I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
I think it is a great question.
What I would do is go paintballing, but keep asking those who voted to paintball what I ought to know, what I ought to do, and how it is all supposed to work. That would be my attempt to understand the attraction of it all, and as a diversion from the temptation to moan.
Red_in_SE8 said: » show previous quotes For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
The 'most serious crisis facing the UK since WW2' would happen if an elitist cabal overturns the result of the Referendum against the wishes of the majority.
37% is not a majority.
Consoling yourself by fiddling numbers would not change the severe nature of the political crisis it would cause.
Not if we had a further (binding) referendum. Especially as the electorate are now much better informed about the consequences of leaving.
Surely nothing to be afraid in that for the leavers?
We had a referendum. We were all warned the world would end if we left. We are only 'better informed' now in that we know that was bs.
Last 2 points are clearly only your opinion/views. Recent Polls suggest now that the electorate feel better informed they would not vote 'leave'. Hence the reluctance for a further vote?
I don't see why people feel better informed. Certainly the issues have been discussed to a great extent, which was scandalously lacking from both sides during the lead up to the referendum.
We cannot be well informed about what Brexit will eventually mean in reality as a deal hasnt been struck and far too many politicians are doing their best to make sure it doesn't happen. Including the Prime Minister with poor negotiations.
You don't feel better informed now? Well you were better informed than I was in June 2016 then. Presumably if I had asked you, you would have been able to explain me exactly what Euratom is, and why it is so important to health care. You would have instantly pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. You'd have explained to me what passporting is, as it affects City financial institutions, and what could happen if they lose it. You knew all about the VAT catch for importers that was revealed to the rest of us earlier this week. Of course you knew that the regions most pro-Brexit are precisely those most set to suffer the economic consequences, while London would suffer the least. You knew that the Medicines Agency would likely relocate to Amsterdam, costing us £500m in the process. You knew that the Civil Service would find itself managing more than 300 separate projects at this time in order to make Brexit happen. To name but a few of the things I didn't know, but you clearly did.
Wow, I wish you'd told me those things. And then, best of all, your reasons why, despite all that, you still planned to Vote Leave!
We knew that when we left the EU we would be leaving its institutional grip. As long as we are still in all that is visible are the consequences of leaving and not what life will be like after we have left. This will depend on how we leave of course and how long the uncertainties created by the long drawn out process last. After we leave we can do things better, such as Gove's proposed changes in agricultural practices to dump the corrupt CAP.
Or we could have joined the many other EU member states who are ready to push through reform of the CAP. A lot of farmers would prefer that to what Gove has planned for them. And then there are the chickens....
But this way a Minister in a government that got elected in an election I voted in and which I and others can vote out will be answerable directly to me and other voters for what they do. This is what a democracy means.
Still banging the drum for the Henry VIII powers being more democratic than laws that are developed in concert with experts and agreed by consensus by all the EU countries then...
Do you or any other Leavers have a view on the recent admission by the US trade undersecretary that the Americans will want to "push the reset button" on our food laws? How do I vote him out if I don't agree with him putting US business interests before the safety of the food on my plate?
Red_in_SE8 said: » show previous quotes For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
The 'most serious crisis facing the UK since WW2' would happen if an elitist cabal overturns the result of the Referendum against the wishes of the majority.
37% is not a majority.
Consoling yourself by fiddling numbers would not change the severe nature of the political crisis it would cause.
Not if we had a further (binding) referendum. Especially as the electorate are now much better informed about the consequences of leaving.
Surely nothing to be afraid in that for the leavers?
We had a referendum. We were all warned the world would end if we left. We are only 'better informed' now in that we know that was bs.
Last 2 points are clearly only your opinion/views. Recent Polls suggest now that the electorate feel better informed they would not vote 'leave'. Hence the reluctance for a further vote?
I don't see why people feel better informed. Certainly the issues have been discussed to a great extent, which was scandalously lacking from both sides during the lead up to the referendum.
We cannot be well informed about what Brexit will eventually mean in reality as a deal hasnt been struck and far too many politicians are doing their best to make sure it doesn't happen. Including the Prime Minister with poor negotiations.
