BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
It’ll be over 100 years since the end of WWII by then.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I am really struggling with that article.briantrumpet said:Even the Telegraph is starting to wake up to Project Reality:
Few would dispute that this is the grim reality of Britain’s labour market today. There are an estimated 1.3m job vacancies, and for the first time, not enough people looking for work to fill them. It is the greatest employment crisis in decades and it threatens to prolong the country’s economic malaise.
The elephant in the room is to what extent our departure from the European Union is to blame. It is one of many unintended consequences of Brexit that doctrinal Brexiteers prefer not to confront.
It is no secret that leaving the EU was meant to address some of the longstanding costs of mass immigration: significant social change; pressure on public services and housing; and, this Government’s biggest bugbear – wage suppression, and therefore low productivity. These were genuine concerns that had been ignored for too long.
The problem is that while Brexit has certainly blown up the labour market, it may not have done so in the way its proponents intended. There are not just big holes in vital industries. Employers are also struggling to fill them as a direct result of being outside the EU.
This should hardly be a surprise. Brexit not only ended free movement, new visa rules also made it harder to hire people to plug the gaps. But it takes time to properly measure the effects of such dramatic shifts. According to an extensive study from a group of Oxford University academics, the problem is particularly pronounced in low-wage sectors.
Again, this is hardly earth-shattering. Entire areas of the economy had long been propped up by migrant workers on low pay – there was just the same reluctance to talk about it. But the seriousness of the problem for certain sectors is genuinely alarming.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/16/post-brexit-labour-market-malfunctioning-mess/
Is it a long winded way of saying that they did not consider the downsides of what they wanted?
Yes, kind of.
But I think there's a significance that there's a grudging admission that Project Fear has turned out to be not too far from reality, and that Unicorn Optimism isn't going to solve the problems that Brexit has created. And also a significance that it's in the Telegraph.
Even if it takes forty years to come back to the Thatcher notion that reducing trading barriers with your nearest and wealthiest market is a good thing for business, it's worth the effort.
Will people who weren’t alive at the time still waffle on about spitfires and the blitz spirit?
Sadly, I think they will. People seem to drag up any ad hoc historic events to justify any position.0 -
Some people still haven't come to terms with us no longer having an empire so I'd say these things have a long tail. You still get people wanging on about Agincourt despite us losing the last bit of France in the 16th century.morstar said:
It’ll be over 100 years since the end of WWII by then.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I am really struggling with that article.briantrumpet said:Even the Telegraph is starting to wake up to Project Reality:
Few would dispute that this is the grim reality of Britain’s labour market today. There are an estimated 1.3m job vacancies, and for the first time, not enough people looking for work to fill them. It is the greatest employment crisis in decades and it threatens to prolong the country’s economic malaise.
The elephant in the room is to what extent our departure from the European Union is to blame. It is one of many unintended consequences of Brexit that doctrinal Brexiteers prefer not to confront.
It is no secret that leaving the EU was meant to address some of the longstanding costs of mass immigration: significant social change; pressure on public services and housing; and, this Government’s biggest bugbear – wage suppression, and therefore low productivity. These were genuine concerns that had been ignored for too long.
The problem is that while Brexit has certainly blown up the labour market, it may not have done so in the way its proponents intended. There are not just big holes in vital industries. Employers are also struggling to fill them as a direct result of being outside the EU.
This should hardly be a surprise. Brexit not only ended free movement, new visa rules also made it harder to hire people to plug the gaps. But it takes time to properly measure the effects of such dramatic shifts. According to an extensive study from a group of Oxford University academics, the problem is particularly pronounced in low-wage sectors.
Again, this is hardly earth-shattering. Entire areas of the economy had long been propped up by migrant workers on low pay – there was just the same reluctance to talk about it. But the seriousness of the problem for certain sectors is genuinely alarming.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/16/post-brexit-labour-market-malfunctioning-mess/
Is it a long winded way of saying that they did not consider the downsides of what they wanted?
Yes, kind of.
But I think there's a significance that there's a grudging admission that Project Fear has turned out to be not too far from reality, and that Unicorn Optimism isn't going to solve the problems that Brexit has created. And also a significance that it's in the Telegraph.
Even if it takes forty years to come back to the Thatcher notion that reducing trading barriers with your nearest and wealthiest market is a good thing for business, it's worth the effort.
Will people who weren’t alive at the time still waffle on about spitfires and the blitz spirit?
