Happy Brexit Day

[johnie]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not just about age, though that did play a

> part.

>

> It was;

>

> Urban vs Rural

> North vs South

> Poor vs Wealthy

>

>

Not actually the key demographic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

"◾The level of education had a higher correlation with the voting pattern than any other major demographic measure"

[uncleglen]

Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off, are benefiting greatly from free movement, cheap building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for 'electricians e.g.), not to mention massive increase in house prices. Young people are not affected by queues in the NHS, lack of school places etc and the well off can pay for health care if necessary.

Just as the well off are not affected by Labour governments that treat the tax payers' pockets like bottomless pits, the well educated well off have NO idea about what is going on in the rest of the country.

[Otta]

The pressure on the NHS / Social Care comes from the aging population, much more than immigrants.

And no I am not having a pop at the elderly, I am just stating a fact.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not just about age, though that did play a

> part.

>

> It was;

>

> Urban vs Rural

> North vs South

> Poor vs Wealthy

>

>

> This whole thing was basically brought about by a London centric government ignoring English regions, where

> poverty reigned and no one in power bothered to do anything about it. A modern day peasants revolt ultimately, but > obviously more complex than JUST that.

I think you're right (I know Johnnie points to level of education, but that actually ties in with the categories you mention). Problem is the "peasants" have revolted in such a way as to not help themselves at all. Things won't change for them, but I suppose they might get worse for those better off than them, so in that sense they have just turned it in to a race to the bottom.

[Seabag]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off,

> are benefiting greatly from free movement, cheap

> building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for

> 'electricians e.g.), not to mention massive

> increase in house prices. Young people are not

> affected by queues in the NHS, lack of school

> places etc and the well off can pay for health

> care if necessary.

> Just as the well off are not affected by Labour

> governments that treat the tax payers' pockets

> like bottomless pits, the well educated well off

> have NO idea about what is going on in the rest of

> the country.

Please can I have 2 electricians and a plumber. I'm doing a building project and those guys for ?20 sound great

If only eh!

[Otta]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off,

> are benefiting greatly from free movement, cheap

> building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for

> 'electricians e.g

Worth noting that this started because (well off) British builders started hiring cheap Polish labour and paying them peanuts off the books, thus becoming more wealthy whilst exploiting these workers. You can't really blame these workers for eventually thinking "fuck this, lets go it alone and undercut this prick".

If tradesmen charged more realistic and honest rates, and actually did a hard days work, they wouldn't be so easy to undercut or beat on timescale.

Let us not forget just how bad a rep the British builder used to have. You can't blame people for using a better and cheaper service.

And ?20 a day is a figure you've just made up, let's be honest.

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off,

> are benefiting greatly from free movement, cheap

> building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for

> 'electricians e.g.),

Seriously, where can I find these people?!

not to mention massive

> increase in house prices. Young people are not

> affected by queues in the NHS,

Except those young people with medical conditions who need the NHS, or those who have accidents or chronic illness. Or like my wife who nearly died after the birth of our first child.

lack of school

> places etc

I don't know, I'm pretty worried about it for my kids.

and the well off can pay for health

> care if necessary.

I earn above the London average wage and support my family off that. So I can't afford private healthcare, not even close.

> Just as the well off are not affected by Labour

> governments that treat the tax payers' pockets

> like bottomless pits, the well educated well off

> have NO idea about what is going on in the rest of

> the country.

What's your criteria for well-educated and well-off? Do out consider yourself educated? You sound increasingly like a Khmer Rouge member, hating on people for getting an education. When Gove said people were tired of experts, I asked myself if he only meant experts who disagree with them.

Surely the point of becoming educated is to learn about the world around us? Does an education in others only count if they agree with you? I'm all for recognising the hubris, ignorance and malpractice that successive governments have exhibited in regards to areas outside London, but your view seems to be that anyone who comes to a different conclusion to you is just wrong.

Is that how you treat your students?