You don't feel better informed now? Well you were better informed than I was in June 2016 then. Presumably if I had asked you, you would have been able to explain me exactly what Euratom is, and why it is so important to health care. You would have instantly pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. You'd have explained to me what passporting is, as it affects City financial institutions, and what could happen if they lose it. You knew all about the VAT catch for importers that was revealed to the rest of us earlier this week. Of course you knew that the regions most pro-Brexit are precisely those most set to suffer the economic consequences, while London would suffer the least. You knew that the Medicines Agency would likely relocate to Amsterdam, costing us £500m in the process. You knew that the Civil Service would find itself managing more than 300 separate projects at this time in order to make Brexit happen. To name but a few of the things I didn't know, but you clearly did.
Wow, I wish you'd told me those things. And then, best of all, your reasons why, despite all that, you still planned to Vote Leave!
We knew that when we left the EU we would be leaving its institutional grip. As long as we are still in all that is visible are the consequences of leaving and not what life will be like after we have left. This will depend on how we leave of course and how long the uncertainties created by the long drawn out process last. After we leave we can do things better, such as Gove's proposed changes in agricultural practices to dump the corrupt CAP.
Or we could have joined the many other EU member states who are ready to push through reform of the CAP. A lot of farmers would prefer that to what Gove has planned for them. And then there are the chickens....
But this way a Minister in a government that got elected in an election I voted in and which I and others can vote out will be answerable directly to me and other voters for what they do. This is what a democracy means.
Errrm. What you have described is one version of democracy. However many would argue it isn't what democracy means. There are issues of voter qualification, proportional representation, the power of the executive verses the power of an assembly, the modifications at supra national, and also local level, let alone the modifications of the House of Lords. Then there are laws about election spending, and the age old issue of media bias. To be so certain you know what democracy means is impressive, but it is not exactly the actual truth or reality.
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
But they won’t make it work, they’ll invent nonsense conspiracy theories as to why their hands were tied by the ‘elite’ despite all positions of responsibility around making it a success being filled by leavers.
Win win for brexiters. We leave the EU then they get to blame remainers for the disaster they created.
Foreign aid will be next in the blame game for why everything is still crap
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
If you are going to use a compulsory works outing as an analogy with Brexit surely a more appropriate scenario is 9 people and one expert guide getting lost in a bonding expedition in the alps. At one point the group has to decide whether to take route 1 or route 2. The expert guide makes the case for route 1 and points out that route 2 is highly dangerous but a couple of bullying know-nothings make a completely fabricated case for route 2 and the vote is 4 for route 2, 3 for route 1 and 3 who can't make up their minds. If you voted for route 1 would you just accept it or continue to make the case for route 1?
Red_in_SE8 said: » show previous quotes For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
The 'most serious crisis facing the UK since WW2' would happen if an elitist cabal overturns the result of the Referendum against the wishes of the majority.
37% is not a majority.
Consoling yourself by fiddling numbers would not change the severe nature of the political crisis it would cause.
Not if we had a further (binding) referendum. Especially as the electorate are now much better informed about the consequences of leaving.
Surely nothing to be afraid in that for the leavers?
We had a referendum. We were all warned the world would end if we left. We are only 'better informed' now in that we know that was bs.
Last 2 points are clearly only your opinion/views. Recent Polls suggest now that the electorate feel better informed they would not vote 'leave'. Hence the reluctance for a further vote?
I don't see why people feel better informed. Certainly the issues have been discussed to a great extent, which was scandalously lacking from both sides during the lead up to the referendum.
We cannot be well informed about what Brexit will eventually mean in reality as a deal hasnt been struck and far too many politicians are doing their best to make sure it doesn't happen. Including the Prime Minister with poor negotiations.
You don't feel better informed now? Well you were better informed than I was in June 2016 then. Presumably if I had asked you, you would have been able to explain me exactly what Euratom is, and why it is so important to health care. You would have instantly pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. You'd have explained to me what passporting is, as it affects City financial institutions, and what could happen if they lose it. You knew all about the VAT catch for importers that was revealed to the rest of us earlier this week. Of course you knew that the regions most pro-Brexit are precisely those most set to suffer the economic consequences, while London would suffer the least. You knew that the Medicines Agency would likely relocate to Amsterdam, costing us £500m in the process. You knew that the Civil Service would find itself managing more than 300 separate projects at this time in order to make Brexit happen. To name but a few of the things I didn't know, but you clearly did.
