Brexit

[JasonJ]

Politicians really shouldn't use critical pillars in a way to gain an upper hand in negotiating or getting more votes because they risk undermining that critical pillar and crashing it down.

 

How ironically appropriate this episode is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9O8lwSvy7o

[JasonJ]

Really tight in February with a trend towards leaving. Just a poll though of course.

 

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

Smart guy said "No food worth of mention north of Danube". I tend to agree, with minor exceptions, mostly about sweets and deserts.

 

The British Isles have lots of good food, it just comes in a pint glass.

 

On the Brexit thing, not surprisingly the UKGB Blighty is experiencing the same reactionaryism as the rest of the western world. Folks from the working, and to some extent middle, classes are now cluing in (via the Interweb, mostly) that

a) political leadership sucks,

political leadership has been lying, is lying, continues to lie, and will lie repeatedly in the future,

c) the world sucks, and the culture and structures of home maybe aren't the problem, they are the solution.

 

What's stupid beyond belief is that the major political parties are still serving white-tie dinner long after the iceberg has gashed the bilges. The MSM and the establishment convinced themselves that the Tea Party movement was just a bunch of racist cranks. The Rs could have had a real conservative or libertarian for POTUS, or the Ds could have had a moderate with libertarian leanings, but they believed the tube rather than the actual people. So, Trump v Clinton. Kang v Kodos.

 

In Yurrup as well as the US, the concern should be about the government-after-next. If Britain elects an isolationist and brexits, what comes next? Cromwell? Or Salah ad-Din?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Smart guy said "No food worth of mention north of Danube". I tend to agree, with minor exceptions, mostly about sweets and deserts.

 

The British Isles have lots of good food, it just comes in a pint glass.

 

On the Brexit thing, not surprisingly the UKGB Blighty is experiencing the same reactionaryism as the rest of the western world. Folks from the working, and to some extent middle, classes are now cluing in (via the Interweb, mostly) that

a) political leadership sucks,

political leadership has been lying, is lying, continues to lie, and will lie repeatedly in the future,

c) the world sucks, and the culture and structures of home maybe aren't the problem, they are the solution.

 

What's stupid beyond belief is that the major political parties are still serving white-tie dinner long after the iceberg has gashed the bilges. The MSM and the establishment convinced themselves that the Tea Party movement was just a bunch of racist cranks. The Rs could have had a real conservative or libertarian for POTUS, or the Ds could have had a moderate with libertarian leanings, but they believed the tube rather than the actual people. So, Trump v Clinton. Kang v Kodos.

 

In Yurrup as well as the US, the concern should be about the government-after-next. If Britain elects an isolationist and brexits, what comes next? Cromwell? Or Salah ad-Din?

 

Yes I think so too. I think the same dissatisfaction that shaped teapartyism and Trump, are exactly the same kind of dissatisfaction that shaped the rise of UKIP, Brexit, and even (improbably) the rise of the first actually Socialist Leader in the Labour party in 25 years.

 

What do I think next? I think you will see the further rise of authoritarianism when removed from some of the restrictions (imperfect though they are) created by the European court of human rights, and a slow lingering death rattle as we slowly disappear up our own rectum and become a fascist utopia. Sans Scotland which will want independence so the first chance they get can get back into the EU.

 

 

Still, looking on the bright side, at least the torchlight parades through Whitehall will get the tourists in.

[DB]

I'm failing to see how the Conservative manifesto could have contained many terribly unpopular policies, given that the Tories were returned with an increased majority.

 

Blaming Labour's failures on Miliband, for all his ineptitude, misses the point that you claim Cameron is equally if not more incompetent. Still, there's plenty of cake, Stu. You can have it and eat it too.

 

I've yet to see any suggested policies coming out of Labour since the man in the bin-bag took over that didn't look moonbat crazy. Maybe that's the solution though, looking over at America and the 4 years of political suicide they're brewing for themselves.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Increased less by the lefts defeat, than by smashing the liberals who supported their Conservative policies. Doesnt strike me as quite the endorsement it might have been DB.

