BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not really a huge endorsement of how destructive leaving the EU is meant to be if he is prepared to put his CV ahead of the country.

That's pathetic mate, well beneath you.

It was your quote saying it would not look very good on the CV

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I've only ever known experts or members of the public who expose politicians lying to be a good thing. It certainly enhances their reputation. He is getting a positive reputation already via Youtube

So why ruin that positive reputation by entering a bear pit where facts are optional and in Michal Gove's case, actively discouraged?

Because it would hugely enhance his reputation by debunking what ever myths are being spread and provide the public with facts for the referendum that they have been asking for.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

We keep being told this. Time for the remainers to step up.

What proof/evidence is there that remaining will change things for the better?

Hope. Hope and belief in this great country's ability to be a powerhouse of influence. Hope that things can be changed for the better. Hope that we can come together as one for the common good. It's time to stop being negative and think that we can't change our destiny. We need to be positive, be a force for good and change. We can do this. Don't be fearful. Be hopeful. Vote remain.

See, that's an easy one to use from either side

But we have been a member for 40+ years. The evidence should be overwhelming

To do this you would have to forecast how the UK economy would have performed outside of the EU. This would have been done by experts using massive amounts of data-points and very complex computer modelling. And at the end of that you would say "so what - they are experts in their field - what do they know about it"

For that reason I can not be bothered to find them for you

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

At any point the Westminster Parliament could pull the lot down because it is supreme and sovereign.

Agree to the above.

Ignoring the referendum, what would the legal ramifications be if Westminster implemented a law saying the UK now has an Australian points immigration system for both EU and non-EU migrants?

You know what the answer is to that the question is whether you believe that impacts on what sovereignty means.

I do but you could provide a short general overview to a layman of what would happen

It does go to prove that Westminster or the UK Supreme court is not at the top of the legal tree in certain situations

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not really a huge endorsement of how destructive leaving the EU is meant to be if he is prepared to put his CV ahead of the country.

That's pathetic mate, well beneath you.

It was your quote saying it would not look very good on the CV

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I've only ever known experts or members of the public who expose politicians lying to be a good thing. It certainly enhances their reputation. He is getting a positive reputation already via Youtube

So why ruin that positive reputation by entering a bear pit where facts are optional and in Michal Gove's case, actively discouraged?

Because it would hugely enhance his reputation by debunking what ever myths are being spread and provide the public with facts for the referendum that they have been asking for.

Maybe, just maybe, he's taken his civic duty seriously and said enough is enough. That much appears clear from his opening statement. If only there were more of him.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Not really a huge endorsement of how destructive leaving the EU is meant to be if he is prepared to put his CV ahead of the country.

That's pathetic mate, well beneath you.

It was your quote saying it would not look very good on the CV

ddraver wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I've only ever known experts or members of the public who expose politicians lying to be a good thing. It certainly enhances their reputation. He is getting a positive reputation already via Youtube

So why ruin that positive reputation by entering a bear pit where facts are optional and in Michal Gove's case, actively discouraged?

Because it would hugely enhance his reputation by debunking what ever myths are being spread and provide the public with facts for the referendum that they have been asking for.

Why would he want to put himself in front of a baying mob who are incapable of understanding what he is saying? I am guessing that he would also bring down a social media hate campaign down upon himself.

As an "expert denier" why do you give credence to anything he says?

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

At any point the Westminster Parliament could pull the lot down because it is supreme and sovereign.

Agree to the above.

Ignoring the referendum, what would the legal ramifications be if Westminster implemented a law saying the UK now has an Australian points immigration system for both EU and non-EU migrants?

You know what the answer is to that the question is whether you believe that impacts on what sovereignty means.

I do but you could provide a short general overview to a layman of what would happen

It does go to prove that Westminster is not at the top of the legal tree in certain situations

The top of the legal tree does not equate with sovereignty. That's the thing that keeps being missed. Taking back control talk about sovereignty as if we've given the whole shebang away. As a concept none of it has ever been given away because we are a sovereign state. As a discussion point we've devolved, pooled, shared, etc, depending on how you view it.