Sadly, I think they will. People seem to drag up any ad hoc historic events to justify any position.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Ahi court was the first thing that came into my head when reading that post too. Giving it to Jonny Foreigner never gets old with a certain type and when Jonny Foreigner gives us a bit of a kicking we tend to revise history so that it is still some glorious victory (see Dunkirk).rjsterry said:
Some people still haven't come to terms with us no longer having an empire so I'd say these things have a long tail. You still get people wanging on about Agincourt despite us losing the last bit of France in the 16th century.morstar said:
It’ll be over 100 years since the end of WWII by then.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I am really struggling with that article.briantrumpet said:Even the Telegraph is starting to wake up to Project Reality:
Few would dispute that this is the grim reality of Britain’s labour market today. There are an estimated 1.3m job vacancies, and for the first time, not enough people looking for work to fill them. It is the greatest employment crisis in decades and it threatens to prolong the country’s economic malaise.
The elephant in the room is to what extent our departure from the European Union is to blame. It is one of many unintended consequences of Brexit that doctrinal Brexiteers prefer not to confront.
It is no secret that leaving the EU was meant to address some of the longstanding costs of mass immigration: significant social change; pressure on public services and housing; and, this Government’s biggest bugbear – wage suppression, and therefore low productivity. These were genuine concerns that had been ignored for too long.
The problem is that while Brexit has certainly blown up the labour market, it may not have done so in the way its proponents intended. There are not just big holes in vital industries. Employers are also struggling to fill them as a direct result of being outside the EU.
This should hardly be a surprise. Brexit not only ended free movement, new visa rules also made it harder to hire people to plug the gaps. But it takes time to properly measure the effects of such dramatic shifts. According to an extensive study from a group of Oxford University academics, the problem is particularly pronounced in low-wage sectors.
Again, this is hardly earth-shattering. Entire areas of the economy had long been propped up by migrant workers on low pay – there was just the same reluctance to talk about it. But the seriousness of the problem for certain sectors is genuinely alarming.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/16/post-brexit-labour-market-malfunctioning-mess/
Is it a long winded way of saying that they did not consider the downsides of what they wanted?
Yes, kind of.
But I think there's a significance that there's a grudging admission that Project Fear has turned out to be not too far from reality, and that Unicorn Optimism isn't going to solve the problems that Brexit has created. And also a significance that it's in the Telegraph.
Even if it takes forty years to come back to the Thatcher notion that reducing trading barriers with your nearest and wealthiest market is a good thing for business, it's worth the effort.
Will people who weren’t alive at the time still waffle on about spitfires and the blitz spirit?
Sadly, I think they will. People seem to drag up any ad hoc historic events to justify any position.0 -
I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote0
-
rick_chasey said:
I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
Personally I thought that your CS post #37,249 was quite a gem.1 -
Not wanting to piss on your chips but history has always been written by the winners.rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
I am sure yours was much more sophisticated, but that's the gist.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nah plenty of history isn’t about stuff that gets won or lost.pblakeney said:
Not wanting to piss on your chips but history has always been written by the winners.rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
I am sure yours was much more sophisticated, but that's the gist.
Not everything is a battle.
There was a whole thing about intertextuality, the actual meaning of words how they relate to things and how we know things, memory blah blah. Basically no such thing as objectivity.
Ergo it’s all written for a contemporary reason and for contemporary ends.
It’s all well saying it but ya gotta prove that facts aren’t objective, which ain’t easy.
Cos, y’know, they’re facts.
It is better when you can remember all the theory tbf.
(The whole point was rejecting grand narrative history and the idea of binary opposition, as they block a better understanding the world - ergo “history written by the victors” isn’t what my postmodern stance was about - quite the opposite. History can be written by anyone, right? As long as they’re alive, which is obviously problematic when considering the past)0 -
Postmodernism has a lot to answer for.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
-
Not all battles are physical. Anyway, carry on.
See Truss is in trouble for saying Brits are lazy. This thread or the other one?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I think you can draw a fairly short line between thisrick_chasey said:Such as?
Basically no such thing as objectivity.
and the likes of Trump.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don’t think Trump nor his voters are really students of postmodernism or could even tell you what it even is.rjsterry said:
I think you can draw a fairly short line between thisrick_chasey said:Such as?
Basically no such thing as objectivity.
and the likes of Trump.
Lying is lying. It’s not a new thing.
0 -
If there's no such thing as objectivity then it's a short hop to there being no such thing as lying or truth. You don't need to be a student of postmodernism to still be influenced by the ideas.rick_chasey said:
I don’t think Trump nor his voters are really students of postmodernism or could even tell you what it even is.rjsterry said:
I think you can draw a fairly short line between thisrick_chasey said:Such as?
