Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Brexit


alibongo
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, bee said:

c'mon --- she doesn't ''shout slogans'' 

"a Strong Stable Brexit meaning Brexit"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"a Strong Stable Brexit meaning Brexit"?

 

sounds better than a weak unstable Brexit to me -

Theresa May has taken a knock back but I still have confidence in her to deliver the Brexit that was voted for -

So long as it doesn't get derailed in parliament somehow over the next two years - 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bee said:

sounds better than a weak unstable Brexit to me -

it might if she had any idea how to go about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

it might if she had any idea how to go about it!

That seems a trifle harsh, MvD ? After all, there is no precedent for this.

From memory, the referendum question was "Do you wish to remain in the European Union, or to leave the European Union" ?

Now, to me, "Leaving the European Union" means just that - to leave. If we retain elements of the Lisbon Treaty, (as the Soft Brexiteers want) then we haven't actually left .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

That seems a trifle harsh, MvD ? After all, there is no precedent for this.

From memory, the referendum question was "Do you wish to remain in the European Union, or to leave the European Union" ?

Now, to me, "Leaving the European Union" means just that - to leave. If we retain elements of the Lisbon Treaty, (as the Soft Brexiteers want) then we haven't actually left .

Yes, but the criticism arises from the fact that the Government seemed to have no plans for what they'd do if the result was "Yes" (to leaving, that is). They were so smugly confident that their argument would prevail that they didn't plan for what to do if they didn't manage to convince the People. In an ordinary election that wouldn't matter as they know what would happen if the result went against them, they'd be out of office, but in this case they'd still be in office regardless of the result. So to not plan for what to do if the result was "Yes!" seems a bit of an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably agree with that. However, Theresa May was only (!?!) Home Secretary at the time, not Foreign Secretary or First Secretary, or even Trade Secretary. So it seems a bit harsh to blame her personally for the situation ?

Personally, I think she made a good stab at dealing with a bad situation. She made a mess of the election, however, and that WILL cause problems for Brexit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Yes, but the criticism arises from the fact that the Government seemed to have no plans for what they'd do if the result was "Yes" (to leaving, that is). They were so smugly confident that their argument would prevail that they didn't plan for what to do if they didn't manage to convince the People. In an ordinary election that wouldn't matter as they know what would happen if the result went against them, they'd be out of office, but in this case they'd still be in office regardless of the result. So to not plan for what to do if the result was "Yes!" seems a bit of an error.

can you imagine the media backlash IF the government under Cameron had instructed the civil servants to draw up a plan. IF we'd voted to remain the public driven by the media would've been up in arms at the wasted millions spent on such a plan, -  plus when your campaigning to Remain drawing up a plan would've be seen as you admitting your going to lose the argument/vote before it had even taken place, also such a plan would have helped the Vote Leave side. 

We have two years from triggering article 50. with the civil servants and the experience they've got Brexit is achievable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

can you imagine the media backlash IF the government under Cameron had instructed the civil servants to draw up a plan. IF we'd voted to remain the public driven by the media would've been up in arms at the wasted millions spent on such a plan, -  plus when your campaigning to Remain drawing up a plan would've be seen as you admitting your going to lose the argument/vote before it had even taken place, also such a plan would have helped the Vote Leave side. 

So there's something with two possible options, but it would have been stupid to make plans for one of those options? Is that really what you're trying to argue? :unsure:   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... MovD.. what makes you think that the "government" did NOT make plans for a Brexit vote ? (for "government", read "Civil Service". )

Do not underestimate the Power of the Appleby !

 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm... MovD.. what makes you think that the "government" did NOT make plans for a Brexit vote ? (for "government", read "Civil Service". )

Do not underestimate the Power of the Appleby !

 

Yes, it is of course commonly held that that's where the real power lies. So are you saying, then, effectively, that the nominal Government is all a front and effectively a fraud and that their blusterings are ultimately irrelevant? In that case, I think many would agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So there's something with two possible options, but it would have been stupid to make plans for one of those options? Is that really what you're trying to argue? :unsure:   

in our minds it would have been common sense to plan for both scenarios, but in the mind of the politicians that is exactly what im saying, If the news was leaked that the government had fully planned for a Leave result the markets would have reacted. its better the markets react to the will of the people than that of the politicians.