[JoeLeg]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off,

> > are benefiting greatly from free movement,

> cheap

> > building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for

> > 'electricians e.g

>

>

> Worth noting that this started because (well off)

> British builders started hiring cheap Polish

> labour and paying them peanuts off the books, thus

> becoming more wealthy whilst exploiting these

> workers. You can't really blame these workers for

> eventually thinking "@#$%& this, lets go it alone

> and undercut this prick".

>

> If tradesmen charged more realistic and honest

> rates, and actually did a hard days work, they

> wouldn't be so easy to undercut or beat on

> timescale.

>

> Let us not forget just how bad a rep the British

> builder used to have. You can't blame people for

> using a better and cheaper service.

>

> And ?20 a day is a figure you've just made up,

> let's be honest.

And this. A hundred times this.

I'm so fed up of British people claiming Europeans came over here and took the work just be being cheaper.

Let's be clear. British workers have long had a well-deserved reputation for being lazy feckless twats. There's a reason for it. Someone who owns a long-established business in East Dulwich once told me of his time as a youth on the Vauxhall car production line. It was tragic to hear, and made it clear why other countries would get the contracts.

As I've said many times on here, my personal experience is that young Brits deserve the bad rep they get.

[miga]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> -skill shortages is the potential issue here so

> that does need addressing.

or to put a completely OTT positive spin on it, maybe we'll stop importing fully formed professionals from abroad and start investing in technical training here.....maybe.

[titch juicy]

I almost feel sorry for Uncleglen and the butchering he's getting here.

[Otta]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I've said many times on here, my personal

> experience is that young Brits deserve the bad rep

> they get.

When I lived in Liverpool (96 - 01) I'd constantly hear how there were no jobs. I walked around the town centre going in to every pub asking if they needed staff and had a job within the hour (whilst I was at uni). Then when I left I easily found a job in a betting shop and an agency job at a bank. The pay was shit (?5 per hour which was I think minimum at the time), but my rent was only ?45 a week for a one bed flat.

Basically there is work out there, but a lot of people think it's not good enough for them.

[JohnL]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Worth noting that this started because (well off)

> British builders started hiring cheap Polish

> labour and paying them peanuts off the books, thus

> becoming more wealthy whilst exploiting these

> workers. You can't really blame these workers for

> eventually thinking "@#$%& this, lets go it alone

> and undercut this prick".

Vortigern invited the Saxons to Briton to fight the

Irish and Scots and you can't blame them for thinking

**** this lets start fighting for ourselves.

1500 years and not much changes :)

[Otta]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > -skill shortages is the potential issue here so

> > that does need addressing.

>

> or to put a completely OTT positive spin on it,

> maybe we'll stop importing fully formed

> professionals from abroad and start investing in

> technical training here.....maybe.

If I thought for a second it would lead to that sort of thing I could probably even get on board. But we don't exactly have a good record on that front.

[JohnL]

"Esteban Gonz?lez Pons, the vice-president of the European People?s party, told El Pa?s that May?s failure to mention Gibraltar in the letter was ?very relevant?, adding that the omission was ?because Gibraltar isn?t part of the United Kingdom; it?s a colony like the island of St Helena?."

Another big mistake by May - It's certainly Round 1 to EU-27

[binkylilyput]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I not for one second disagree with your sentiments

> above robbin. I do hope, for everyone's sake, that

> you are of course correct and the present

> situation does continue and that we see growth in

> the medium to long term as a result of this

> decision.

>

> Some of the political minds and members of the

> upper circles, have for decades had vested

> interests in us remaining part of the EU club.

> That's surely undeniable? But equally, I believe

> some people have genuine reasons for enjoying the

> globalised and perhaps rose tinted view that the

> EU offers opportunities on our doorstep which far

> outway anything we could hope for beyond that.

> Perhaps, in some ways, that could be perceived as

> quite insular BUT I do genuinely believe those

> people were more intelligent and informed than

> that, and had a genuine low for the positives

> brought to us from membership of the EU... 'if it

> ain't broke, why fix it?'.