Basically no such thing as objectivity.
and the likes of Trump.
Lying is lying. It’s not a new thing.
There being more than one point of view of an event is not a new thing either; nor the idea that there are different interpretations of the same text.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Disagree with the first sentence but agree with the rest.rjsterry said:
If there's no such thing as objectivity then it's a short hop to there being no such thing as lying or truth. You don't need to be a student of postmodernism to still be influenced by the ideas.rick_chasey said:
I don’t think Trump nor his voters are really students of postmodernism or could even tell you what it even is.rjsterry said:
I think you can draw a fairly short line between thisrick_chasey said:Such as?
Basically no such thing as objectivity.
and the likes of Trump.
Lying is lying. It’s not a new thing.
There being more than one point of view of an event is not a new thing either; nor the idea that there are different interpretations of the same text.
0 -
Put it another way: while absolute objectivity may not be possible. I think some people are abusing or exploiting that idea to add validity to flat out lies.
"Oh you're saying my perception of what happened is more important than what actually happened? Well in that case my perception is..."1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
History is written by historians who peer review each other’s work to decide whether something should be published. A bit of a closed shop.rick_chasey said:
Nah plenty of history isn’t about stuff that gets won or lost.pblakeney said:
Not wanting to piss on your chips but history has always been written by the winners.rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
I am sure yours was much more sophisticated, but that's the gist.
Not everything is a battle.
There was a whole thing about intertextuality, the actual meaning of words how they relate to things and how we know things, memory blah blah. Basically no such thing as objectivity.
Ergo it’s all written for a contemporary reason and for contemporary ends.
It’s all well saying it but ya gotta prove that facts aren’t objective, which ain’t easy.
Cos, y’know, they’re facts.
It is better when you can remember all the theory tbf.
(The whole point was rejecting grand narrative history and the idea of binary opposition, as they block a better understanding the world - ergo “history written by the victors” isn’t what my postmodern stance was about - quite the opposite. History can be written by anyone, right? As long as they’re alive, which is obviously problematic when considering the past)
A good insight in to this is Ian Mortimer’s book Medieval Intrigue. It’s about the non death of Edward the second but pulls apart how or what gets published.0 -
I think Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are evidence that you don't remotely need to be peer reviewed to be published and write history.webboo said:
History is written by historians who peer review each other’s work to decide whether something should be published. A bit of a closed shop.rick_chasey said:
Nah plenty of history isn’t about stuff that gets won or lost.pblakeney said:
Not wanting to piss on your chips but history has always been written by the winners.rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
I am sure yours was much more sophisticated, but that's the gist.
Not everything is a battle.
There was a whole thing about intertextuality, the actual meaning of words how they relate to things and how we know things, memory blah blah. Basically no such thing as objectivity.
Ergo it’s all written for a contemporary reason and for contemporary ends.
It’s all well saying it but ya gotta prove that facts aren’t objective, which ain’t easy.
Cos, y’know, they’re facts.
It is better when you can remember all the theory tbf.
(The whole point was rejecting grand narrative history and the idea of binary opposition, as they block a better understanding the world - ergo “history written by the victors” isn’t what my postmodern stance was about - quite the opposite. History can be written by anyone, right? As long as they’re alive, which is obviously problematic when considering the past)
A good insight in to this is Ian Mortimer’s book Medieval Intrigue. It’s about the non death of Edward the second but pulls apart how or what gets published.
History is just how we remember the past. We all have a view on the past - if I were to go around and literally document word-for-word what people's views are, that's history.
It's all history. That's the fun bit.
0 -
Page 1973 feels quite apt for this thread.0
-
I suspect you are misrememberingbriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
Personally I thought that your CS post #37,249 was quite a gem.0 -
I was referring to stuff that gets published in the history equivalent of the BMJ but I forget to include that in my post.rick_chasey said:
I think Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are evidence that you don't remotely need to be peer reviewed to be published and write history.webboo said:
History is written by historians who peer review each other’s work to decide whether something should be published. A bit of a closed shop.rick_chasey said:
Nah plenty of history isn’t about stuff that gets won or lost.pblakeney said:
Not wanting to piss on your chips but history has always been written by the winners.rick_chasey said:I once wrote my final ever essay that history is whatever the writer wants the past to be to suit whatever end they have. Was a bit more sophisticated but that’s the gist. Best thing I ever wrote
I am sure yours was much more sophisticated, but that's the gist.
Not everything is a battle.
There was a whole thing about intertextuality, the actual meaning of words how they relate to things and how we know things, memory blah blah. Basically no such thing as objectivity.