Its now clear anyway, even if David Cameron had planned for a leave vote it would have been a waste anyway, as we seen with the EU's response, The criticism from the lack of a plan came from the remaoners and people who wrongly thought a vote to leave on June 23rd would result in us leaving on June 24th or within months. if we look at the time line from the Leave result, it was 9 months before we triggered article 50 as a comparison from the moment David Cameron announced the date of the Referendum till the referendum was 4 months.

We now have 20 months of negotiations with the EU. 24 months to prepare to fully leave. all departments are in place to deal with that, just an increase in numbers is required in them departments. Customs, Inland Revenue, Border Force, UK Visa - immigration office to name a few. 

10 years from now you wont be able to find anyone who'll freely admit they were a remoaner.

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally I reckon that The political left will also need to begin to project a new story about Britain overseas. Linguistically Brexit is configuered as an ending, but it up offers an opportunity to emotionally rebrand the nation in a way that could prepare it for life after the rapidly approaching end of the New Elizabethan age. On top of renewing and revamping Britain’s cultural infrastructure the task of building a new symbolic vocabulary will be fundamentally important. If the British political left is to triumph, Brexit needs to become a Brebirth, a way of stepping into the future. 

, as I'm sure you'll agree. 

What's that? well ok, it may be from here and not necessarily my own words. Brebirth? Yes, I'm going to be campaigning for that to be a thing. I'll let you know how I get on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2017 at 7:30 AM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Yes, it is of course commonly held that that's where the real power lies. So are you saying, then, effectively, that the nominal Government is all a front and effectively a fraud and that their blusterings are ultimately irrelevant? In that case, I think many would agree. 

LOL... no... I wouldn't say that the government if a "front" or a "fraud". They are the executive; akin to the Board of a corporation. They make policy, the Civil Service actually implement that policy.

The captain of a ship doesn't personally go down to the engineering room and adjust  the fuel-flow to the engines. He merely says "full speed ahead" and - hey presto - after a few seconds the ship starts to speed up.  Does that make him a fraud ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL... no... I wouldn't say that the government if a "front" or a "fraud". They are the executive; akin to the Board of a corporation. They make policy, the Civil Service actually implement that policy.

The captain of a ship doesn't personally go down to the engineering room and adjust  the fuel-flow to the engines. He merely says "full speed ahead" and - hey presto - after a few seconds the ship starts to speed up.  Does that make him a fraud ?

yes, but in that case the engineer does what the captain tells him to (though now it'd all be controlled from the bridge anyway). The Civil servants do all they can to obfuscate the more foolish instructions of the Minister and minimise the damage it'd be likely to cause, and encourage the Minister to do what they'd rather he did and persuade him that it was really his idea all along. All Ministers and Parliament as a whole are really are a factory for the production of ideas that are to a greater or lesser extent nearly always foolish.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL... no... I wouldn't say that the government if a "front" or a "fraud". They are the executive; akin to the Board of a corporation. They make policy, the Civil Service actually implement that policy.

The captain of a ship doesn't personally go down to the engineering room and adjust  the fuel-flow to the engines. He merely says "full speed ahead" and - hey presto - after a few seconds the ship starts to speed up.  Does that make him a fraud ?

I don't like the direction May's ship is heading.

She claims to be on the side of the "just managing", but refuses to lift the 1% cap on public sector workers salaries, despite inflation at record levels (and against the advice of her cabinet).

"Free" child care of up to 30 hours per week: it has been valued at £120 per week, and the claimant must match that in monetary terms. So if a mum is earning £40 per hour she only has to do 3 hrs per week to claim the full benefit. A mumo on living wage would have to do 16 hrs.

And this  matching in monetary terms to qualify, not hours, is not an oversight- free child care is available to households earing up to £200k per year! It is designed to benefit the wealthy.

It is no different from traditional Tory policy in favouring the rich at the expense of the poor: so much for caring about the "just managing".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I don't like the direction May's ship is heading.