If we implemented it we'd be subject to a legal challenge which we would lose. And rightly so because the EU model is about free movement. Losing a legal battle isn't an affront to democracy or sovereignty. It means you're in breach of your obligations.

bendertherobot

Remember, most of the time nothing happens because our democratically elected representatives pass law which is consistent with EU law.

When we don't sometimes we lose, sometimes we win. Not much has been made of last week's benefits to migrants case which the EU Supreme Court sided with the UK.

coopster_the_1st

Comment from the News last night from a director of a building company - Moffitt & Robinson Construction

"By leaving the EU it would mean we would have to train our own students, and bring in the apprentices into the building trade across the board rather than taking the easy route and bringing in those that are already trained"

Rick, SC, any other remainers. Is this approach really better for the UK in the long term? Are you going to defend this?

ddraver

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

That's on us. The UK need to step up.

bendertherobot

ddraver wrote:

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

That's on us. The UK need to step up.

Much of what people are disillusioned with is being transferred to the EU by proxy. Still, I guess this is about as engaged as the public have ever actually been with politics.

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

"By leaving the EU it would mean we would have to train our own students, and bring in the apprentices into the building trade across the board rather than taking the easy route and bringing in those that are already trained"

ddraver

Sorry, that still doesnt explain how that is related to the EU.

If you are suggesting that the EU prevents the UK from training builders apprentices then I suspect you are misinformed.

finchy

I can certainly see that there is a very, very strong case for arguing that when it comes to key skills, we should be self-sufficient (assuming that there will be a continuous supply of willing workers coming to Britain in the future would be extremely foolish), there is no guarantee that leaving the EU would mean we actually achieve this goal and there is nothing about EU membership which prevents us from going for it.

coopster_the_1st

ddraver

Oh, poor Coop, you started out so well...

coopster_the_1st

finchy wrote:

I can certainly see that there is a very, very strong case for arguing that when it comes to key skills, we should be self-sufficient (assuming that there will be a continuous supply of willing workers coming to Britain in the future would be extremely foolish), there is no guarantee that leaving the EU would mean we actually achieve this goal and there is nothing about EU membership which prevents us from going for it.

Thank you finchy

We do not give the resident youth a chance to learn a trade (not everyone is bright enough to go to Uni but is very capable of being very good at a practical trade) because the easy & cheaper option for business is to import already trained labour. However we have no 'control' over that movement of *EU labour so have no way of giving the resident youth a chance

This is not a positive over the long term for the country

* We've already had a legal expert confirm we cannot bring in this control mechanism inside the EU

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

Oh, poor Coop, you started out so well...

Well answer the question then, rather than trying to distract, ignore or confuse the issue.

ddraver

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

I can certainly see that there is a very, very strong case for arguing that when it comes to key skills, we should be self-sufficient (assuming that there will be a continuous supply of willing workers coming to Britain in the future would be extremely foolish), there is no guarantee that leaving the EU would mean we actually achieve this goal and there is nothing about EU membership which prevents us from going for it.

Thank you finchy

We do not give the resident youth a chance to learn a trade (not everyone is bright enough to go to Uni but is very capable of being very good at a practical trade) because the easy & cheaper option for business is to import already trained labour. However we have no 'control' over that movement of *EU labour so have no way of giving the resident youth a chance

This is not a positive over the long term for the country

* We've already had a legal expert confirm we cannot bring in this control mechanism inside the EU

I answered your question really very clearly.

Yes we do! Train them ourselves!

Again, this is 100% on the UK, not the EU

bendertherobot

Legal expert? I thank ewe. But you've missed the point. And that of democracy and control. Think about legislating not only to ban free movement of workers but, also, think about why you need to. And, while you're at it, then start to think more widely about whether, if business decisions that impact on the Uk negatively are so bad, what you think about pro Brexit Dyson moving his plant to Malaysia.................

joelsim

If you are considering voting to leave, then this is an interesting read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orge-soros

veronese68

Article about decline in apprenticeships in the building trade, this is the pertinent bit:

Last year a poll from RatedPeople.com suggested that young people are failing to apply for apprenticeships because they feel there is more focus in the UK on securing an academic qualification.