Ergo it’s all written for a contemporary reason and for contemporary ends.
It’s all well saying it but ya gotta prove that facts aren’t objective, which ain’t easy.
Cos, y’know, they’re facts.
It is better when you can remember all the theory tbf.
(The whole point was rejecting grand narrative history and the idea of binary opposition, as they block a better understanding the world - ergo “history written by the victors” isn’t what my postmodern stance was about - quite the opposite. History can be written by anyone, right? As long as they’re alive, which is obviously problematic when considering the past)
A good insight in to this is Ian Mortimer’s book Medieval Intrigue. It’s about the non death of Edward the second but pulls apart how or what gets published.
History is just how we remember the past. We all have a view on the past - if I were to go around and literally document word-for-word what people's views are, that's history.
It's all history. That's the fun bit.
0 -
-
Germans have obviously cottoned on that we’ve left Europe, they aren’t playing the anthem for the men’s 4x400m relay medal ceremony0
-
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
25% tarrif on steel from GB to NI
Cracking deal Frosty negotiated“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
If you ever worried about being bad at your job, Frost should give you an illustration that just declaring you’re good is good enough.tailwindhome said:25% tarrif on steel from GB to NI
Cracking deal Frosty negotiated0 -
I am sure that when we tried we thought of some Brexit benefits. Can somebody remind me what they are as my son asked and I drew a blank.
It may sound strange but I was trying to give him a balanced answer0 -
Time for some context here. The reasons for this are down to changes made by the EU inn connection with the Russia/Ukraine conflict and this has had a consequential impact on NI steel imports:tailwindhome said:25% tarrif on steel from GB to NI
Cracking deal Frosty negotiated
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62672105
Quote:
The EU has changed some of its rules in regard to steel imports for reasons related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
That has had a knock-on effect on steel sales from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Trade expert Sam Lowe set out the complicated background to the issue earlier this month.
Essentially, steel from Great Britain had been able to enter Northern Ireland without a tariff because it was covered by a tariff rate quota (TRQ) for UK exports to the EU.
A TRQ allows a certain amount of a product to enter a customs territory without a tariff being paid, but once a set limit is reached tariffs apply.
Until June there was a specific TRQ for UK steel exports to the EU.
However, when sanctions were applied to Russia EU businesses could no longer buy steel from there.
So at that time the EU scrapped country-specific TRQs for the UK and others in favour of one TRQ for Ukraine and another TRQ covering all "other countries".
The Northern Ireland Protocol means NI continues to follow EU customs rules
Mr Lowe said this was intended to give EU steel importers more flexibility in the absence of Russian supplies.
However it also means that the tariff free limit for Great Britain supplies to Northern Ireland has been quickly reached, as Mr Lowe explained.
"Whereas before the UK had access to its own country-specific quota, which it could rely on to accommodate steel moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, now these movements would be covered by the 'other countries' quota which could fill up much more quickly, given the entire world has access to it," he said.
The EU was not forced to make this change, was it?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That is a verygood explanation.Stevo_666 said:
Time for some context here. The reasons for this are down to changes made by the EU inn connection with the Russia/Ukraine conflict and this has had a consequential impact on NI steel imports:tailwindhome said:25% tarrif on steel from GB to NI
Cracking deal Frosty negotiated
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62672105
Quote:
The EU has changed some of its rules in regard to steel imports for reasons related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
That has had a knock-on effect on steel sales from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Trade expert Sam Lowe set out the complicated background to the issue earlier this month.
Essentially, steel from Great Britain had been able to enter Northern Ireland without a tariff because it was covered by a tariff rate quota (TRQ) for UK exports to the EU.
A TRQ allows a certain amount of a product to enter a customs territory without a tariff being paid, but once a set limit is reached tariffs apply.
Until June there was a specific TRQ for UK steel exports to the EU.
However, when sanctions were applied to Russia EU businesses could no longer buy steel from there.
So at that time the EU scrapped country-specific TRQs for the UK and others in favour of one TRQ for Ukraine and another TRQ covering all "other countries".
The Northern Ireland Protocol means NI continues to follow EU customs rules
Mr Lowe said this was intended to give EU steel importers more flexibility in the absence of Russian supplies.
However it also means that the tariff free limit for Great Britain supplies to Northern Ireland has been quickly reached, as Mr Lowe explained.
"Whereas before the UK had access to its own country-specific quota, which it could rely on to accommodate steel moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, now these movements would be covered by the 'other countries' quota which could fill up much more quickly, given the entire world has access to it," he said.
The EU was not forced to make this change, was it?
I guess it shows why these deals usually take 7 years0
