Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
I don't think Gove's reforms improved education and nor do many people in Education. He wanted to take things back to some Eutopian 50s like world. It was disruptive for pupils to have to manage the exam changes. My son was affected but he still did well, but some were hung out to dry by him.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
An interesting extract from the full report:
"Just over half (51%) of firms think that free-trade agreements will have a positive impact on their business over the next three years, suggesting some confidence that the UK will able to maintain a degree of free trade with the EU and perhaps achieve free-trade agreements further field after exiting the EU."
This morning the R4 Today programme has interviewed Carole Cadwalladr, the Guardian journalist who has led the investigations into Banks, LeaveEU funding, and Cambridge Analytica. On her own. So what?
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
I have never used the term 'Establishment' for the following reason. While I do believe that a majority of those in the intellectual, political and business elites oppose Brexit, 95% of academics apparently for example, these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically.
What binds them together now is essentially fear of change, the Remain campaign was small c conservative and driven primarily by loss aversion , or 'Project Fear' as it is known. They want to hold on to the EU for fear of something worse. Yet they were and still are incapable of providing a positive vision of life in the EU, despite having their hands on nearly all the tools of public persuasion. I voted Leave in part because I saw it as one way of disrupting the stagnant political system and helping to trigger more radical change.
Suddenly decided to start using the word "Establishment" a sentence later though?
"...these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically."
You mean, they no longer reflect your narrow view of the world, so they are wrong.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
Or upset a few people who respect an international treaty freely entered into by the UK? Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement? If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out. Any suggestions?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
I'd care to disagree.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
Obviously you see it from a NI / Ireland perspective & I will admit I haven't read up about The Troubles, potato famine & the whole British occupation of Ireland.
One thing I take from what you said " there were no losers" ......sounds like a fudge to me.....or at best a compromise as there were losers in it all, just ask Eileen Foster. She lost her father to an IRA bomb I believe, the perpetrator of which was convicted & then walked free a few years later due to the GFA.
F, if Portugal was to leave the EU, what do you think they would do about the border between them & Spain ??
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
I expected such a comment but, bearing in mind that we are continually told that 'only' 51.89% of the votes were in favour of Brexit and that this is not a 'majority', then it looks a good majority percentage to me if 69% of companies do not expect a negative impact ... and let's bear in mind that, as I stated before, a proportion of negativity is only to be expected due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
I expected such a comment but, bearing in mind that we are continually told that 'only' 51.89% of the votes were in favour of Brexit and that this is not a 'majority', then it looks a good majority percentage to me if 69% of companies do not expect a negative impact ... and let's bear in mind that, as I stated before, a proportion of negativity is only to be expected due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government.
It doesn't really work like that though because you are talking about two completely different things. If I told you that 98% of astronauts returned home from space safely, you might (as I am) be rather impressed. If I told you that 98% of the commuters on Southern Rail made it home safely each day, I'd think/hope you'd have a rather different opinion. The big question is, how can anyone possibly defend a decision that 31% of businesses think will be damaging?
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
I expected such a comment but, bearing in mind that we are continually told that 'only' 51.89% of the votes were in favour of Brexit and that this is not a 'majority', then it looks a good majority percentage to me if 69% of companies do not expect a negative impact ... and let's bear in mind that, as I stated before, a proportion of negativity is only to be expected due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government.
It doesn't really work like that though because you are talking about two completely different things. If I told you that 98% of astronauts returned home from space safely, you might (as I am) be rather impressed. If I told you that 98% of the commuters on Southern Rail made it home safely each day, I'd think/hope you'd have a rather different opinion. The big question is, how can anyone possibly defend a decision that 31% of businesses think will be damaging?
We will just have to disagree. My perspective is that, despite the hopeless UK approach to the negotiations, 40% of the UK companies surveyed see a positive, 31% a negative and 22% expect no impact. I think that, in the current environment where none of us actually know the eventual outcome, that is an astonishingly high positive majority.
