a refendum to stay in or leave in 1975 after the Labour Party promised it in their manifesto in the 2nd General Election of 1974 and the public decided to stay by a good majority (larger than 52-48). Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and Peter Shore used to be on the same platforms for "out" as I recall.
Cameron resorted to it for the Scots independence issue and then fatefully for the 2nd go at leaving the EU.
Most of Parliament was shocked by the result, most of the Tory and Labour MPs and most of the rest. The chatterati in London is aghast and resentful. It showed that they had got out of touch with ordinary people, yes, but that's partly what representative parliaments, to be frank, are supposed to do.
MPs are supposed to be more informed and more politically intelligent than the mass of those they represent, to be looking over the next hill and taking sustainable decisions that have a coherenrt future, something that the British public doesn't have to do in a referendum, which is subject to all the dark forces of PR, to straight lies and to "too much information" and too many experts.
I went to a meeting in Brussels just last Friday which essentially reallocated legitimate UK representation at the meeting to non voting observers. The meeting then went on to redistribute the UK's 2017 financial allocations under an EU programme to the other member states for the purposes of the 2017 budget procedure which started back in June this year.
Why were there no leaders amongst the leavers? Because they were all politicians and knew that they did not want to take the responsibility for the unholy mess of our future and our economic prospects that this vote will produce.
Now we are all strung out with two differing legitimacies and it hurts to do the splits. Half against half. Many of us and our children have more difficult futures as a result of this vote.
But, "hey, that's democracy" - it's just a different, but not a better, sort. There will be more and longer hurt over this decision than the now "fifty years of hurt" since 1966.
Amen
No one really knows what will happen
Interesting times ahead though
It seems clear that Dave thought he could chance his luck and quieten down the noisy members of his own party and his foolishness will now bite everyone, but not him of course, in his Oxfordshire mansion. He will be humming a happy tune no doubt as he dips his digestives, watching the news he created.
Seems a bit of a stretch.
I tend think of things like this with regard risk and reward and I can only see a massive exposure to potential risk and offset by only a relatively small reward at a stage a long way down the line. I don't envisage that we end up with the benefits of trade etc and a taking back of immigration control etc as I tend see a free trade deal with some pretence of limiting immigration in which we may have ended up giving up all voting rights, vetos and opt outs to have delivered a leaving, in name only. As to leave and then discuss trade deal is fraught with danger as these things can take years and apparently we don't even have any trade negotiators.
I think it really was a case of Dave playing with fire and not only getting burnt but also nobody knowing how to treat the burns sustained.
Another point is that I found the most compelling argument to leave to be the one about our infrastructure not being able to cope with the growth in population through immigration. But everyone including Boris seemed to make clear that everyone who was already here would be able to stay, so not much reward for the vote coming anytime soon.
I think the problem was austerity and a lack of investment in infrastructure because cam, and Os were wed to austerity. My personal feeling is that we had the right vote at the wrong time and it would have served us better as a nation to have got rid of the conservatives at the last election and ended austerity. Sadly Labour were and are a shambles and offered no opposition that instilled confidence.
He said publicly he was going to stay as party leader and PM and stand at the next general election.