Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Not really no. I didn't discuss how and why the UK entered the EEC. I only said that they shouldn't have been allowed a way in the first place

The UK has a history of causing divisions in Europe since Henry Tudor times. They created uncomfortable alliances, they financed rebellions and wars and they fuelled wars. Don't take me wrong, it was in their own interest to do so. While Europeans were busy killing one another, the UK was allowed to grow its empire unhindered. However it was stupid from the European part for allowing an enemy within, any influence inside a European group especially since, during that time, the UK was no powerhouse at all. Don't forget that during the 70s the UK was borrowing millions from the IMF. That mistake cost Europe alot throughout the years, with the UK proven to be a divisive power within the union ultimately pulling the plug from its membership when the EU is at its weakest. I hope the EU learns its lesson this time round and does not allow any backdoors open were the UK to have any form of influence inside Europe.

10% of 743.1m = 74m+. That more than France (66m), its slightly less then Germany (80m) or the combination of Hungary (9m), Ireland (4.6m), Austria (8m), Netherlands (16m), Bulgaria (7m), Sweden (9.8m), Denmark (5.6m), Finland (5.4), Lithuania (3m), Slovenia (2m), Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (847k), Luxembourg (500k+) and Malta (400k). The EU would never ignore that huge amount of people and/or countries.

Considering how densely populated England is as opposed to the rest is ridiculous to use population as a way to decide things. In that case England will always win (53k) and the rest will just have to follow (Scotland has around 6m, Wales has around 3m and Northern Ireland has about 1m+)


And once again you're showing ignorance about how the EU works. The EU does not meddle how and if other countries have an 'independence' referendum. Actually they introduced article 50 for those who want to leave. You were free to conduct your Brexit referendum and others can do the same. Malta has an easier way of triggering a referendum the UK as it only need a petition of 10% of the population.


1, I was making the point that we joined on a one person one vote referendum for the whole of the UK and we are leaving on a one person one vote referendum for the whole UK. It is hard to negate the legitimacy of the method for one and not the other. Which is what you have been trying to do throughout this thread.


2, Seriously, you are taking a long run up there. As much as your version of the potted history of the UK in Europe amuses me I can't take it seriously as argument about Brexit.


3, Your figure for the EU population is wrong you have mixed it up with the population of the whole continent including those who haven't joined the EU.
 
1, I was making the point that we joined on a one person one vote referendum for the whole of the UK and we are leaving on a one person one vote referendum for the whole UK. It is hard to negate the legitimacy of the method for one and not the other. Which is what you have been trying to do throughout this thread.

It's actually really easy. The join vote received 67% approval rating, demonstrating a clear mandate. 52-48% on an issue of massive national significant is frankly insane.
 
It's actually really easy. The join vote received 67% approval rating, demonstrating a clear mandate. 52-48% on an issue of massive national significant is frankly insane.
The join vote was probably for a different looking eu,.not the bloatware it has become. What % exit vote would you be happy with?
 
It's actually really easy. The join vote received 67% approval rating, demonstrating a clear mandate. 52-48% on an issue of massive national significant is frankly insane.

52-48 in itself is okay under the correct circumstances, but I think it's more the nature of the referendum...it was rushed, full of wild claims and lies, and partaken in by figures on both sides who have since been exposed as only backing their particular horse for self-gain.
 
Reality starting to set in maybe?

-1x-1.jpg

Although the growith in number of people who think they'll be better off is worryingly inane.

It would be interesting to know who will be better off and who worse off. I suspect the white working class will not be highly rewarded except in the number of foreigners doing the low paid jobs, which they may well be obliged to take on.

The cosmopolitan and higher paid workers may notice the effects much less.
 
The join vote was probably for a different looking eu,.not the bloatware it has become. What % exit vote would you be happy with?

Anything from 60% is reasonable for issues of major constitutional reform. Less than that and you're basically flipping a coin on whether the the public mood might swing artificially in the short term.
 
Anything from 60% is reasonable for issues of major constitutional reform. Less than that and you're basically flipping a coin on whether the the public mood might swing artificially in the short term.
It's all about the rules I guess.

70k people have blocked a trade deal in Europe, those are the rules and should 70k suffer for the benefit of large organisations? No they shouldn't.