Anyway, as @PragueAddick states above, "we will soon find out, won't we"
Yep, looks like we'll have to. My perspective is that I can't think of another political decision ever that has been steamrollered through with such massive margins of concern. That a key line in your defence is that, we don't know, just underlines the sheer folly of it.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
Or upset a few people who respect an international treaty freely entered into by the UK? Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement? If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out. Any suggestions?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
I'd care to disagree.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
Obviously you see it from a NI / Ireland perspective & I will admit I haven't read up about The Troubles, potato famine & the whole British occupation of Ireland.
One thing I take from what you said " there were no losers" ......sounds like a fudge to me.....or at best a compromise as there were losers in it all, just ask Eileen Foster. She lost her father to an IRA bomb I believe, the perpetrator of which was convicted & then walked free a few years later due to the GFA.
F, if Portugal was to leave the EU, what do you think they would do about the border between them & Spain ??
So on the back of admitting you know nothing about the Irish question you have formulated you view of what has happened and what’s likely to happen going forward.
By the way the Good Friday Agreement “fudge” has kept the peace ever since it was signed.
Yep, looks like we'll have to. My perspective is that I can't think of another political decision ever that has been steamrollered through with such massive margins of concern. That a key line in your defence is that, we don't know, just underlines the sheer folly of it.
That is one of the most shocking strands of the current Brexit defence....no one knows for sure....lets wait and see! As you say sheer folly...especially at this time of year when we remember the ordinary citizens who gave their lives defending our values and freedoms. All in vain as we throw ourselves over the cliff because of the actions of various Russian influences and dark Russian money.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
I expected such a comment but, bearing in mind that we are continually told that 'only' 51.89% of the votes were in favour of Brexit and that this is not a 'majority', then it looks a good majority percentage to me if 69% of companies do not expect a negative impact ... and let's bear in mind that, as I stated before, a proportion of negativity is only to be expected due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government.
It doesn't really work like that though because you are talking about two completely different things. If I told you that 98% of astronauts returned home from space safely, you might (as I am) be rather impressed. If I told you that 98% of the commuters on Southern Rail made it home safely each day, I'd think/hope you'd have a rather different opinion. The big question is, how can anyone possibly defend a decision that 31% of businesses think will be damaging?
We will just have to disagree. My perspective is that, despite the hopeless UK approach to the negotiations, 40% of the UK companies surveyed see a positive, 31% a negative and 22% expect no impact. I think that, in the current environment where none of us actually know the eventual outcome, that is an astonishingly high positive majority.
Anyway, as @PragueAddick states above, "we will soon find out, won't we"
Of the 500 limited UK companies surveyed a third of them are not involved in export in any case so may well see Brexit as a positive. It may for example allow some businesses to roll back on employee rights, consumer/environmental protections, etc. All the stuff that has been portrayed as harmful EU "red tape" but which actually benefits us all on balance. Business will be looking to make up in other areas what they might lose in some, of that I'm certain.
It also doesn't set out who these limited companies are either. My neighbour is a limited company. He's one man running a plumbing service who thinks the EU is the devil incarnate. I'm pretty sure if he was included in that survey he'd be in the headline "positive" grouping. Despite having no part of his business dependent on trading outside the UK of course.
Yep, looks like we'll have to. My perspective is that I can't think of another political decision ever that has been steamrollered through with such massive margins of concern. That a key line in your defence is that, we don't know, just underlines the sheer folly of it.
If the negotiations had been handled professionally, then we would not be in this position.
Arrogance, ineptitude, selfishness, and an incompetent political strata has put the issue where it is.
We have such a wealth of negotiating skills in the UK, particularly with regards to international trade, that it is breathtakingly astonishing that we are in such a ridiculous position.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
I expected such a comment but, bearing in mind that we are continually told that 'only' 51.89% of the votes were in favour of Brexit and that this is not a 'majority', then it looks a good majority percentage to me if 69% of companies do not expect a negative impact ... and let's bear in mind that, as I stated before, a proportion of negativity is only to be expected due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government.
It doesn't really work like that though because you are talking about two completely different things. If I told you that 98% of astronauts returned home from space safely, you might (as I am) be rather impressed. If I told you that 98% of the commuters on Southern Rail made it home safely each day, I'd think/hope you'd have a rather different opinion. The big question is, how can anyone possibly defend a decision that 31% of businesses think will be damaging?
