Brexit Discussion Thread.

[fuchsntf]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I always thought that was some kind of STD..

Aaahhh, you see!!     It all depends on the colour and consistency of the custard, and if if anything falls off before,

You Share it out.......

 

Bloody fascinating what one can talk about on a rainy, soccerless saturday...

[Izzy]

12 hours ago, Foxxed said:

And Webbo, money - when you are relatively well off - isn't everything.

 

But when you have only a little - those who are willing to reduce your money risk your future, your kids future and your grand kid's future.

 

Self determination is your ability to determine your future. And we do that with money. Reduce my money, reduce my self-determination.

I've read this sentence numerous times and I still don't understand it.

 

If you're 'self-determined' and someone reduces your money, wouldn't that make you even more self determined?

 

History is littered with examples of people who have determined their own future and started out with next to no money. Those 'rags to riches' tales we hear of. 

 

Why do we need money to be self determined? I don't get it. Those people in life who are focused, determined, work hard, create opportunities for themselves, believe in their potential and are resilient and persistent, will ultimately create their own money and happiness.

 

If the government or whoever reduce my money, that just makes me even more determined to bridge the gap. Why should I let outside forces or circumstances determine my own self determination?

 

Sounds like a lazy and entitled view to me...

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I've read this sentence numerous times and I still don't understand it.

 

If you're 'self-determined' and someone reduces your money, wouldn't that make you even more self determined?

 

History is littered with examples of people who have determined their own future and started out with next to no money. Those 'rags to riches' tales we hear of. 

 

Why do we need money to be self determined? I don't get it. Those people in life who are focused, determined, work hard, create opportunities for themselves, believe in their potential and are resilient and persistent, will ultimately create their own money and happiness.

 

If the government or whoever reduce my money, that just makes me even more determined to bridge the gap. Why should I let outside forces or circumstances determine my own self determination?

 

Sounds like a lazy and entitled view to me...

 

I think self determination is the wrong term for this, even though his point is salient.

 

The idea is that the less material wealth you have, the more likely you are to end up in situations where other people control your actions (paying off a loan you've had to take out, taking a crap job etc). Yes, they may seem like choices to take those options in the first place, but when the choice is between that and choose to die...it's not really much of a choice, is it? So...in light of that, less money does tend to mean less personal freedom (of the favourable kind, anyway; nobody said freedom was a universally positive quality).

 

And regarding those rags to riches stories: for every one person who made it to the top through "hard work and determination", there are ten thousand who were equally hard working and determined, but (no matter their level of resilience or persistence) instead of being rewarded with a big pot of cash and an adoring family...get rewarded with a single bedroom lonely house for their dotage and a nice little lonely passing on with perhaps a couple of folks in attendance.

 

Because...what other people do (especially people who have more money and more positive freedom), as well as luck, has an effect on your life...and the world is neither fair nor just. You don't "get out what you put in"...not unless you're lucky too.

[Webbo]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think self determination is the wrong term for this, even though his point is salient.

 

The idea is that the less material wealth you have, the more likely you are to end up in situations where other people control your actions (paying off a loan you've had to take out, taking a crap job etc). Yes, they may seem like choices to take those options in the first place, but when the choice is between that and choose to die...it's not really much of a choice, is it? So...in light of that, less money does tend to mean less personal freedom (of the favourable kind, anyway; nobody said freedom was a universally positive quality).

 

And regarding those rags to riches stories: for every one person who made it to the top through "hard work and determination", there are ten thousand who were equally hard working and determined, but (no matter their level of resilience or persistence) instead of being rewarded with a big pot of cash and an adoring family...get rewarded with a single bedroom lonely house for their dotage and a nice little lonely passing on with perhaps a couple of folks in attendance.

 

Because...what other people do (especially people who have more money and more positive freedom), as well as luck, has an effect on your life...and the world is neither fair nor just. You don't "get out what you put in"...not unless you're lucky too.

It's quite possible that we'll be more materially better off after we've left.

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's quite possible that we'll be more materially better off after we've left.

 

I don't think even you truly believe that, Webbo.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's quite possible that we'll be more materially better off after we've left.

Until I see quantifiable, exacting evidence of that, I'll believe that this life and what is done in it matters more, thanks.

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think even you truly believe that, Webbo.

I certainly think it's possible. I don't believe we'll be significantly worse off. Probably about where we are now.

 

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Until I see quantifiable, exacting evidence of that, I'll believe that this life and what is done in it matters more, thanks.

What evidence is there that we'll be worse off?

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Webbo said:

 

What evidence is there that we'll be worse off?

None, but then the burden of proof isn't on me in any case so it doesn't matter. It's up to them to prove that firstly something like that actually happens after we leave and secondly that it's more important that what happens here and now.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

None, but then the burden of proof isn't on me in any case so it doesn't matter. It's up to them to prove that firstly something like that actually happens after we leave and secondly that it's more important that what happens here and now.