Wow, I wish you'd told me those things. And then, best of all, your reasons why, despite all that, you still planned to Vote Leave!
We knew that when we left the EU we would be leaving its institutional grip. As long as we are still in all that is visible are the consequences of leaving and not what life will be like after we have left. This will depend on how we leave of course and how long the uncertainties created by the long drawn out process last. After we leave we can do things better, such as Gove's proposed changes in agricultural practices to dump the corrupt CAP.
Or we could have joined the many other EU member states who are ready to push through reform of the CAP. A lot of farmers would prefer that to what Gove has planned for them. And then there are the chickens....
But this way a Minister in a government that got elected in an election I voted in and which I and others can vote out will be answerable directly to me and other voters for what they do. This is what a democracy means.
What about the unelected and unaccountable Ministers, Joyce Anelay, Fred Curzon, David Freud, Mark Price, Lucy Neville-Rolfe and Susan Williams?
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
If you are going to use a compulsory works outing as an analogy with Brexit surely a more appropriate scenario is 9 people and one expert guide getting lost in a bonding expedition in the alps. At one point the group has to decide whether to take route 1 or route 2. The expert guide makes the case for route 1 and points out that route 2 is highly dangerous but a couple of bullying know-nothings make a completely fabricated case for route 2 and the vote is 4 for route 2, 3 for route 1 and 3 who can't make up their minds. If you voted for route 1 would you just accept it or continue to make the case for route 1?
Red_in_SE8 said: » show previous quotes For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
The 'most serious crisis facing the UK since WW2' would happen if an elitist cabal overturns the result of the Referendum against the wishes of the majority.
37% is not a majority.
Consoling yourself by fiddling numbers would not change the severe nature of the political crisis it would cause.
Not if we had a further (binding) referendum. Especially as the electorate are now much better informed about the consequences of leaving.
Surely nothing to be afraid in that for the leavers?
We had a referendum. We were all warned the world would end if we left. We are only 'better informed' now in that we know that was bs.
Last 2 points are clearly only your opinion/views. Recent Polls suggest now that the electorate feel better informed they would not vote 'leave'. Hence the reluctance for a further vote?
I don't see why people feel better informed. Certainly the issues have been discussed to a great extent, which was scandalously lacking from both sides during the lead up to the referendum.
We cannot be well informed about what Brexit will eventually mean in reality as a deal hasnt been struck and far too many politicians are doing their best to make sure it doesn't happen. Including the Prime Minister with poor negotiations.
"We cannot be well informed about what Brexit will eventually mean in reality as a deal hasn't been struck".
I am just letting that comment sink in for a moment. What this says is that the consequences of a decision we made we not - and are still not - known at the time we made the decision. But that those consequences will be made clear at some point in the future, at a time at which it will be too late to do anything about.
Here's an analogy. You're told there is a speed camera some way ahead. You can go as fast as you like and, in fact, choose exactly what to drive. But you're not told what the speed limit is on the road, until after you have passed the camera. Is that a scenario that seems attractive?
If not, then you might agree that not knowing the outcome of the decision that's been made until it's too late to do something about it is a pretty good description of the something that should be avoided.
If I didn't know the speed limit, but I knew there was a speed camera ahead, I would take evasive action (like, turning round), instead of blindly careering forward in the hope that between us, all the passengers in the car could pony up the dough for the fine.
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
If you are going to use a compulsory works outing as an analogy with Brexit surely a more appropriate scenario is 9 people and one expert guide getting lost in a bonding expedition in the alps. At one point the group has to decide whether to take route 1 or route 2. The expert guide makes the case for route 1 and points out that route 2 is highly dangerous but a couple of bullying know-nothings make a completely fabricated case for route 2 and the vote is 4 for route 2, 3 for route 1 and 3 who can't make up their minds. If you voted for route 1 would you just accept it or continue to make the case for route 1?
Seriously, can you actually read?
Why, because he chose to replace your metaphor with a more apt one?
Bollocks to that suggestion to be frank. No one on this discussion for example has refused to listen to or consider the views of Leavers.
Indeed they have been invited, constantly, to set out their alternative position/propostion and the evidence and data supporting this. As were those behind the Brexit campaign invited to set out the nature of the UK's future relationship before the referendum. They refused to do so or have since changed this position to something other than that previously stated and voted on.