 

Believe it or not (and im sure you wont) I am increasingly politically agnostic. I absolutely accept every point you make about the British left. The problem is the critics of it seldom criticise the conservative right (or more accurately the increasingly carpet biting vitriolic element of it) as increasingly dangerous to British liberty by their determination to stamp out any trace of leftism, push separatism from Europe and stamp on civil liberties we once took for granted. I would further relate, the increasing vitriol about immigration has emerged from them too. Even the PM has been caught doing it.

 

Because criticise the left, as you are totally right to do, Brexit did not emerge from them. It emerged from the fringe of the conservative right that thinks that by emerging from the warm bubble of the EU, we are suddenly going to turn into a superpower again. Well, good luck to them. I just hope they have the good grace to fall on their sword when it all goes Pete Tong because, inevitably, it will. I note your good self does not disagree the leaving the EU is a bad idea. So why the hell are we even contemplating doing so? To please a very narrow group of right wingers who are so despised in their own party they dont even come close to power? Is there any other country in the world such a major change to a country could emerge from from such a small group of people?

 

There are no good ideas coming out of the left, I quite agree with you. Which is at least one of the reason why Im politically agnostic. I dont think there is actually a political party that suits how I feel about the country now. And I think truth be told, a hell of a lot of people feel the same way.

 

Never mind, when we get the one party state I daresay we wont have to worry about it.

 

 

(apologies for the above, I realise I inadvertently implied that you were part of the Brexit lobby. I realise this is not the case and have altered it to reflect it)

Edited March 28, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[cbo]

 

There's your problem right there. What Britain should be is America's north Atlantic aircraft carrier, and our source of affordable, literate acting talent. Anything more than that is just delusions of grandeur.

 

Seems like it will likely be Chinas North Atlantic aircraft carrier....

[Stuart Galbraith]

I for one welcome our Chinese overlords.

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, I just vote for the Liberals to keep the SNP out. If I was South I would vote for whichever party did me the least harm - or would have until Labour went loony left again.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And they will Chris, thats the problem. Its not so much Corbyn that scares me, its the Diane Abbots that surround him. Its like a Praetorian guard of idiots.

 

Id vote liberal too. If you couldn't comfortably fit the entire party in the back of a Transit van.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[swerve]

According to The Economist, a little more than half of the recent great wave of immigration to the UK has come from outside the EU. There's a one-off special case in there - the Lumley immigrants, who've been largely non-productive, greater than average users of health care, & have mostly settled in one of the most crowded & undersupplied with housing parts of the country. But even without them, the hordes of W. African cleaners, Filipina nurses & health care assistants, teaching assistants from Kenya, Bangladeshi fast (non-Bengali) food vendors who speak almost no English, etc. do make one wonder how we're supposed to suddenly stop receiving great numbers of immigrants just from leaving the EU. If a firm with offices in Newbury stops employing local housewives working part-time to clean its offices & hires a contract cleaning firm employing Nigerians, Ivoirians, etc., & state-owned bodies launch recruiting drives in the Philippines, what difference does EU membership make?

 

And then there's the little matter of our steel industry, where the people currently in power here blocked an EU initiative to impose anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, & our industry has declined more than just about any other EU steel producer. How would leaving the EU make a positive difference?

 

And so on . . .

[Stuart Galbraith]

It was estimated some months ago that EU migration only accounts for about 40 percent of the immigrants we receive. If thats true (and ive no way of verifying it) then it means we are still going to have 60 percent of the same problem even outside the EU. And in fact it would likely be worse because im sure the French will just use the opportunity to empty the camp in Calais and let them get on iwth it. So essentially we solving one problem, and making the main problem even worse than it already is by dumping relations with the people whom are most able to help us deal with it (Ie the Europeans) down the toilet.