Do 48% have the right to be unhappy at the 52%? Yes they do but the rules are the rules and they cant be changed now. Maybe mandatory voting should be enforced.
 
It's actually really easy. The join vote received 67% approval rating, demonstrating a clear mandate. 52-48% on an issue of massive national significant is frankly insane.

OK, I take your point but it ignores some of the problems which crawl out of that.

Are we to hold the Scottish Independence vote(s) on the same trigger levels? Good luck persuading the SNP on that higher share or UKIP that the level for SI should be different than to leave the EU.

The leader of the remain camp set the goal posts it is not like UKIP set them.

I have been amazed even as a remain voter at the level of whining done by other remainers following the vote to leave. Now if Brexit voters had won the referendum but failed to reach the arbitrary trigger point god alone knows what would have happened. Imagine if you were in a majority and we still had to leave the EU because your opponents set the remain trigger at 60% before we could stay. You wouldn't be feeling very good I suspect.

I don't think on balance there is much choice about it if we hold a referendum it has to be won or lost in a simple majority.
 
Maybe mandatory voting should be enforced.

This should be enforced for all votes and elections. We have it here and the turnout is huge. Plus you can always spoil your vote if you really don't want to vote.

But the real answer for these things is for a party to make something policy and take it to a general election. Plebiscites and referendums are generally expensive and idiotic.
 
I think mandatory voting is an awful idea. Aside from the principle that voting is a right rather than a duty, the quality of decision making is unlikely to be improved by adding the votes of those who either can't be bothered to vote voluntarily or who don't know what they actually want to vote for. A vote with zero conviction behind it is inherently compromised.

Plus given that one of the most common complaints around Brexit is that voters were misinformed, adding another swathe of voters who are likely to be less educated on political issues than those who voted would only exacerbate that existing problem. These forced voters would likely be more susceptible to misinformation, could sway the policies of candidates, or even add a proportion of "random" votes that obscure the true will of the people.

Also, forcing people to cast a spoiled vote is still forcing people to engage with a political system they may object to.
 
I think mandatory voting is an awful idea. Aside from the principle that voting is a right rather than a duty, the quality of decision making is unlikely to be improved by adding the votes of those who either can't be bothered to vote voluntarily or who don't know what they actually want to vote for. A vote with zero conviction behind it is inherently compromised.

Plus given that one of the most common complaints around Brexit is that voters were misinformed, adding another swathe of voters who are likely to be less educated on political issues than those who voted would only exacerbate that existing problem. These forced voters would likely be more susceptible to misinformation, could sway the policies of candidates, or even add a proportion of "random" votes that obscure the true will of the people.

Also, forcing people to cast a spoiled vote is still forcing people to engage with a political system they may object to.

I find it ridiculous that people don't want to vote. But I'm with you that no one should ever be made to.
What does her my goat is the same people then want to bitch
 
I think mandatory voting is an awful idea. Aside from the principle that voting is a right rather than a duty, the quality of decision making is unlikely to be improved by adding the votes of those who either can't be bothered to vote voluntarily or who don't know what they actually want to vote for. A vote with zero conviction behind it is inherently compromised.

Plus given that one of the most common complaints around Brexit is that voters were misinformed, adding another swathe of voters who are likely to be less educated on political issues than those who voted would only exacerbate that existing problem. These forced voters would likely be more susceptible to misinformation, could sway the policies of candidates, or even add a proportion of "random" votes that obscure the true will of the people.

Also, forcing people to cast a spoiled vote is still forcing people to engage with a political system they may object to.

I totally disagree. Most don't vote because they are too lazy rather than any objection to voting. The fine here isn't big, $50 I think, and all it does is get people in the habit of voting. Democracy is for all and the people least likely to vote probably need to the most as they are disproportionately at the mercy of public policy. And you can't force people t ast a spoiled vote, all you have to do it turn up and get your name ticked off when you collect your ballot. You don't have to complete it. So we typically have over 90% of registered voters turn out. Of those we typically have 2-3% (to a max of about 6%) casting an informal vote which is incorrectly completed ballots and blank ballots. Plus there are about 5% of eligible voters who don't register to vote. So even with compulsory voting we only get about 80-85% casting a valid vote.