It is not the fault of those on the Remain side of this equation that the massive weight of evidence at the moment, coupled with the shambolic nature of the UK government and their negotiating position, favours their view and does not support Brexit as a favourable policy to pursue.
Instead of regularly portraying those who voted to stay as overly biased, blinkered and somehow incapable of taking an objective view, why not actually make a proactive and positive contribution to the discussion and spell out some of the positives for us? Maybe explain why a US government trade representative admitting on the record they will be looking to downgrade our agricultural standards is a good thing for example...no one on the Leave side has even acknowledged this recent statement?
And yes, I am aware you claim to have voted Remain.
Calm down. There's no need for the level of anger emanating from you.
The echo chamber quip was put up as being true for both sides of the divide.
Breathe.
Anger? Raging? Just the usual standard deflection from the substantive point it seems to me.
If you've followed some of my posts over years now you would have seen many times I have raised the issue of Confirmation Bias on here and how we should all be aware and caution against it. I know that I'm much more aware of it than I used to be hence I look to substantiate and inform my own views with data, etc. and I remain (no pun intended) more than happy to consider the views of those who I don't agree with on a subject. Like you. Doesn't mean I won't challenge them though or support views that I do agree with and in doing so doesn't mean that I'm unreasonably biased or by definition part of a echo chamber. IMO.
I would have no problem with you pointing out a poster's bias if you did so more equatable but it seems..and again I conceded this might in fact be my own Confirmation Bias kicking in...that the majority of your posts are negative in tone towards Remainers and invariably supportive right of centre politics on other issues.
The majority of my posts are either made up of a sarcastic comment aimed at the subject matter as a whole, a sarcastic comment at the excessive use of emotive nonsense when trying to (over)emphasise a point to put people off of posting for fear of them being labelled with all the emotive nonsense that preceded, or it's just an attempt at humour to break the monotony of the tail chasing.
That's really it, mate. No hidden agenda here, which will be very hard for some to accept as it's quite clear that if you don't fall over yourself to like certain posts then it most definitely means you're the enemy.
FWIW the echo chamber picture was posted to encompass all, hence why I made sure not to use it in reply to another post.
As for the deflection bit, I'm glad you agree with the point I made a couple of weeks back where a gang of hoodrats piled in on one of my posts for being truthful
Some on here take themselves far too seriously and need to lighten up.
For the most part this thread is a very informative and serious debate/commentary (more commentary these days since the few Intelligent Brexit voters we had have given up in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that has emerged since the Referendum, of what a disaster Brexit is for the U.K.) about the most serious crisis facing the U.K. since WW2. Brexit is far from a joke.
You and a few other like minded Brexit voters contribute nothing to the thread other than to constantly express irritation that the thread has not been closed and to mock the members who continue to post on it. As I have stated before, it is a bit like me opening a TV reality show thread and repeatedly laughing at and mocking the regular posters on the thread and urging them to get a life.
Apart from posting biased links and abusing people, do enlighten me on what your contribution has been. Mine is meant as a joke, i assume yours is too, as you talk absolute crap.
I did not claim to make a significant contribution to this thread. I regularly post links to articles written by respected journalists and experts. Mostly however, I use this thread to keep up with all the Brexit news as it develops and have the more complex developments explained by better informed posters than myself such as @NornIrishAddick, @Bournemouth Addick , @PragueAddick and a few others.
Over the next year this thread will overheat regularly as the cliff edge approaches and tempers rise and the debate becomes evermore vigorous. Some people will enjoy that, some people won't. Whatever, it does not change the fact that for a lot of people this thread, and its predecessor, was, is and will continue to be a useful resource for those who are interested and concerned about the impact that Brexit will have on the future of the UK.
Some posters will be more polite than others. We can make a pretty good guess into which camps the regular posters will fall. And yes, I know I am not in the polite camp when it comes to Brexit.
If you are a snowflake don't open the thread. If you don't like the pro Remain tone of the thread open the Brexit threads on the Millwall forums instead.
Your the second person to suggest I am or go in the Millwall camp.
I don't think he was referring to you. More likely to the resident Spanner on the thread.