>

> I am often perceived as perhaps being deliberately

> provocative on this forum, but I can assure you

> that I did freely vote for Brexit without fully

> understanding all of the bluster thrown at me

> during the referendum campaign. If I were offered

> the vote now, despite everything you say about the

> non-existent impending doom, I would have voted to

> remain. Not only because of the lies spouted, but

> also because it seems like an unnecessary

> upheaval- with the aim of achieving what exactly?

> Also thinking of the poor people who's lives have

> been turned upside down because of all the

> uncertainty. It just seems like a diversion off of

> the motorway, which leads us onto some A road

> heading in the same direction. What's the point?

>

> Louisa.

A balanced and honest post I think Louisa. I suspect many feel similarly. It's very tough to be open about changing your mind and some people stick rigidly to their original view for this reason

[JoeLeg]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > -skill shortages is the potential issue here so

> > that does need addressing.

>

> or to put a completely OTT positive spin on it,

> maybe we'll stop importing fully formed

> professionals from abroad and start investing in

> technical training here.....maybe.

I fully, 100%, totally support any kind of proper schemes which give young people (or any people who want to take them) real supportive and experienced training in trades. We need them, really badly. And they need to go hand in hand with the message that just because you start out doing menial jobs like sweeping the workshop floor or cleaning the toilets, doesn't mean you stay there. Prove you can be relied on, work hard, get promoted.

[JoeLeg]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As I've said many times on here, my personal

> > experience is that young Brits deserve the bad

> rep

> > they get.

>

>

> When I lived in Liverpool (96 - 01) I'd constantly

> hear how there were no jobs. I walked around the

> town centre going in to every pub asking if they

> needed staff and had a job within the hour (whilst

> I was at uni). Then when I left I easily found a

> job in a betting shop and an agency job at a bank.

> The pay was shit (?5 per hour which was I think

> minimum at the time), but my rent was only ?45 a

> week for a one bed flat.

>

> Basically there is work out there, but a lot of

> people think it's not good enough for them.

Sorry, but this is unfortunately very true. Economic migrants go where they can get work. If British people don't want the work others will do it. And don't start on about undercutting and gangsters - I'm not talking about the black economy.

I'm talking about basic jobs, these low skilled positions that are the subject of such debate. Why do so many Brits not want those jobs? Why would they prefer to stay unemployed?

[Loz]

Just parking this here....

[robbin]

What a load of crap!

That's even more misleading than Boris' bus (and that's saying something).

I'm refraining from posting on this thread because there's no point - several people here are desperate to see an economic disaster unfold and will be terribly disappointed if the destruction of their own country doesn't come to pass. Others will simply pick and choose whatever they want (or failing that, simply make stuff up) - no balance.

But the bus pic is in a different category - just plain daft!

[rendelharris]

Why is that such crap, Robbin? in November the Office for Budget Responsibility published its estimate that the government would have to borrow exactly that figure - ?58.7BN - to cover the costs of leaving the EU. You can disagree with that by all means but you can't just dismiss it, it's not some figure pulled out of the air. Note also that the prediction was just to cover the negative economic effects and doesn't include any "divorce settlement" payments, which most experts seem to be agreeing will end up somewhere between ?20-?40BN.

[JohnL]

Now if it wasn't the parody account :)

[JohnL]

Actually I'd put the score at

EU-27 2 UK 0

at the moment

Goal 1: The attempt by TM to link security to trade as an own goal

Goal 2: The obvious dummy over Gibraltar which has now been brought and no doubt counts as a concession

[Loz]

I'd add:

Goal 3: No trade deal talks until the issue of the exit cash has been finalised.

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is that such crap, Robbin? in November the

> Office for Budget Responsibility published its

> estimate that the government would have to borrow

> exactly that figure - ?58.7BN - to cover the costs

> of leaving the EU. You can disagree with that by

> all means but you can't just dismiss it, it's not

> some figure pulled out of the air. Note also that

> the prediction was just to cover the negative

> economic effects and doesn't include any "divorce

> settlement" payments, which most experts seem to

> be agreeing will end up somewhere between

> ?20-?40BN.