We will just have to disagree. My perspective is that, despite the hopeless UK approach to the negotiations, 40% of the UK companies surveyed see a positive, 31% a negative and 22% expect no impact. I think that, in the current environment where none of us actually know the eventual outcome, that is an astonishingly high positive majority.
Anyway, as @PragueAddick states above, "we will soon find out, won't we"
Of the 500 limited UK companies surveyed a third of them are not involved in export in any case so may well see Brexit as a positive. It may for example allow some businesses to roll back on employee rights, consumer/environmental protections, etc. All the stuff that has been portrayed as harmful EU "red tape" but which actually benefits us all on balance. Business will be looking to make up in other areas what they might lose in some, of that I'm certain.
It also doesn't set out who these limited companies are either. My neighbour is a limited company. He's one man running a plumbing service who thinks the EU is the devil incarnate. I'm pretty sure if he was included in that survey he'd be in the headline "positive" grouping. Despite having no part of his business dependent on trading outside the UK of course.
Exactly the point I was making earlier when I wondered how many jobs the companies in the survey actually provided.
I don't think Gove's reforms improved education and nor do many people in Education. He wanted to take things back to some Eutopian 50s like world. It was disruptive for pupils to have to manage the exam changes. My son was affected but he still did well, but some were hung out to dry by him.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
No, the important thing is to change and adapt to the needs of further education and employers.
By your reasoning - that one year group was affected - no change would ever be possible as it would always affect one year group.
Universities and employers realised a decade ago that 'the system' was churning out rote learners and requested that, as this skill has been superseded by the internet, collators of information would be more useful. Young school leavers with the ability to bring a variety of information together fand work out trends/solutions/implications etc.
Every A level exam board has changed in accordance with DfE and OFQUAL requirements. Despite meaning a bit of extra work for teachers, many who would prefer to still be teaching the exact same lessons they produced in the 1990's, it has also meant changing skill sets are emerging from our 16+ school leavers.
I don't think Gove's reforms improved education and nor do many people in Education. He wanted to take things back to some Eutopian 50s like world. It was disruptive for pupils to have to manage the exam changes. My son was affected but he still did well, but some were hung out to dry by him.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
No, the important thing is to change and adapt to the needs of further education and employers.
By your reasoning - that one year group was affected - no change would ever be possible as it would always affect one year group.
Universities and employers realised a decade ago that 'the system' was churning out rote learners and requested that, as this skill has been superseded by the internet, collators of information would be more useful. Young school leavers with the ability to bring a variety of information together fand work out trends/solutions/implications etc.
Every A level exam board has changed in accordance with DfE and OFQUAL requirements. Despite meaning a bit of extra work for teachers, many who would prefer to still be teaching the exact same lessons they produced in the 1990's, it has also meant changing skill sets are emerging from our 16+ school leavers.
Not at all - I am saying the changes will make no difference at all for employers. And it isn't just one year affected. For my son, the changes only affected Maths and English, for the next year it affected all subjects.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
Or upset a few people who respect an international treaty freely entered into by the UK? Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement? If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out. Any suggestions?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
I'd care to disagree.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
Obviously you see it from a NI / Ireland perspective & I will admit I haven't read up about The Troubles, potato famine & the whole British occupation of Ireland.
One thing I take from what you said " there were no losers" ......sounds like a fudge to me.....or at best a compromise as there were losers in it all, just ask Eileen Foster. She lost her father to an IRA bomb I believe, the perpetrator of which was convicted & then walked free a few years later due to the GFA.
F, if Portugal was to leave the EU, what do you think they would do about the border between them & Spain ??
I sometimes think that I might be bullying you Golfie, as so often in this thread I find myself telling you how stupid your arguments are. I try and back what I say up with facts that show your errors, and then for a couple of days you go quiet. Then "bang", you are back again with more ill thought out nonsense.
This one is a doozy. As you say, you don't actually know what you are talking about, which is a start. But then you go on to proffer an opinion, presumably based on "what-some-bloke-in-the-golf-club-bar-told-me", or a meme on social media from a source called something like "Make Britin Great Agin", or "Patreuts Against Islams".