 

Im sure there is a logic there. But im buggered if Im smart enough to see it.

[swerve]

The logic was a policy of employment instead of productivity, combined with a benefits system which despite theoretical & sometimes actual strictness is often astonishingly willing to pay out generously to people who can't be arsed to work, & crazy government education policy, happily co-operated with by education bosses.

 

Despite occasional noises, vocational education has been neglected, leading to locals being short of skills for employment. Education has become more academically focused.

 

Government has aimed to increase university places, & made universities financially dependent on student fees which are not connected to the cost of courses. Universities have responded by offering more cheap-to-run courses (i.e. not sciences, engineering, etc.), & also easier courses to attract more applicants while not reducing pass rates.

 

Schools have done much the same, offering subjects which teenagers enjoy rather than those which might help them get a well-paid (& productive, & socially useful) job. What the hell is the point of an ordinary state secondary school specialising in 'Performing Arts'. an area which in past times when anyone who wanted to get into it had to fight, & pay, for training, was notorious for the surplus of candidates & the low rate of employment of its members? Why are our taxes being used to teach teenagers to be unemployed?

 

There used to be a lot of courses which combined a solid theoretical underpinning with extensive practical training. That was how nurses were trained, & of course doctors always have been & still are. There were also the ONC, HNC & HND, popular with employers because those with them both knew their way around a lab or workshop and knew why things worked. They still exist, but one would hardly know it. Interestingly, they're now rated higher compared to A-levels & degrees than when I went to university. And nurse training is now a degree, & is, I'm told, far more academic, with complaints that newly-qualified nurses know more theory but need training on the job on wards instead of being able to work pretty much unsupervised.

 

And to make up for these shortages of skills, what do we do? Why, we recruit from overseas! Very often, from outside the EU.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The logic was a policy of employment instead of productivity, combined with a benefits system which despite theoretical & sometimes actual strictness is often astonishingly willing to pay out generously to people who can't be arsed to work, & crazy government education policy, happily co-operated with by education bosses.

 

Despite occasional noises, vocational education has been neglected, leading to locals being short of skills for employment. Education has become more academically focused.

 

Government has aimed to increase university places, & made universities financially dependent on student fees which are not connected to the cost of courses. Universities have responded by offering more cheap-to-run courses (i.e. not sciences, engineering, etc.), & also easier courses to attract more applicants while not reducing pass rates.

 

Schools have done much the same, offering subjects which teenagers enjoy rather than those which might help them get a well-paid (& productive, & socially useful) job. What the hell is the point of an ordinary state secondary school specialising in 'Performing Arts'. an area which in past times when anyone who wanted to get into it had to fight, & pay, for training, was notorious for the surplus of candidates & the low rate of employment of its members? Why are our taxes being used to teach teenagers to be unemployed?

 

There used to be a lot of courses which combined a solid theoretical underpinning with extensive practical training. That was how nurses were trained, & of course doctors always have been & still are. There were also the ONC, HNC & HND, popular with employers because those with them both knew their way around a lab or workshop and knew why things worked. They still exist, but one would hardly know it. Interestingly, they're now rated higher compared to A-levels & degrees than when I went to university. And nurse training is now a degree, & is, I'm told, far more academic, with complaints that newly-qualified nurses know more theory but need training on the job on wards instead of being able to work pretty much unsupervised.

 

And to make up for these shortages of skills, what do we do? Why, we recruit from overseas! Very often, from outside the EU.

 

Someone related the same problem, we were importing Polish brickies as a cheaper option than training our own. Not that I object to European immigration. But that the starting point ought to be training our own people BEFORE we fill in the gap in skills that cannot be filled.

 

I note with interest in America they teach auto shop in their high schools. Practical skills like that I was never taught at school, and we are talking 30 years ago now. You are right, its all academically focussed. Both main parties have been guilty of this, so again, its not down to politics, its just an absence of common sense. Why not teach them something useful like how to build a wall, or fix the plumbing whilst they are at it?