Over half (53%) admitted to dismissing the trade industry in pursuit of a more academic career path. Other reasons listed included a reluctance to work evenings and weekends and the belief that the starting salary of a tradesman is too low.

Full article here.

surrey_commuter

ddraver wrote:

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

That's on us. The UK need to step up.

Agreed - and will add that these jobs would be filled under the "Australian points system"

finchy

Joelsim wrote:

If you are considering voting to leave, then this is an interesting read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orge-soros

Problem is that nobody is going to listen to a billionaire currency speculator. The leave side is going to be able to continue painting itself as some sort of grassroots popular movement ('cos Farage and Johnson really are men of the people :roll: ) if the remain side's loudest voices are people like George Soros.

surrey_commuter

Joelsim wrote:

If you are considering voting to leave, then this is an interesting read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orge-soros

A remarkably succinct article for The Guardian - very inciteful.

But, and it is a big BUT, it does not tell us whether we are to ignore him because he is part of "the City" or because he is an expert.

surrey_commuter

finchy wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

If you are considering voting to leave, then this is an interesting read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orge-soros

Problem is that nobody is going to listen to a billionaire currency speculator. The leave side is going to be able to continue painting itself as some sort of grassroots popular movement ('cos Farage and Johnson really are men of the people :roll: ) if the remain side's loudest voices are people like George Soros.

Let's hope they don't notice he is a jewish immigrant from Hungary :roll:

finchy

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

I can certainly see that there is a very, very strong case for arguing that when it comes to key skills, we should be self-sufficient (assuming that there will be a continuous supply of willing workers coming to Britain in the future would be extremely foolish), there is no guarantee that leaving the EU would mean we actually achieve this goal and there is nothing about EU membership which prevents us from going for it.

Thank you finchy

We do not give the resident youth a chance to learn a trade (not everyone is bright enough to go to Uni but is very capable of being very good at a practical trade) because the easy & cheaper option for business is to import already trained labour. However we have no 'control' over that movement of *EU labour so have no way of giving the resident youth a chance

This is not a positive over the long term for the country

* We've already had a legal expert confirm we cannot bring in this control mechanism inside the EU

We do have a choice, but you've got to look at the education system. Ours is too geared up towards academic education with technical education being seen pretty much as an afterthought. Young people need to be aware that a qualification in plumbing is more likely to lead to good earnings than a 2.2 in Celebrity Studies from Crapsville University.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

That's on us. The UK need to step up.

Agreed - and will add that these jobs would be filled under the "Australian points system"

How about a joined up government policy?

The industry is required to create x number of apprenticeships a year so they can fill jobs under the "Australian points system"

Industry and government working together rather than industry doing solely what is best for itself by choosing the easy option and importing all the labour.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I'm going to question how this is relevant to the EU.

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

That's on us. The UK need to step up.

Agreed - and will add that these jobs would be filled under the "Australian points system"

How about a joined up government policy?

The industry is required to create x number of apprenticeships a year so they can fill jobs under the "Australian points system"

Industry and government working together rather than industry doing solely what is best for itself by choosing the easy option and importing all the labour.

They can do that, if that's the policy them want to do. How they do it is important. But joined up government thinking is the job of government.

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

lack of apprenticeship is a UK problem, not helped by the democratically elected government cutting things like this.

I see where you are going wrong. Governments do not create apprenticeships, businesses do.

Now start again

finchy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

finchy wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

If you are considering voting to leave, then this is an interesting read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... orge-soros

Problem is that nobody is going to listen to a billionaire currency speculator. The leave side is going to be able to continue painting itself as some sort of grassroots popular movement ('cos Farage and Johnson really are men of the people :roll: ) if the remain side's loudest voices are people like George Soros.

Let's hope they don't notice he is a jewish immigrant from Hungary :roll:

Let's hope they don't notice he's got a conviction for insider trading.