We're not going to know whether we'd be better off or not for 10 to 20 years. There'll be ups and downs along the way. Some connected to Brexit, some that would have happened anyway. Personally I'm sure we'll be okay but only time will tell.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're not going to know whether we'd be better off or not for 10 to 20 years. There'll be ups and downs along the way. Some connected to Brexit, some that would have happened anyway. Personally I'm sure we'll be okay but only time will tell.

Fair enough. That all being said, I struggle to see what this line of conversation has to do with the original post I made (re. my answer to Izzy, though).

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough. That all being said, I struggle to see what this line of conversation has to do with the original post I made (re. my answer to Izzy, though).

You said;

Quote

The idea is that the less material wealth you have, the more likely you are to end up in situations where other people control you

I just said we might have more material wealth not less.

[Sharpe's Fox]

All you cucks who don't like big Brexit should vote Labour. We're gonna nationalise everything it'll be fun.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You said;

I just said we might have more material wealth not less.

 

Aha. Thanks for the clarification, and that may well indeed be the case - only time will tell. (Don't think that detracts from my point made regarding less money = less positive freedom, though).

 

The meat of my post, however, was taking issue with the argument/assertion that this world handsomely rewards hard work on a regular basis - it's an argument I've heard many times before and it's (IMO) a harmful fallacy.

[Foxxed]

On 20/05/2017 at 08:47, Webbo said:

So we were in negative pay growth in 2008 ? We're we in the EU then?

That whole thing where the banks ****ed themselves though sub prime mortgages and were therefore less willing to companies. Isn't news fun.

[Foxxed]

Brexit looks like it's going to damage anyone who works in the chemical sector in the UK.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-16/brexit-alarm-bells-set-to-ring-as-chemical-makers-see-disorder

 

Quote

One popular detergent sold in U.K. supermarkets is made from chemicals that cross the Channel several times during the manufacturing and distribution processes, according to Mensink, who said the raw material is produced in France, reworked in the U.K., shipped to Germany and returned for packaging to Britain. The finished product is then distributed throughout the EU.

 

A U.K. exit from the single market without any transitional arrangement would increase taxes paid on goods and disrupt the flow of materials between the EU and Britain, boosting costs for manufacturers and end users. In addition to consumer chemicals, the top product groups for both sides include petrochemicals and plastics.

The "transitional arrangement" is called the Single Market. Something May has ruled out.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Brexit looks like it's going to damage anyone who works in the chemical sector in the UK.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-16/brexit-alarm-bells-set-to-ring-as-chemical-makers-see-disorder

 

The "transitional arrangement" is called the Single Market. Something May has ruled out.

Since when has the STEM community in the UK (in most cases) been treated with anything other than amused contempt?

[Foxxed]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Since when has the STEM community in the UK (in most cases) been treated with anything other than amused contempt?

Dunno. I know a few people who work in the chemical industry in the UK. I think they produce the stuff rather than research the stuff although I could be wrong. I suspect there are jobs though.

 

Anyway what about Solumetrics who are based at Unit 1, Sileby Road Ind. Estate, Barrow on Soar, Leicestershire which I have in no way just Googled, nor Stowlin Croftshaw Ltd, who have 75 years combined experience supplying high quality innovative cleaning solutions, processes and basic chemicals from their base in Leicester, as a part of 2M Holdings Ltd, a leading chemicals distribution and related services company, which also just rolls off the tongue.

[The Doctor]

Interesting that that Bloomberg page just talks about imports and tariffs for the chemicals industry. Leaving the single market is as much a problem for the common regulations and oversight (in this case REACH) - we leave that framework when we leave the single market and regulatory costs go way up, given we'd have to create an equivalent framework (that would be recognised by the EU, otherwise it's registering with the eu framework again, and as always - relocation is a threat if it would ease the red tape) over here.

[Steven]

UK GDP growth weaker than expected as inflation hits spending

ONS revises GDP growth figure to 0.2% for first quarter as post-Brexit vote rise in prices puts pressure on household budgets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/25/uk-gdp-growth-inflation-ons-prices-brexit

 

UK lags behind Europe as growth revised down to 0.2% - business live

Britain’s economy grew even slower than first expected in the first three months of 2017

• Latest: UK grew slower than France, Germany, Spain...
• British GDP weaker than first expected
• Growth slows as inflation bites
• Household spending was weak; net trade hit growth
• GDP-per-person was flat in Q1
• Is Brexit to blame?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/may/25/oil-price-as-opec-ministers-meeting-output-deal-business-live

[Buce]

Security experts tell May, "we need to deal with EU" amid fears that Brexit will deprive UK police access to key databases:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/eu-theresa-may-combat-terror-brexit-europol

 

The UK’s full participation in European Union security and intelligence co-operation will be critical to the fight against terrorism after Brexit, leading British security experts have said, as Theresa May announced wide-ranging new plans to counter extremism.

The growing demands for the prime minister to face down anti-EU forces in the Tory party and make membership of bodies such as Europol, the EU’s criminal intelligence agency, a top priority, came amid fears that Brexit could leave the UK with inferior access to key European databases and deprive British police forces of vital tools in high-level, pan-European anti-terror probes.

