Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Cheesy said:
People have work but it's a lot less secure than it was before - redundancies are remarkably common and as automation advances a lot of career choices will become less stable than they used to be. Additionally what people are making from work isn't allowing them to buy property and other things work is supposed to be able to allow you to do, and so there's a lot more anxiety and uncertainty than in past decades. Even though they amount for a fairly small percentage of the working population things like zero hour contracts fall into that as well.
Click to expand...

I think the concept of jobs for life etc disappeared some time ago. My point really was I don't see how voting for Brexit will improve people's situation in life.

There is the point you made about people's expectations regarding affording property etc. Whether I agree with people's notion that is more difficult now is debatable and probably for another thread. However, what I would be interested in is people actually proposing (realistic) solutions to this, if it is so.

PS I think Brexit will be far more devastating to the UK economy than Corbyn.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I think the concept of jobs for life etc disappeared some time ago. My point really was I don't see how voting for Brexit will improve people's situation in life.

There is the point you made about people's expectations regarding affording property etc. Whether I agree with people's notion that is more difficult now is debatable and probably for another thread. However, what I would be interested in is people actually proposing (realistic) solutions to this, if it is so.

PS I think Brexit will be far more devastating to the UK economy than Corbyn.
Click to expand...
Make a system where it isn't profitable to own more than one house/apartment. It won't be pretty in the beginning, but hopefully one day we'll collectively look back and think we were mad to let rich people buy up all property to the detriment of the general population.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Here is a graph of the unemployment rate in the UK which is at it's lowest since the 1970s

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
Click to expand...
What I’m talking about with underemployment are those who are employed, but are employed at a level beneath their level of education. We have a big problem with that in the US, with people having 4 year college degrees working jobs that require a high school diploma.
 
Carolina Red said:
What I’m talking about with underemployment are those who are employed, but are employed at a level beneath their level of education. We have a big problem with that in the US, with people having 4 year college degrees working jobs that require a high school diploma.
Click to expand...
I suspect we have that here too. Loads of 2:1 Business degree students flipping burgers while firms like mine are crying out for people with vocational skills. It's all very well to offer university places to everyone but not if the country doesn't actually have the jobs to offer them. There needs to be more thought about what the country actually needs and positive discrimination (bursaries and such like) for those youngster that choose something that we actually have a demand for.
 
Honest John said:
I suspect we have that here too. Loads of 2:1 Business degree students flipping burgers while firms like mine are crying out for people with vocational skills. It's all very well to offer university places to everyone but not if the country doesn't actually have the jobs to offer them. There needs to be more thought about what the country actually needs and positive discrimination (bursaries and such like) for those youngster that choose something that we actually have a demand for.
Click to expand...
Agreed completely. We have the exact same problem.
 
Honest John said:
I suspect we have that here too. Loads of 2:1 Business degree students flipping burgers while firms like mine are crying out for people with vocational skills. It's all very well to offer university places to everyone but not if the country doesn't actually have the jobs to offer them. There needs to be more thought about what the country actually needs and positive discrimination (bursaries and such like) for those youngster that choose something that we actually have a demand for.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that economies evolve - giving bursaries for certain subjects areas may no longer seem wise once those people have studied said areas for five years and are going out to work. And unis typically aren't structured that way anyway - they'll do what they can to help pupils find further employment for the most part when they can but they aren't designed that way as such.
 
Cheesy said:
I think the problem is that economies evolve - giving bursaries for certain subjects areas may no longer seem wise once those people have studied said areas for five years and are going out to work. And unis typically aren't structured that way anyway - they'll do what they can to help pupils find further employment for the most part when they can but they aren't designed that way as such.
Click to expand...
Problem is the limited jobs for students qualified in Robin Hood Studies or The Psychology of Ghosts.
 
Cheesy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
For sure the main investment is in and around London. But hasn't this been the case for many a year. Countries and times evolve and have to adjust to the new world as it evolves. The cotton industry died long ago.
Take Sunderland and Swindon as examples which were mining and railway areas, industry evolved and those industries were replaced by the car industries and now as a direct result of voting Brexit those industries will now disappear to be replaced by who knows what.

The UK has evolved from a major manufacturing country to a more service based economy. Figures suggest that the UK has a very low unemployment rate which is contradictory to the notion that people have no work.
When people vote for change they normally expect something better to happen. Nothing suggests that voting as they did will make things better.
To invest and make things better, the question is who is willing to pay for it and do the people trust those responsible with their money.
Click to expand...

There 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
 
Maticmaker said:
There 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
Click to expand...

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.
 
sun_tzu said:
for sure - I think many would be flexible on the unionist part once they realized that booting scotland out allowing scotland to decide its future would make it vary likley to see conservative governments returned in Westminster
im actually surprised they dont want a vote over the whole of the UK to boot the jocks out and nick the oil take a bit more of neutral position on the idea of indy ref 2 - and actually once brexit is over i think they might
Click to expand...
You may take our lives but you'll never take our severely diminishing oil resources deep fried pizza suppers.
 
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.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!)
 
Maticmaker said:
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!!)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Paul the Wolf said:
British democracy now means having an unelected PM for two and a half years.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Spark said:
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.
Click to expand...

Technically it's individuals and not parties - after all a sitting MP can switch to a different party if they want.
 
Sassy Colin said:
They know they will lose a 2nd referendum?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kinsella said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the ruling political party have no palatable way with which they can implement it right now.
 
Cheesy said:
The problem is that the ruling political party have no palatable way with which they can implement it right now.
Click to expand...

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:
Spark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Pompidou died two years before the end of his mandate and new elections were held and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was elected.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.