We encourage people to do what is good for them all ver the places e.g. speed limits, tobacco tax so legislating compulsory voting is no more of an infringement of anyone's rights.

And referendums should almost never ever happen and certainly not for things that are for a government to decide by taking a policy to an election to get a mandate.
 
I totally disagree. Most don't vote because they are too lazy rather than any objection to voting. The fine here isn't big, $50 I think, and all it does is get people in the habit of voting. Democracy is for all and the people least likely to vote probably need to the most as they are disproportionately at the mercy of public policy. And you can't force people t ast a spoiled vote, all you have to do it turn up and get your name ticked off when you collect your ballot. You don't have to complete it. So we typically have over 90% of registered voters turn out. Of those we typically have 2-3% (to a max of about 6%) casting an informal vote which is incorrectly completed ballots and blank ballots. Plus there are about 5% of eligible voters who don't register to vote. So even with compulsory voting we only get about 80-85% casting a valid vote.

We encourage people to do what is good for them all ver the places e.g. speed limits, tobacco tax so legislating compulsory voting is no more of an infringement of anyone's rights.

And referendums should almost never ever happen and certainly not for things that are for a government to decide by taking a policy to an election to get a mandate.

Speed limits and taxes are obligations though, not rights. There's quite fundamental difference between the two concepts, an important one given that the delegation of power to the government is the underpinning principle that allows those other obligations to exist. From a theory point of view, forcing someone to exercise their democratic right stops it from being a democratic right, which means the whole system is undermined. Any encroachment on that right (such as mandatory attendance) is equally an encroachment on the system's underlying principles. Those sort of basic principles might not seem important but when you're dealing with something as fundamental as casting a vote....

Coercing someone (even indirectly through compulsory attendance) to make an uniformed decision on who should have the power to govern them isn't in itself good for the individual.

Also, in a lot of countries (America, most obviously) the question of how much a government should intrude on the lives of its citizens is a very live issue. In that context a government taking away the right to vote and replacing it with an obligation to vote would be seen as a particular political philosophy interfering with the democratic process rather than a neutral reorganization of how the process works. It would be a violation of personal freedom in a context where the concept of personal freedom is a politically charged issue.

It also strikes me that forcing politically apathetic voters to engage in a way that may in itself engender negative feelings towards the democratic process is likely to see the more extreme, anti-system, Trump-like candidates gain supporters.

The potential negative impact of a mandatory voting system is also ameliorated in a country like Australia that (I think) has PR rather than a first past the post system.

Agree on referendums though.
 
1, I was making the point that we joined on a one person one vote referendum for the whole of the UK and we are leaving on a one person one vote referendum for the whole UK. It is hard to negate the legitimacy of the method for one and not the other. Which is what you have been trying to do throughout this thread.


2, Seriously, you are taking a long run up there. As much as your version of the potted history of the UK in Europe amuses me I can't take it seriously as argument about Brexit.


3, Your figure for the EU population is wrong you have mixed it up with the population of the whole continent including those who haven't joined the EU.

1-2. And I told you, I have no idea about the political drama that lead the UK in the EEA. All I am saying is that from a European perspective it was mad to allow the UK in any deal with the EEA. The UK had benefited greatly from rifts in mainland Europe and there were several times were it actually encouraged them. Brexit itself (the timing is impeccable) is a classic example of it. I only hope that the EU will learn from it and would allow the UK as little influence/access to the EU as possible. We need a Europe were everyone pulls the same rope.

3- I am showing you what ignoring 10% of the population within the EU would be. If population is the measurement of choice used in the UK to decide things (ie which is heavily staked towards England) then I wonder what the hell Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gilbaltar are doing in the Union. Their combined population is not even 1/2 of that of England and would therefore never have a say on arguments that matter.. Rather then a union its more like an empire.
 
Coercing someone (even indirectly through compulsory attendance) to make an uniformed decision on who should have the power to govern them isn't in itself good for the individual.

It's about time people were encouraged (or even coerced) into realizing that politics is relevant to them, whether they understand that now or not. The number of people who think its nothing to do with their lives, despite it determining everything about how they live is frankly ridiculous. The same people who don't vote and make sweeping statements about how politics isn't any interest to them, then end up surprisingly interested in things like how much tax they pay, whether they have workers rights protections and whether or not we go to war, or have a functional healthcare system.