 

Importing outside the EU has the effect we are recruiting nurses and doctors from some of the most deprived places on earth, which we then make up for by giving them lots of investment to improve their lot. You cant help wonder why we dont put more money into training and cut out the middle man. But again, thats probably a very radical view.

[Murph]

So should they stay or should they go? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well lets put it this way, ive seen many excellent arguments to stay in, and not a single good one to leave that didnt include a large dollop of jingoism and a large amount of handwavium. So I have to stay in, and keep handbagging the EU to reform.

 

Besides, West Europeans are like 12 year olds. If we left, can you imagine the bloody mess they would make of the place?

Edited April 4, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

I'm not really seeing any compelling arguments on either side.

 

None of the politicians has any interest in actually telling the truth, either way. It's all either hyperbole or outright fabrication.

 

The BBC has been "fact checking" some of the statements made by both sides, which is not a bad effort, but I can't help but think that they're hobbled by both their heart-on-sleeve claim to impartiality and the subtext of their own champagne socialism undercurrent.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

 

(Reality Check link)

[DB]

When international companies decide they want to bring pressure to bear, they just do it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693

 

(Airbus says that exit "may" influence (future) investment in the UK elements of its group). Remember that "Airbus" is what EADS was, not just the civil airliner company.

[Ivanhoe]

Someone related the same problem, we were importing Polish brickies as a cheaper option than training our own. Not that I object to European immigration. But that the starting point ought to be training our own people BEFORE we fill in the gap in skills that cannot be filled.

A lot of businesses here would go out of business, if they had to pay American wages to Americans (or legal immigrants), not to mention taxes, benefits, etc. Illegals are simply one leg of the black economy barstool.

 

I find it ironic that if 4 college students try to live in a 2 BR apartment, armed authorities show up to evict. 15 illegals in a 1 BR? No problem. Amusingly, Undocumented Americans and Repurposed Americans with assumed names and SSNs are universally underemployed, because few seem to work enough to earn benefits.

 

I suspect that an honest evaluation of legal and illegal immigrant employment would show that if the rate is higher than some threshold, the regulatory and tax burden is not sustainable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They were warning this in the Bristol area some months ago. In fairness, there isnt a lot of point keeping Filton open now they are building on the Runway. From their point of view they may as well move to Toulouse and cut down on transportation costs.

[Ivanhoe]

 

Dang it, deja vu all over again.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im not sure if we have the same problem with illegals here as America has, but I was interested to read some months ago that Indian resturants in the UK were starting to go bust. The reason? Due to the clamp down on immigration, they were not finding it so easy to bring their relatives in from India to work in the Kitchen, and were evidently unwilling to train anyone (Indian community would strike me as a good start) from this country in order to make up the manpower. Go figure.

[BillB]

So should they stay or should they go? Inquiring minds want to know.

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB

[TonyE]

Im not sure if we have the same problem with illegals here as America has, but I was interested to read some months ago that Indian resturants in the UK were starting to go bust. The reason? Due to the clamp down on immigration, they were not finding it so easy to bring their relatives in from India to work in the Kitchen, and were evidently unwilling to train anyone (Indian community would strike me as a good start) from this country in order to make up the manpower. Go figure.

 

Currygate?

 

[swerve]

It's not so much relatives, as properly trained cooks. They're reluctant to train because (1) it's difficult & costs money & (2) it's hard to recruit trainees in the UK because the pay & working conditions when they're trained are poor. They're offering burger flipper pay for skilled cooks, & British-born Indians, Bangladeshis, etc. want more.

 

Basically, the standard business model for Indian restaurants in the UK depends on paying too little to sustain recruitment & training of decent cooks in the UK. It requires recruitment & training somewhere cheaper & with much lower pay, such as Bangladesh.

 

There are restaurants that don't follow that model, but any that are both cheap & selling half-decent food probably do.