She claims to be on the side of the "just managing", but refuses to lift the 1% cap on public sector workers salaries, despite inflation at record levels (and against the advice of her cabinet).

"Free" child care of up to 30 hours per week: it has been valued at £120 per week, and the claimant must match that in monetary terms. So if a mum is earning £40 per hour she only has to do 3 hrs per week to claim the full benefit. A mumo on living wage would have to do 16 hrs.

And this  matching in monetary terms to qualify, not hours, is not an oversight- free child care is available to households earing up to £200k per year! It is designed to benefit the wealthy.

It is no different from traditional Tory policy in favouring the rich at the expense of the poor: so much for caring about the "just managing".

 

How many public sector workers are there?

How many are in the 1% pay rise bracket?

How many Public sector workers have received a pay rise above 1%?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That smug quite-comfortably-off-thank-you tit Cameron was in the news today, I see, explaining how to raise the public sector pay limit would be a crime against humanity since Austerity Must Continue, for ever if necessary, and There Can Be No Alternative. Future Generations would never forgive us if we harmed the Nation's Finances through Fiscal Irresponsibility.

The ******* has about as much credibility as Blair, and he's about as deluded in believing that people still take any notice of anything the chubby faced little twerp says. 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

How many public sector workers are there?

How many are in the 1% pay rise bracket?

How many Public sector workers have received a pay rise above 1%?

 

 

Can you just imagine the cheek of May's government?

They have introduced 30 hrs "free" childcare - for a wealthy couple earning up to £16k per month, they just have to do a few hours to get it, a household on minimum wage have to do 2 full days to get the same benefit.

We all have to pull our belts in, eh? We're all in it together?

I guess you are making the point that there are more poor people than wealthy people, so increasing the poor people's wages slightly has a disproportionately large effect on the economy.

But I think you'll find that the wealthiest 10% in the UK receive about 90% of the total income.

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Can you just imagine the cheek of May's government?

They have introduced 30 hrs "free" childcare - for a wealthy couple earning up to £16k per month, they just have to do a few hours to get it, a household on minimum wage have to do 2 full days to get the same benefit.

We all have to pull our belts in, eh? We're all in it together?

I guess you are making the point that there are more poor people than wealthy people, so increasing the poor people's wages slightly has a disproportionately large effect on the economy.

But I think you'll find that the wealthiest 10% in the UK receive about 90% of the total income.

 

That not addressing the questions i asked.

How many public sector workers are there?

How many are in the 1% pay rise bracket?

How many Public sector workers have received a pay rise above 1%?

But to answer your post, i havent looked into it so taking what you said at face value, the easiest option would be to scrap free childcare. it would remedy your argument of rich versus poor, plus the nations benefit budget as ballooned under such policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

That not addressing the questions i asked.

How many public sector workers are there?

How many are in the 1% pay rise bracket?

How many Public sector workers have received a pay rise above 1%?

But to answer your post, i havent looked into it so taking what you said at face value, the easiest option would be to scrap free childcare. it would remedy your argument of rich versus poor, plus the nations benefit budget as ballooned under such policies.

What's  the obsession with statistics?

The pertinent point is that the Tories have capped public sector workers pay at 1% a year despite inflation running at 2% a year.

In real terms the UKs doctors, nurses, teachers, fire officers, and police officers are worse off in real terms each year.

They have also introduced benefit sanctions and capped housing allowances.

That's not to say the Tories have stopped spending public money completely- they have introduced child care changes to benefit the wealthy and give NI £1.5 billion to buy 10 votes.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052

 

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

What's  the obsession with statistics?

The pertinent point is that the Tories have capped public sector workers pay at 1% a year despite inflation running at 2% a year.

In real terms the UKs doctors, nurses, teachers, fire officers, and police officers are worse off in real terms each year.

They have also introduced benefit sanctions and capped housing allowances.