One thing I've noticed every time I've moved to a new country, is that we British tend to be very insulated from real life. We largely don't directly pay taxes, we don't pay directly for healthcare, everything is one step removed so we don't have to actually think about it. When your tax comes in a regular bill, or you have to pay your doctor then you soon start to have much more of an interest in how those things are calculated and how much they are. I'm not suggesting we move to those kinds of systems, but we do need a way to get people to wake the feck up and realize that the vote they can't be arsed to make once every 4-5 years is actually having a huge impact on their actual lives.
 
Speed limits and taxes are obligations though, not rights. There's quite fundamental difference between the two concepts, an important one given that the delegation of power to the government is the underpinning principle that allows those other obligations to exist. From a theory point of view, forcing someone to exercise their democratic right stops it from being a democratic right, which means the whole system is undermined. Any encroachment on that right (such as mandatory attendance) is equally an encroachment on the system's underlying principles. Those sort of basic principles might not seem important but when you're dealing with something as fundamental as casting a vote....

Coercing someone (even indirectly through compulsory attendance) to make an uniformed decision on who should have the power to govern them isn't in itself good for the individual.

Also, in a lot of countries (America, most obviously) the question of how much a government should intrude on the lives of its citizens is a very live issue. In that context a government taking away the right to vote and replacing it with an obligation to vote would be seen as a particular political philosophy interfering with the democratic process rather than a neutral reorganization of how the process works. It would be a violation of personal freedom in a context where the concept of personal freedom is a politically charged issue.

It also strikes me that forcing politically apathetic voters to engage in a way that may in itself engender negative feelings towards the democratic process is likely to see the more extreme, anti-system, Trump-like candidates gain supporters.

The potential negative impact of a mandatory voting system is also ameliorated in a country like Australia that (I think) has PR rather than a first past the post system.

Agree on referendums though.

We have a version of PR but not actual PR. We use transferable preference voting which leaves most of the benefits of first past the post without the down side of PR. And most voters are uninformed or badly informed, so I don't see why making everyone help decide the outcome of an election makes the slightest difference. Plus democracy doesn't demand an informed opinion otherwise there wouldn't be many people voting. In fact I think that far from undermining the system I think that compulsory voting invigorates and strengthens the system. The Uk is leaving the EU based on 37.5% of registered voters wanting to leave - hardly a satisfactory mandate.

The system isn't undermined by compulsory attendance at voting booths because if you genuinely don't want to vote you don't have to so the right not to vote is protected. And American are unhinged with what they consider rights and freedom - FFS they tolerate 35,000 guns deaths a year in the name of some fictional freedom. Arguing against compulsory voting due to African voter fraud doesn't work for me as the people like Mugabe who do this will corrupt whatever the system is and this is irrelevant to our democracies. And people generally think about not voting because you have to attend. All this is is making sure people engage in democracy. It also find it makes people less politically apathetic which I like.
 
Exclusive: leaked recording shows what Theresa May really thinks about Brexit
Secret audio of Goldman Sachs talk in May shows she feared businesses would leave and wanted the UK to take a lead in Europe

Theresa May privately warned that companies would leave the UK if the country voted for Brexit during a secret audience with investment bankers a month before the EU referendum.

A recording of her remarks to Goldman Sachs, leaked to the Guardian, reveals she had numerous concerns about Britain leaving the EU. It contrasts with her nuanced public speeches, which dismayed remain campaigners before the vote in June.

Speaking at the bank in London on 26 May, the then home secretary appeared to go further than her public remarks to explain more clearly the economic benefits of staying in the EU. She told staff it was time the UK took a lead in Europe, and that she hoped voters would look to the future rather than the past.

In an hour-long session before the City bankers, she also worried about the effect of Brexit on the British economy.

“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.

“If we were not in Europe, I think there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say, do they need to develop a mainland Europe presence rather than a UK presence? So I think there are definite benefits for us in economic terms.”

Her warning about the importance of the UK’s membership of the EU comes in marked contrast to her positioning in recent weeks.

May said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to prioritise reducing immigration over being part of the single market. In her speech, she said British companies needed the “maximum freedom to trade and operate in the single market” but not at the expense of “giving up control of immigration again” or accepting the jurisdiction of judges in Luxembourg.