Anyway, while you are here, Chips old chap, I want to hear more about your cars. I presume you have bought British, so you started with a Morgan, and then traded it in for a Caterham? Or are you doing so well you kept the Morgan? Or perhaps like the PM you persuaded yourself that a Jag is still British? Shall we call you, very affectionately, 2JagsChips ?
Lol if only 18 months ago, ford fiesta... Now an astra, probably one of the last to be made at Elmsmere Port. Load of redundancies announced today by our good euro partners the french.
Oh btw your taxes paid for it... But i still wouldn't give you the vote.
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
Although 7 out 10 voted, one idiot in the group would say only 37% voted
I am avid remain but don't want another referendum, and that isn't speaking out of fear of losing. If a Parliamentary election was fought on brexit that would be different. As it is bring on brexit, and all the leavers out there can make it work. The term passive aggressive seems to have been invented just for me over this brexit issue.
Serious question.
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea? Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
Although 7 out 10 voted, one idiot in the group would say only 37% voted
Being an idiot, I might claim that only 37% had voted for the winning proposition, not that 37% voted.
Mind you, having been paint balling, on a "compulsory" basis (back in the day when I still allowed myself be volunteered for stag do's), I'd endlessly moan if the sum total of the preparation is to give the other team all the paint guns, endless ammunition and safety gear - leaving me, and the other nine with little more than big targets pinned to our clothes.
The investment is clearly very welcome, but (because I'm the kind of guy who likes to caveat things) it does represent investment in, often, reasonably established tech start-ups - which is why a significant amount of the sums involved relates to a very small number of companies.
Those investing the huge sums are taking a calculated gamble on the basis of existing/current tech products and companies.
And, in fairness, they are less likely to be affected by the possible outcomes of Brexit than, for example, a car manufacturer.
If anything, however, the level of investment is a vote of confidence in the status quo - a status quo that tech companies are eager to retain (in terms of easy access to IT talent). If it becomes too difficult to access the right kind of people in the UK (and the messages seem a bit mixed in terms of expectations), the number of new start ups in the UK would be likely to reduce (and a large volume are required, as the percentage that make it will be small).
I really hope that this is a pattern that continues, but a lot will depend on the decision making of the UK Government - it's just such a relief to see that the UK Government is currently so well organised and capable (the reshuffle has been a masterstroke, I think we can all agree)...
The investment is clearly very welcome, but (because I'm the kind of guy who likes to caveat things) it does represent investment in, often, reasonably established tech start-ups - which is why a significant amount of the sums involved relates to a very small number of companies.
Those investing the huge sums are taking a calculated gamble on the basis of existing/current tech products and companies.
And, in fairness, they are less likely to be affected by the possible outcomes of Brexit than, for example, a car manufacturer.
If anything, however, the level of investment is a vote of confidence in the status quo - a status quo that tech companies are eager to retain (in terms of easy access to IT talent). If it becomes too difficult to access the right kind of people in the UK (and the messages seem a bit mixed in terms of expectations), the number of new start ups in the UK would be likely to reduce (and a large volume are required, as the percentage that make it will be small).
I really hope that this is a pattern that continues, but a lot will depend on the decision making of the UK Government - it's just such a relief to see that the UK Government is currently so well organised and capable (the reshuffle has been a masterstroke, I think we can all agree)...
Agreed much depends on government support but, in this particular area, they have been very proactive.
There is a lot more to come in FinTech and the UK is very well positioned to obtain much more investment, provided the right people stay involved ... personally, I do not believe this will turn out to be a problem, but we will see how it pans out.
Economic armageddon is profoundly unlikely regardless of what shape Brexit takes.
The issue is the Government is not being candid about which sectors are most at risk of disruption nor how any projected shocks that would impact tax revenues and therefore public spending would be dealt with or where any cuts would take place. There is also no indication that there will be any material benefits to most people of Brexit despite the risks that are currently being taken.
Just when you thought you couldn't make it up any more, after a year of banging on about no deal is better than a bad deal, a letter has been obtained by the FT in which Davis complains to May that those dastardly little green men in Brussels are - get this - making concrete plans for No Deal!!!. The slippery conniving wogs*!
Well let me tell you, Davis, you absolute platinum grade cretin, they are not little green men, but representatives of 500 million people, and i can tell you, as one of them, that I absolutely mandate and indeed expect them to plan in full for the consequences of No Deal.