That's not to say the Tories have stopped spending public money completely- they have introduced child care changes to benefit the wealthy and give NI £1.5 billion to buy 10 votes.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052

 

 

Not obsessed, but it would be nice to have a full picture, you've come on here posted a sweeping statement, - Do you not agree It is reasonable for a follow up reply like mine to ask for more detail on the subject. I thought with you raising the point you posted you'd spent time looking into and understanding the subject and the request i made for further information was so we could all fully understand what the subject was, It seems i wrongly presumed that information would have been fresh in your mind. I didn't know you was just reading media sourced opinions, getting outraged and just reciting it on here. i thought you was actually interested.

On how many public sector workers there are and how many have the 1% pay cap, and how many have had above 1% pay rise. equally its easy to say like you did that Doctors and Nurses have had a 1% pay cap. but how many exactly. 1.2Million NHS England staff. more than half 700,000 have had a pay rise of 3.2%, also according to you teachers have had a 1% pay cap and a real terms cut due to inflation. at 2% yet Teachers on average received a 3.3% pay rise in 2015/16  if your not interested in detail  then, okay we'll leave it there. for those who are interested.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/099f8095-6ee2-4cf2-9769-3b428451232a?in=12:48:35

There is a lot to be gleaned from HoC debates allowing individuals to watch and understand the wider arguments and context without the media putting their editorial spin on it.

 

 

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Not obsessed, but it would be nice to have a full picture, you've come on here posted a sweeping statement, - Do you not agree It is reasonable for a follow up reply like mine to ask for more detail on the subject. I thought with you raising the point you posted you had spent time looking into and understanding the subject and the request i made for further information was so we could all fully understand what the subject was, It seems i wrongly presumed that information would have been fresh in your mind. I didn't know you was just reading media sourced opinions, getting outraged and just reciting it on here. i thought you was actually interested.

On how many public sector workers there are and how many have the 1% pay cap, and how many have had above 1% pay rise. equally its easy to say like you did that Doctors and Nurses have had a 1% pay cap. but how many exactly. 1.2Million NHS England staff. more than half 700,000 have had a pay rise of 3.2%, also according to you teachers have had a 1% pay cap and a real terms cut due to inflation. at 2% yet Teachers on average received a 3.3% pay rise in 2015/16  if your not interested in detail  then, okay we'll leave it there. for those who are interested.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/099f8095-6ee2-4cf2-9769-3b428451232a?in=12:48:35

There is a lot to be gleaned from HoC debates allowing individuals to watch and understand the wider arguments and context without the media putting their editorial spin on it.

 

 

On nurses pay:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nhs-staff-pay-cut-one-per-cent-rise-health-workers-doctors-dentists-nurses-midwives-a7654251.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

The fact you posted so soon after my reply shows you just disregarded what I've written, whooooosh, you could have done no wrong in watching the HoC debate i posted. but you resorted to your usually sources. how long did that take you on google 30 seconds. try watching the debate i posted its only 1 hour full of information you'd find useful.

I never looked at your link, I get the information straight from the Horses mouth not the other end.

 

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PM during question time also made the point that some people get increments, so their pay rise is above the 1% cap. However this is a slightly distorted reflection of reality. Many public sector jobs are filled initially at rates below the proper rate for the job. Their contract states that if they stay in posts they will get annual increments to bring their pay to the proper level. To claim then that these are pay rises above the 1% is slightly disingenuous.

What is actually happening is that during the entire period, the staff have been getting increments to get to the proper rate - that rate having been reduced in value each year by the government. 

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

The PM during question time also made the point that some people get increments, so their pay rise is above the 1% cap. However this is a slightly distorted reflection of reality. Many public sector jobs are filled initially at rates below the proper rate for the job. Their contract states that if they stay in posts they will get annual increments to bring their pay to the proper level. To claim then that these are pay rises above the 1% is slightly disingenuous. What is actually happening is that during the entire period the staff have be getting increments to get to the proper rate - that rate having been reduced in value each year by the government. 

Welcome them to the real world, (private sector) when i started in my current job i was on 90% pay for 12 months. i didn't get a pay rise during that 12 months, but on the 12 month anniversary my pay went from 90% to 100%, that 10% jump was reflected in my hourly rate and as a result my pension contributions increased by 3%. did i get a 13% pay rise or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.