At Goldman Sachs, May also said she was convinced Britain’s security was best served by remaining in Europe because of tools such as the European arrest warrant and the information-sharing between the police and intelligence agencies.

“There are definitely things we can do as members of the European Union that I think keep us more safe,” she said.

The disclosures could prove embarrassing for the prime minister, who faced criticism for lying low during the referendum campaign and offering only luke-warm support for the remain side.

In April, May gave a speech in which she set out some of the reasons for staying in the EU, warning that it could have an impact on the development of the single market for the rest of the EU if the UK left. But her comments at the Goldman Sachs event a month later go further in warning about the dangers to the British economy from businesses relocating to continental Europe.

During the referendum campaign, May infuriated senior Conservative colleagues on the remain side by largely staying out of the day-to-day arguments in favour of staying in the EU. One of her major pro-remain interventions was overshadowed by an announcement that she would like to take the UK out of the European convention on human rights, which she quickly ditched when running for the party leadership.

Her refusal to participate much in the campaign led Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s former chief of communications, to wonder if she was secretly an “enemy agent” for the other side. However, others have suggested she believed in the arguments for staying in but was keeping her powder dry in case of a pro-Brexit vote.

May went to Goldman Sachs as a guest speaker and answered questions from the floor. In relaxed exchanges, she praised Cameron, the then prime minister, and said he had returned with important concessions from his EU summit earlier in the year.

She sidestepped a question about whether she wanted to be prime minister and focused on explaining why Britain should stay in the EU. May said: “That is one of my messages in terms of the issue of the referendum, actually we shouldn’t be voting to try to recreate the past, we should be voting for what is right for the future.”

Goldman Sachs confirmed May had spoken to staff but was not paid. She accepted an invitation as part of the bank’s Talks@GS programme, in which high achievers from all walks of like are given a chance to reflect on their experiences and answer questions.

Previous speakers in the series include double Olympic champion Dame Kelly Holmes, David Benioff, the co-creator of the Game of Thrones TV series, and Loyd Grossman, the man behind the eponymous sauces. Some of the speakers are listed online, although May is not.

In the US, the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, made three private speeches to Goldman Sachs staff in 2013, the contents of which she originally refused to divulge during a bitter primary contest with leftwing rival Bernie Sanders. She was paid $675,000 (£554,000), and transcripts eventually released by WikiLeaks show her taking a much softer line on Wall Street than she had publicly claimed.

Introduced in her private session at the bank as the “longest-serving home secretary this century”, May spoke in much more explicit terms than ever before about the need for the UK to act from the front in Europe.

“What I do think is that the UK needs to lead in Europe,” she said. “I think over the years the UK has tended to take a view that Europe is something that is done to us, we have taken a rather backseat position to Europe, I think that when we go out there, when we can take the initiative and when we lead, we can achieve things. So I do think we need to make sure we are taking the lead.”

She dismissed concerns of senior figures in the military who had claimed that the EU “was making life more difficult for soldiers”.

“Actually very often when people talk about it I suspect, and I haven’t spoken to them, I suspect that they are not talking about the European Union, but the European convention on human rights and the European court of human rights, which is separate from the European Union.”

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, said it was “disappointing that Theresa May lacked the political courage to warn the public as she did a bunch of bankers in private about the devastating economic effects of Brexit”.

He added: “More disappointing is that now she is supposedly in charge, she is blithely ignoring her own warnings and is prepared to inflict an act of monumental self-harm on the UK economy by pulling Britain out of the single market.”

A No 10 spokesman said: “Britain made a clear choice to vote to leave the EU and this government is determined to make a success of the fresh opportunities it presents.

“David Davis made very clear in the House of Commons last week the importance the government places on financial services across the UK in the negotiation to come, as has the chancellor in recent weeks.

“We want a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union, which would be in the interests of both Britain and the EU.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-what-theresa-may-really-thinks-about-brexit
 
1-2. And I told you, I have no idea about the political drama that lead the UK in the EEA. All I am saying is that from a European perspective it was mad to allow the UK in any deal with the EEA. The UK had benefited greatly from rifts in mainland Europe and there were several times were it actually encouraged them. Brexit itself (the timing is impeccable) is a classic example of it. I only hope that the EU will learn from it and would allow the UK as little influence/access to the EU as possible. We need a Europe were everyone pulls the same rope.