The situation between Portugal and Spain is so different to that in Northern Ireland it beggars belief that you even consider making the comparison.
You accepted a while ago that you made your decision without knowing the full facts because (you claim) they were not presented to you. Why do you keep posting utter rubbish about it?
"It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to speak out and confirm it".
I don't think Gove's reforms improved education and nor do many people in Education. He wanted to take things back to some Eutopian 50s like world. It was disruptive for pupils to have to manage the exam changes. My son was affected but he still did well, but some were hung out to dry by him.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
No, the important thing is to change and adapt to the needs of further education and employers.
By your reasoning - that one year group was affected - no change would ever be possible as it would always affect one year group.
Universities and employers realised a decade ago that 'the system' was churning out rote learners and requested that, as this skill has been superseded by the internet, collators of information would be more useful. Young school leavers with the ability to bring a variety of information together fand work out trends/solutions/implications etc.
Every A level exam board has changed in accordance with DfE and OFQUAL requirements. Despite meaning a bit of extra work for teachers, many who would prefer to still be teaching the exact same lessons they produced in the 1990's, it has also meant changing skill sets are emerging from our 16+ school leavers.
Not at all - I am saying the changes will make no difference at all for employers. And it isn't just one year affected. For my son, the changes only affected Maths and English, for the next year it affected all subjects.
Well that's your opinion, but the changes were requested by employers, make sense and so are very likely to make a difference. Instead of producing children who have simply learnt facts future leavers will be better equipped to know what to do with them.
BTW The 'subsequent subjects' would not have affected your son or indeed any students as they were implemented at the start of the new two year GCSE cohort, not one year into a 2 year course.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
If two thirds think it is not a bad thing then on balance it is good.
This morning the R4 Today programme has interviewed Carole Cadwalladr, the Guardian journalist who has led the investigations into Banks, LeaveEU funding, and Cambridge Analytica. On her own. So what?
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
I have never used the term 'Establishment' for the following reason. While I do believe that a majority of those in the intellectual, political and business elites oppose Brexit, 95% of academics apparently for example, these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically.
What binds them together now is essentially fear of change, the Remain campaign was small c conservative and driven primarily by loss aversion , or 'Project Fear' as it is known. They want to hold on to the EU for fear of something worse. Yet they were and still are incapable of providing a positive vision of life in the EU, despite having their hands on nearly all the tools of public persuasion. I voted Leave in part because I saw it as one way of disrupting the stagnant political system and helping to trigger more radical change.
Suddenly decided to start using the word "Establishment" a sentence later though?
"...these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically."
You mean, they no longer reflect your narrow view of the world, so they are wrong.
Just be honest about it, eh?
Definitely not my view of the world or many others these days. Suggest you might read what I said more carefully
I don't think Gove's reforms improved education and nor do many people in Education. He wanted to take things back to some Eutopian 50s like world. It was disruptive for pupils to have to manage the exam changes. My son was affected but he still did well, but some were hung out to dry by him.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
My daughter's maths teacher complained about Gove, as most teachers did then said that her group had a higher achievement than he had seen before. ''Why" I asked "Because we had to set the bar higher and more children achieved it."
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Let me get this straight, a third of UK companies expect a negative impact and you call that 'only'. I really think that Brexoteers need a reality check if they think that that level of harm is acceptable in any way shape or form. Can you imagine any other political decision being followed through on the back of such damning predictions?
If two thirds think it is not a bad thing then on balance it is good.
And that is you criteria?!?!?! Jesus H Christ! I really do try not to go ott and to give people the benefit of the doubt, but that is just batshit crazy. Just try saying that back to yourself slowly and thinking about what those words mean, 'If two thirds think it is not a bad thing (which it didn't even say anyway) then on balance it is good'. Good enough to make an irreversible constitutional change? Unbelievable Jeff!
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
Or upset a few people who respect an international treaty freely entered into by the UK? Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement? If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out. Any suggestions?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
I'd care to disagree.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
Obviously you see it from a NI / Ireland perspective & I will admit I haven't read up about The Troubles, potato famine & the whole British occupation of Ireland.