Well, for various reasons - principally because the bus message is just the latest in another bit of misleading cherry picking of figures that is misleading because it is one side of an equation (and let's face it you don't get much from just one side of an equation). By this, I mean "the cost of" (on the bus) clearly implies that is the actual cost - whereas it is in truth more like just the liability - not the liability less the savings/benefit. The annual net saving to the UK (saving of net contributions - i.e. after rebate and payments back in subsidies, grants etc.) will be between about 5.3 billion and 9 billion (the 5.3 billion being the Remain camp's worst case scenario, the 9 billion being the OBR's upper end figure). Within a decade that mounts up to a lot of saving to set off against the 'cost'. All I'm saying is you can't just ignore the savings and talk of the costs (well, you can, but that's hardly going to lead to an intelligent or informed debate). But then I'm sure the bus message is meant to shock and fool the unwary.

In addition, while you are perfectly correct to point out that the OBR estimated this gross expense in November 2016, it quite fairly noted it was an unusually uncertain estimate. It also noted it was based on (what turned out to be overly pessimistic) forecasts for GDP growth which have, since then been very substantially bettered. It was also out on inflation forecasts.

I'm not saying the OBR figure is nonsense, or that the economic outlook might reverse and go downhill. These are uncertain times. Many would not have predicted the economy would be so strong as it has been since June 2016 (many on here are, it seems, willing things to go the other way - which I find really odd and quite depressing, as we are all in this together). Mind you, some of those people still probably cling to the view they previously excitedly espoused on here that Jeremy Corbyn was the future (you know, a bit like phone cards). They were way out on that too.

What I am saying is that the painting of one figure on the side of a bus (which is plainly not the actual cost, when everything is taken into account) is crap. It is as misleading as the other ridiculous bus message from the Leave campaign in June.

So no, I don't dismiss the OBR figure out of hand. I prefer to look at it in its proper perspective and ascribe to it its true meaning. It's the bus message I was commenting on.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually I'd put the score at

>

> EU-27 2 UK 0

>

> at the moment

>

> Goal 1: The attempt by TM to link security to

> trade as an own goal

> Goal 2: The obvious dummy over Gibraltar which has

> now been brought and no doubt counts as a

> concession

How about (1) Angel Merkel unequivocally stating EU will not even start trade negotiations until all agreements concluded on 'disentangling' and the blackmail money paid. Then 48 hours later the EU backs down and dilutes this to a position of no trade negotiations until 'sufficient progress' made on disentangling. Potentially very different. Clearly a deliberately different form of words and position.

Mentioning security is an obvious point - why is that an 'own goal'. That's absurd. It is something the UK brings to the table and the EU knows it. It's been put out there, then backed away from. That's negotiation - the position has been planted and will be borne in mind as we go forward. In a similar vein, why is stating that if we come out of Europol there might be consequences 'blackmail', but it's not 'blackmail' for the EU to say pay us 50 billion in cash or we won't even discuss trade? Get real, seriously.

It's negotiation and posturing - get over it, or at least recognise it for what it is! As someone who negotiates for a living, I would respectfully suggest that you shouldn't get too excited about things said one day to the next, particularly as its a 2 year (probably far longer) process and it hasn't even started yet. Also there are so many individuals playing to the cameras and their own constituents and varied agendas that you have to expect all sorts of stuff to be said.

[rendelharris]

We shall see! I can assure you I don't want things to go wrong, if we could avoid the troubles which I see ahead I certainly wouldn't want the troubles to come just so I could say told you so. I agree, there is another side of the equation, but if we're saving ?5BN a year and losing the same amount over the next decade, that's not going to be a zero sum game, as at the same time we'll have lost tariff-free access to Europe and possibly a lot of inward investment.

You do know that's a Photoshop amendment of the Leave bus, not a real bus?!