3- I am showing you what ignoring 10% of the population within the EU would be. If population is the measurement of choice used in the UK to decide things (ie which is heavily staked towards England) then I wonder what the hell Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gilbaltar are doing in the Union. Their combined population is not even 1/2 of that of England and would therefore never have a say on arguments that matter.. Rather then a union its more like an empire.

More bullshit self justifying history aside,

I might have misunderstood you but if you live in the UK then you would understand that the in/out referendum was a very long time coming and wasn't timed around difficulties inside the EU. Difficulties predicted by the UK, warned against and largely dismissed by the EU at the time they set about causing them.

No you are not showing that, you are showing you don't know the population of the EU and contradicting yourself regards your complaints about Greece and the need to kick them out of the EU while demanding that every vote in Scotland should count for ten votes in England because you happen to agree with the way Scotland voted.The UK is a country Scotland voted to remain in lets face it that is more than the EU can say about the UK.
 
Exclusive: leaked recording shows what Theresa May really thinks about Brexit
Secret audio of Goldman Sachs talk in May shows she feared businesses would leave and wanted the UK to take a lead in Europe



https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-what-theresa-may-really-thinks-about-brexit
So she's not totally stupid, non-story. Lloyds and Santander report interim results tomorrow and I'm on the 7am stock market shift yay! Barclays on Thursday and RBS on Friday- we should get a bit of an insight on their contingency plans. Please no random RNS announcements on top of those two...I'm looking at max five and a half hours' sleep as it is.
 
So she's not totally stupid, non-story. Lloyds and Santander report interim results tomorrow and I'm on the 7am stock market shift yay! Barclays on Thursday and RBS on Friday- we should get a bit of an insight on their contingency plans. Please no random RNS announcements on top of those two...I'm looking at max five and a half hours' sleep as it is.

What do you do? Are you a trader/stock broker? I'm quite interested in that field.
 
What do you do? Are you a trader/stock broker? I'm quite interested in that field.
Finance journalist. Bank results are a nightmare- you get an often multi-part massive document land and you need to sift through it, extract the best angle and get the story out before your rivals. Not fun, starting at 7am. Plus sometimes my cat tries to 'help' me, which involves her headbutting my hand while I try and type!
 
I can see why such a leak might have been effective during the campaign, were she a Remainer who defected to Leave, but now...? Which of us reacts favourably to the breaking of a confidence? More than likely it will only further her present determination.

Very little here is of surprising news to people, and she was an open if lower profile supporter of the In cause. From what we've seen of May throughout her career she isn't prone to impulsive or dramatic acts; backing Brexit before the EU Ref would have been a bold move, so would reversing the outcome.
 
I can see why such a leak might have been effective during the campaign, were she a Remainer who defected to Leave, but now...? Which of us reacts favourably to the breaking of a confidence? More than likely it will only further her present determination.

Very little here is of surprising news to people, and she was an open if lower profile supporter of the In cause. From what we've seen of May throughout her career she isn't prone to impulsive or dramatic acts; backing Brexit before the EU Ref would have been a bold move, so would reversing the outcome.
I can't see this being damaging in any way, shape or form. The Microsoft/Unilever price hike stuff is indicative of business's view of Brexit, before you even consider financial services. I must admit I did expect a stronger hand at the tiller from her, but a big part of me feels she has a nigh on impossible job, given the splits in the party.
 
I can't see this being damaging in any way, shape or form. The Microsoft/Unilever price hike stuff is indicative of business's view of Brexit, before you even consider financial services. I must admit I did expect a stronger hand at the tiller from her, but a big part of me feels she has a nigh on impossible job, given the splits in the party.

In some way she does have a sure hand, just consider how long Cameron ould have dithered over airport expansion (be it Heathrow or Gatwick). And while i have some hopes for the Autumn Statement, this same brand of stubbornness can also lead to damaging misjudgements; there was a story in the Guardian a few days ago about a Tory revolt over in-work benefits. Of course these rebels aren't necessarily the same as those opposing her on the EU, as former ministerial colleagues were more than happy to back Osborne's earlier errors.
 