One thing I take from what you said " there were no losers" ......sounds like a fudge to me.....or at best a compromise as there were losers in it all, just ask Eileen Foster. She lost her father to an IRA bomb I believe, the perpetrator of which was convicted & then walked free a few years later due to the GFA.
F, if Portugal was to leave the EU, what do you think they would do about the border between them & Spain ??
Every international agreement, and peace deal is a fudge, they have to be, because agreement requires compromise (on all sides).
Both strains of nationalism can claim that the deal suits their worldview, while the vast majority of people can seek to get on with their lives. No side could be seen to lose, or there could be no agreement - it marked an armistice, not a surrender.
I might even ask Arlene Foster, you know the leader of the DUP, last First Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive and power behind the throne in the UK at the moment ("So Arlene, tell how precisely has the political settlement agreed with the Good Friday Agreement been a loss for you?"), but you do realise that: a) she leads the main political party opposed to the Good Friday Agreement at the time, although they were persuaded (largely against their will on the basis of the charisma of Ian Paisley Senior) to engage with the process; and b) as there were none of the physical attacks against her or her loved ones happened after 1998, she comes out of the aftermath of the agreement better than the years before it.
And here's the thing, you may not like the fact that the agreement allowed for people to be let out of prison if convicted of terrorist crimes (provided that they agreed to abide by its provisions), but it did not prevent anyone from being convicted for crimes committed during the Troubles (which is why you hear, overwhelmingly, Tory MPs arguing for an amnesty for all soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, no matter what the crime they may have committed, which does indicate that the sanctity of some lives are greater than that of others as far as members of the governing party in the UK are concerned).
It's not a perfect agreement, but it's far better than the alternative.
Even though a return to the bombings of the 1970s and 1980s might get me a few more days off work each year, I'd far prefer to give that particular joy a miss, so, if it's all the same to you, I'd really rather like to keep the Peace Process going.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One can read positives or negatives into anything ... I find it more interesting that only 31% of the UK companies surveyed expect a negative impact, combined with the statement that UK businesses are most prepared for Brexit (83%).
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
An interesting extract from the full report:
"Just over half (51%) of firms think that free-trade agreements will have a positive impact on their business over the next three years, suggesting some confidence that the UK will able to maintain a degree of free trade with the EU and perhaps achieve free-trade agreements further field after exiting the EU."
How can the future FTA with the EU be better, in any way, than the one they currently trade under? Why do they think the FTAs with countries further away will be better than the FTAs they currently have with those countries by virtue of being members of the EU?
Comments
Of the companies that say they have a positive outlook, 27% put this down to global economic growth, 24% due to consumer confidence and 24% to "buyer/seller relationships". None (so far as the article explains) put their positive outlook down to Brexit.
Of the companies that say they have a negative outlook, the biggest reason given was Brexit, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
It's an interesting piece of research. It involved 8,500 companies, of whom 500 are UK based. Of those 500, just two-thirds are international exporters.
What's most interesting - and horribly disappointing and predictable - to me is that a higher percentage of French companies see Brexit as positive than British companies.
Well done Britain - we've voted for a policy that's going to be more beneficial to our competitors than to ourselves.
One of the biggest arguments is the same as it has always been. Business leaders complaining about the standards of school leavers. The problem is again the same as it has always been - a 17 year old doesn't go to bed on the eve of his/her 18th birthday and wake up an adult. They are still learning. Oldies have forgotten that and bemoan education standards. The important thing is consistency so you can gauge abilities, which is an argument not to change exams.
Shedding some light on the Bad Boy's business history. A chancer who has hopefully run out of chances.
It's correct that the survey highlights that those with a negative outlook (17%) identified Brexit as their main concern followed by exchange rates and tariffs. This is only to be expected as, due to the culpable shambolic handling by our government, it is still an unknown.
Shedding some light on the Bad Boy's business history. A chancer who has hopefully run out of chances.
He’d certainly give Trump a run for his money in terms of dodgy dealings. Nobody knows how much he is worth either.
When John Major is the only articulate voice of reason in a debate; something has fundamentally broken.