The calls – from senior figures including Sir Hugh Orde, former chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland and former head of Europol Max-Peter Ratzel – were reinforced on Saturday night by Dominic Grieve, the Tory chair of the Commons intelligence and security committee, Dominic Grieve.

Grieve said full participation, even if it meant accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), could not be more crucial. He said he believed May was committed to remaining closely involved in EU security but believed that doing so would require compromise that would be hard for some in May’s party to accept.

“Although our partnership with the US for intelligence sharing is extremely important, the fact is that the current terrorist threat is very much a European dimension issue. The Schengen database and knowing about who has moved where are all intimately dependent on European systems and we have got to try to remain in them,” he said.

 

I think it is going to be very difficult, and the government and Parliament will have to face up to the fact that it might turn out during the Brexit negotiation that some sort of mechanism for the European court is going to be necessary,” he added.

After the Manchester attack, which killed 22 people and left dozens of others grievously injured, it was revealed that suicide bomber Salman Abedi had travelled back to England from Libya via Turkey and Dusseldorf four days before the attack.

The bomb contained the same kind of explosives as those used in the Paris and Brussels attacks in 2015 and 2016, prompting speculation that Abedi was linked to terror cells on the European mainland. UK counter-terrorism officials investigating the Abedi network are working with Europol, with separate bilateral inquiries ongoing with German and Belgian intelligence agencies.

 

Orde told the Observer that UK membership of EU bodies such as Europol and Eurojust, which brokers judicial co-operation in criminal cases, not only allowed access to huge amounts of vital data, but also meant UK police could set up joint inquiries with German police or those from other national forces without delay.

 

European arrest warrants were also essential, he said: “If we don’t have all this, it makes it a lot more difficult to do this crucial work. It it vital that we get to a situation as close to what we have as members of the EU as possible, though it is difficult to see how we do that.” As members of Europol and Eurojust, states are subject to EU rules on data transfers and procedures and ECJ jurisdiction in any disputes or appeals over use of tools such as arrest warrants.

Ratzel, who led the pan-EU crime-fighting agency until 2009, warned that Britain must accept some of the rulings of the ECJ as part of any deal – something May has previously ruled out. “My expectation is that once you have an important role to play, you have to be under the European Court of Justice. Cherry picking cannot work. You have to obey the rules of the club. I am personally sure that the Europeans will never accept Britain having a role in Europol without being under the rule of the European Court of Justice.”

As anti-terror policies of the rival parties were placed centre stage in the election campaign, May declared on Saturday night that more needed to be done.

 

And she added: “We need to be stronger and more resolute in standing up to these people.” Spelling out details of a new commission for countering extremism, announced in the Tory manifesto, she said government had to widen its role and approach.

“There is clearly a role for government in tackling extremism where it involves behaviour that is or ought to be criminal. But there is also a role for government to help people and build up organisations in society to promote and defend Britain’s pluralistic values, and stand up to the extremists.”

May’s initiative came as Labour also attempts to boost its security credentials by pledging to appoint 1,000 more intelligence staff. Jeremy Corbyn has already said he would appoint an extra 10,000 police, 3,000 firefighters and 3,000 prison officers. Suggesting that public spending cuts had put people in danger, Corbyn said that ensuring the safety of communities “demands properly resourced action across many fronts.
“It means upholding and enforcing our individual rights, promoting community relations, supporting our emergency services, tackling and preventing crime and protecting us from danger, including threats of terror and violence,” he said.

The Manchester bombing was the worst terror attack to hit Britain since the 7 July attacks in London in 2005. A street in Manchester’s Moss Side was evacuated by counter-terrorism officers and controlled explosives were used in a raid on a property in Cheetham Hill.

Two men aged 20 and 22 were arrested in the early hours of yesterday morning at the Cheetham Hill address, police said. Neighbours identified Yahya and Mohamed Werfalli as two of the occupants of the raided house. They were said to be of Libyan descent and part of the same friendship groups as the Manchester bomber.

[Webbo]

I think both sides want a deal, there's no reason why they wouldn't.

[Guest MattP]

Surely no one is going to get in a situation where we aren't fully cooperating with each other in terms of security?

 

I know we have seen veiled threats but common sense has to prevail.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Surely no one is going to get in a situation where we aren't fully cooperating with each other in terms of security?

 

I know we have seen veiled threats but common sense has to prevail.

 

I would have thought the same about scientific project cooperation - but that's on the line as well.

[Webbo]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would have thought the same about scientific project cooperation - but that's on the line as well.

Is it really, or is it just another scare story? 

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Is it really, or is it just another scare story? 

As far as can be ascertained, it is. Galileo and Euratom are examples of such projects where UK nationals might get shut out and have to renegotiate getting back in, and there are dozens of other projects just like that. Even if the negotiations are successful the damage caused in the meantime (because that will take a while because no one important seems to give a toss) is going to be severe.

 

Scientific progress (and access to profitable projects for British companies, if you're a money-grubber) are likely going to be held up here. Some people might say that it's worth that. I do not.