Seriously how can you put your faith in people like Davis to negotiate, if they think they are negotiating with cardboard cut out caricatures, as opposed to with politicians who themselves have an electorate to answer to?
* For the avoidance of doubt about my use of that word. Davis and I are of an age when we remember the phrase "Wogs begin at Calais". I use it now to illustrate that Davis appears never to have stopped thinking that the phrase has some truth in it. It is of course nothing to do with skin colour, especially as all his opposite numbers are in fact green.
Comments
If you were part of a compulsory works outing and the vote was 4 for paintballing vs 3 for night in the pub and 3 who couldn't be arsed to vote, would you go along (it's compulsory) and endlessly moan about the paintballing, willing it to be the worst night ever? Or would you make a go of it, trying to make it a decent eveining despite hating the very idea?
Obviously completely different to Brexit, but interesting to hear your viewpoint.
What I would do is go paintballing, but keep asking those who voted to paintball what I ought to know, what I ought to do, and how it is all supposed to work. That would be my attempt to understand the attraction of it all, and as a diversion from the temptation to moan.
Do you or any other Leavers have a view on the recent admission by the US trade undersecretary that the Americans will want to "push the reset button" on our food laws? How do I vote him out if I don't agree with him putting US business interests before the safety of the food on my plate?
What you have described is one version of democracy. However many would argue it isn't what democracy means. There are issues of voter qualification, proportional representation, the power of the executive verses the power of an assembly, the modifications at supra national, and also local level, let alone the modifications of the House of Lords.
Then there are laws about election spending, and the age old issue of media bias.
To be so certain you know what democracy means is impressive, but it is not exactly the actual truth or reality.
It won't end just because we left the EU
Oh btw your taxes paid for it... But i still wouldn't give you the vote.
And the unelected EU commission, but you knew that.
Mind you, having been paint balling, on a "compulsory" basis (back in the day when I still allowed myself be volunteered for stag do's), I'd endlessly moan if the sum total of the preparation is to give the other team all the paint guns, endless ammunition and safety gear - leaving me, and the other nine with little more than big targets pinned to our clothes.
Never happy me......
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/uk-races-ahead-of-european-rivals-with-record-tech-investment-36460640.html
Those investing the huge sums are taking a calculated gamble on the basis of existing/current tech products and companies.
And, in fairness, they are less likely to be affected by the possible outcomes of Brexit than, for example, a car manufacturer.
If anything, however, the level of investment is a vote of confidence in the status quo - a status quo that tech companies are eager to retain (in terms of easy access to IT talent). If it becomes too difficult to access the right kind of people in the UK (and the messages seem a bit mixed in terms of expectations), the number of new start ups in the UK would be likely to reduce (and a large volume are required, as the percentage that make it will be small).
I really hope that this is a pattern that continues, but a lot will depend on the decision making of the UK Government - it's just such a relief to see that the UK Government is currently so well organised and capable (the reshuffle has been a masterstroke, I think we can all agree)...
There is a lot more to come in FinTech and the UK is very well positioned to obtain much more investment, provided the right people stay involved ... personally, I do not believe this will turn out to be a problem, but we will see how it pans out.
The issue is the Government is not being candid about which sectors are most at risk of disruption nor how any projected shocks that would impact tax revenues and therefore public spending would be dealt with or where any cuts would take place. There is also no indication that there will be any material benefits to most people of Brexit despite the risks that are currently being taken.
Well let me tell you, Davis, you absolute platinum grade cretin, they are not little green men, but representatives of 500 million people, and i can tell you, as one of them, that I absolutely mandate and indeed expect them to plan in full for the consequences of No Deal.
Seriously how can you put your faith in people like Davis to negotiate, if they think they are negotiating with cardboard cut out caricatures, as opposed to with politicians who themselves have an electorate to answer to?
* For the avoidance of doubt about my use of that word. Davis and I are of an age when we remember the phrase "Wogs begin at Calais". I use it now to illustrate that Davis appears never to have stopped thinking that the phrase has some truth in it. It is of course nothing to do with skin colour, especially as all his opposite numbers are in fact green.
At last a sensible one line comment, far better than all the crap from Prague, Fiiish, NornIrish etc