"Just over half (51%) of firms think that free-trade agreements will have a positive impact on their business over the next three years, suggesting some confidence that the UK will able to maintain a degree of free trade with the EU and perhaps achieve free-trade agreements further field after exiting the EU."
"...these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically."
You mean, they no longer reflect your narrow view of the world, so they are wrong.
Just be honest about it, eh?
One thing I take from what you said " there were no losers" ......sounds like a fudge to me.....or at best a compromise as there were losers in it all, just ask Eileen Foster. She lost her father to an IRA bomb I believe, the perpetrator of which was convicted & then walked free a few years later due to the GFA.
F, if Portugal was to leave the EU, what do you think they would do about the border between them & Spain ??
Anyway, as @PragueAddick states above, "we will soon find out, won't we"
By the way the Good Friday Agreement “fudge” has kept the peace ever since it was signed.
It also doesn't set out who these limited companies are either. My neighbour is a limited company. He's one man running a plumbing service who thinks the EU is the devil incarnate. I'm pretty sure if he was included in that survey he'd be in the headline "positive" grouping. Despite having no part of his business dependent on trading outside the UK of course.
Arrogance, ineptitude, selfishness, and an incompetent political strata has put the issue where it is.
We have such a wealth of negotiating skills in the UK, particularly with regards to international trade, that it is breathtakingly astonishing that we are in such a ridiculous position.
By your reasoning - that one year group was affected - no change would ever be possible as it would always affect one year group.
Universities and employers realised a decade ago that 'the system' was churning out rote learners and requested that, as this skill has been superseded by the internet, collators of information would be more useful. Young school leavers with the ability to bring a variety of information together fand work out trends/solutions/implications etc.
Every A level exam board has changed in accordance with DfE and OFQUAL requirements. Despite meaning a bit of extra work for teachers, many who would prefer to still be teaching the exact same lessons they produced in the 1990's, it has also meant changing skill sets are emerging from our 16+ school leavers.
This one is a doozy. As you say, you don't actually know what you are talking about, which is a start. But then you go on to proffer an opinion, presumably based on "what-some-bloke-in-the-golf-club-bar-told-me", or a meme on social media from a source called something like "Make Britin Great Agin", or "Patreuts Against Islams".
The situation between Portugal and Spain is so different to that in Northern Ireland it beggars belief that you even consider making the comparison.
You accepted a while ago that you made your decision without knowing the full facts because (you claim) they were not presented to you. Why do you keep posting utter rubbish about it?
"It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to speak out and confirm it".
BTW The 'subsequent subjects' would not have affected your son or indeed any students as they were implemented at the start of the new two year GCSE cohort, not one year into a 2 year course.
''Why" I asked
"Because we had to set the bar higher and more children achieved it."
Both strains of nationalism can claim that the deal suits their worldview, while the vast majority of people can seek to get on with their lives. No side could be seen to lose, or there could be no agreement - it marked an armistice, not a surrender.
I might even ask Arlene Foster, you know the leader of the DUP, last First Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive and power behind the throne in the UK at the moment ("So Arlene, tell how precisely has the political settlement agreed with the Good Friday Agreement been a loss for you?"), but you do realise that: a) she leads the main political party opposed to the Good Friday Agreement at the time, although they were persuaded (largely against their will on the basis of the charisma of Ian Paisley Senior) to engage with the process; and b) as there were none of the physical attacks against her or her loved ones happened after 1998, she comes out of the aftermath of the agreement better than the years before it.
And here's the thing, you may not like the fact that the agreement allowed for people to be let out of prison if convicted of terrorist crimes (provided that they agreed to abide by its provisions), but it did not prevent anyone from being convicted for crimes committed during the Troubles (which is why you hear, overwhelmingly, Tory MPs arguing for an amnesty for all soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, no matter what the crime they may have committed, which does indicate that the sanctity of some lives are greater than that of others as far as members of the governing party in the UK are concerned).
It's not a perfect agreement, but it's far better than the alternative.
Even though a return to the bombings of the 1970s and 1980s might get me a few more days off work each year, I'd far prefer to give that particular joy a miss, so, if it's all the same to you, I'd really rather like to keep the Peace Process going.