Finance journalist. Bank results are a nightmare- you get an often multi-part massive document land and you need to sift through it, extract the best angle and get the story out before your rivals. Not fun, starting at 7am. Plus sometimes my cat tries to 'help' me, which involves her headbutting my hand while I try and type!

That sounds hard. I often read financial and business news out of interest. It seems like a very hard thing to do, with all the analytics required to write a good piece. Even making predictions and so on.
 
More bullshit self justifying history aside,

I might have misunderstood you but if you live in the UK then you would understand that the in/out referendum was a very long time coming and wasn't timed around difficulties inside the EU. Difficulties predicted by the UK, warned against and largely dismissed by the EU at the time they set about causing them.

No you are not showing that, you are showing you don't know the population of the EU and contradicting yourself regards your complaints about Greece and the need to kick them out of the EU while demanding that every vote in Scotland should count for ten votes in England because you happen to agree with the way Scotland voted.The UK is a country Scotland voted to remain in lets face it that is more than the EU can say about the UK.

I do sympathise with your view about history. I would probably do the same if I was English.

What I find ridiculous is that Brexiteers want to leave the EU because Germany rule everybody (which isn't the case) when in reality its what England does with the rest of the UK.
 
That sounds hard. I often read financial and business news out of interest. It seems like a very hard thing to do, with all the analytics required to write a good piece. Even making predictions and so on.
It wasn't too bad this morning tbh. Was surprised that Lloyds made no mention of the referendum though- profits down 15% in Q3 and an additional £1bn set aside for PPI misselling- kind of loses its impact when the total is now £17bn though!
You can just get a snap out with the headline figures and then go in and update it- you'll see the likes of Bloomberg and Reuters doing several updates on a results piece. You learn to control F and look for key words like 'provisions' too.

In some way she does have a sure hand, just consider how long Cameron ould have dithered over airport expansion (be it Heathrow or Gatwick). And while i have some hopes for the Autumn Statement, this same brand of stubbornness can also lead to damaging misjudgements; there was a story in the Guardian a few days ago about a Tory revolt over in-work benefits. Of course these rebels aren't necessarily the same as those opposing her on the EU, as former ministerial colleagues were more than happy to back Osborne's earlier errors.
Fair point on Heathrow- the Autumn Statement is going to be a bastard to cover- you get the speech then a deluge of HMRC and Treasury documents with all of the detail in.
I had a curious conversation with my cleaner yesterday, while working from home- she was complaining that her disability payments for her autistic son were cut cos he was not considered 'disabled enough' a few years ago and Kids Company funded his therapy- she was scathing about Cameron and his role in the charity's demise. Having only read the media coverage of it, it was interesting to hear a different perspective.
 
So she's not totally stupid, non-story. Lloyds and Santander report interim results tomorrow and I'm on the 7am stock market shift yay! Barclays on Thursday and RBS on Friday- we should get a bit of an insight on their contingency plans. Please no random RNS announcements on top of those two...I'm looking at max five and a half hours' sleep as it is.
Starting a new job soon where I'm going to have to be in at 7 every single day. Transitioning to that is going to be an absolute bitch.
 
I do sympathise with your view about history. I would probably do the same if I was English.

What I find ridiculous is that Brexiteers want to leave the EU because Germany rule everybody (which isn't the case) when in reality its what England does with the rest of the UK.
I thought it was cos of migration

Anyhow, Scotland and wales are constitutional countries
 
They can always vote for independence...........Oh Wait

If Scotland can carve a good deal with the EU or Northern Ireland can ensure a smooth transition in joining the rest of Ireland then that’s exactly what they should do. I acknowledge that it won’t be easy. As a former colony Malta’s economy was once strategically built in a way to be totally dependent on the English. Once we cut the umbilical cord, we did face a bumpy ride. However these days, we are a successful story, with a great standard of living, ridiculously low unemployment rates and a say in the European fora. There is no master that can force us to leave Europe against our will.

Its ironic how on one hand Westminster say that Brexit is great because you'll get sovreignity back and on the other hand it spend so much effort to keep Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in the union.
 
Starting a new job soon where I'm going to have to be in at 7 every single day. Transitioning to that is going to be an absolute bitch.
God, I don't envy you- I have to do it max once or twice a week and you feel fecked the next day too.