| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On August 06 2016 04:39 bardtown wrote: Norwegians and Swiss and Ukrainians are definitely less European than those inside the EU. Also, so much for '#regrexit': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
![[image loading]](https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13958298_1408811502478880_5081043794801632608_o.jpg) Red flag during Corbyn's rally. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
That kind of misses the point. I am talking about this hashtag '#regrexit', and all the nonsense filling the media about how Brexiteers regret their decision and how, therefore, there should be a second referendum. The reality is that support for Brexit has remained remarkably steady, or even increased, despite all the doom and gloom. It's almost like they knew there would be a short term economic downturn. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22609 Posts
On August 06 2016 23:58 bardtown wrote: That kind of misses the point. I am talking about this hashtag '#regrexit', and all the nonsense filling the media about how Brexiteers regret their decision and how, therefore, there should be a second referendum. The reality is that support for Brexit has remained remarkably steady, or even increased, despite all the doom and gloom. It's almost like they knew there would be a short term economic downturn. We haven't even gotten to the economic downturn yet. That won't come until after article 50 is triggered and then it will depend on how the market reacts. Will it wait to see how the negotiations turn out or will major companies just pack up leave right away? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 07 2016 00:03 Gorsameth wrote: We haven't even gotten to the economic downturn yet. That won't come until after article 50 is triggered and then it will depend on how the market reacts. Will it wait to see how the negotiations turn out or will major companies just pack up leave right away? Markets hedge. In other words, because they expect Article 50 to be triggered, this is already taken into account in stock prices, etc. Businesses, likewise, use projections to decide whether to employ more staff, expand production, etc, and will have factored Brexit into their projections. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9246 Posts
On August 06 2016 23:58 bardtown wrote: That kind of misses the point. I am talking about this hashtag '#regrexit', and all the nonsense filling the media about how Brexiteers regret their decision and how, therefore, there should be a second referendum. The reality is that support for Brexit has remained remarkably steady, or even increased, despite all the doom and gloom. It's almost like they knew there would be a short term economic downturn. The doom & gloom was in regards to leaving the EEA, which hasn't and will not happen despite the entire campaign being specifically about issues pertaining to it and not to the EU. As it stands, the only thing Brexit did was reduce the UK's say in shaping the legislation that it has and will continue to obey. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22609 Posts
On August 07 2016 00:38 bardtown wrote: Markets hedge. In other words, because they expect Article 50 to be triggered, this is already taken into account in stock prices, etc. Businesses, likewise, use projections to decide whether to employ more staff, expand production, etc, and will have factored Brexit into their projections. There is still a ton of uncertainly, mostly about what kind of market access Britain would have after leaving. Companies are not yet leaving the UK (as far as I know) which is a very real possibility if they cannot get an amazing deal (or nothing changes). Importers leaving if they lose free access to the European market, the London financial district leaving if they lose free access to the service market. Those are the economic downturns I am talking about post article 50. Right now its still business as usual because nothing has changed yet. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
I expect the same for the banks. Despite all the talk of Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Dublin absorbing London's finance industry, most people understand that this is very far fetched. Those cities may gain a few thousand staff here and there for trading in euros (if London doesn't secure passporting in Brexit negotiations), but I would be surprised if a single one of the global banks moves their HQ to Europe. There are too many things keeping them in London, and the serious competitors in terms of global banking are in Asia or the US anyway, not Europe. It also seems unlikely to me that car manufacturers will move. Even if we end up with tariffs enforced, it is extremely unlikely that they will extend to the automotive industry, as a result of Germany's surplus with the UK in that area. It remains to be seen whether small manufacturing businesses will feel the need to move production to the mainland. Some will, I suspect, when they get a sense of the 'mood' of Brexit negotiations and decide things do not look good for their industry in the UK. But who knows, maybe TM quickly makes it very clear that she will take free market access with the 7-year immigration brake (with the intention of extending it at the end of the 7 years, no doubt), and losses will be minimised. On August 07 2016 01:17 Dan HH wrote: The doom & gloom was in regards to leaving the EEA, which hasn't and will not happen despite the entire campaign being specifically about issues pertaining to it and not to the EU. As it stands, the only thing Brexit did was reduce the UK's say in shaping the legislation that it has and will continue to obey. That isn't the only change. If Britain restores its ability to make bilateral trade agreements and reduces immigration (this won't be avoidable for either side) at the cost of having a diminished say in EU regulation, I think it will be considered a price worth paying. And if EEA regulations become particularly unfavourable to Britain in future, with industry refocused on global trade we will be in a better position to withdraw fully. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On August 08 2016 23:09 Unentschieden wrote: What ARE the reculations the UK actually takes issue with? Most of them like no lead in childrens toys shouldn´t be controversial but is there a list of stuff that will get changed on the day of Article 50? It's all perception. Nobody knows what they're mad about, they just know that they're mad. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
It is more important for Britain to keep full access to the European single market than to control immigration coming from Europe, voters believe. (...) 48 per cent of voters favoured keeping single market access, compared to 37 per cent who said capping immigration from Europe was more important. However... Though Remain voters backed prioritising single market access by an overwhelming 76 per cent to 12 per cent, just one in five Leave voters said the single market was more important. 67 per cent of those who voted for Britain to quit the bloc last month were adamant that EU immigration needed to be reduced whatever the consequences for single market access. (...) Despite the EU’s warning, Theresa May has said she will strive to secure both single market access and immigration controls in any post-Brexit deal. The frontrunner for the Conservative leadership said these would amount to “the best possible terms” but that single market access would have “priority”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dont-control-eu-immigration-at-the-expense-of-losing-single-market-access-poll-brexit-europe-7127626.html | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
In other news, Owen Smith demonstrates that he is an absolute moron. Now below JC in my estimation, and that is quite the achievement. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On August 08 2016 23:41 Sent. wrote: Freedom of movement obviously. However... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dont-control-eu-immigration-at-the-expense-of-losing-single-market-access-poll-brexit-europe-7127626.html I was more wondering about the kind of regulations that are supposed to make the UK more competitive globally than they are within the EU. Immigration clearly is very important to the exit (regardless what is going to actually happen) but no australian company would care if a UK product was constructed with the involvement of a polish person. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9246 Posts
On August 09 2016 00:23 bardtown wrote: https://twitter.com/owensmith2016/status/760518529971990528 In other news, Owen Smith demonstrates that he is an absolute moron. Now below JC in my estimation, and that is quite the achievement. Do you believe that the UK's abysmal inequality and social mobility is due to it being more meritocratic than the rest of Europe? I reckon not even most center-right folk believe that. I'd say focusing full force on those two things is exactly what Labour should do instead of Trident and other hippie non-issues. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 09 2016 01:15 Dan HH wrote: Do you believe that the UK's abysmal inequality and social mobility is due to it being more meritocratic than the rest of Europe? I reckon not even most center-right folk believe that. I'd say focusing full force on those two things is exactly what Labour should do instead of Trident and other hippie non-issues. There's a connection, and I don't think that's controversial. I've lived in Norway, for example, and the average standard of living is much higher, but ambition is basically not a thing. Everybody ends up at roughly the same level so, on balance, the return for pushing yourself to the limits is very low and therefore not worthwhile. I'll use Cambridge as an example, seeing as I live here. If you study at Cambridge, your job prospects are improved tremendously. There is a problem, however, because those from wealthy families are more likely to meet the challenging entry requirements. They can afford private tutoring, etc, and they may well have a better understanding of what is expected, allowing them to help their children in myriad ways. The meritocratic, equality of opportunity solution: provide tuition or other opportunities/resources for gifted children from lower income households. The equality of outcome solution: fill Cambridge with mediocre students (which, obviously, devalues the prestige of the institution). Also, 'equality of outcome' in this context undoubtedly means the worst kind of identity politics. Quotas for women and non-white folks - as though we don't have enough of that nonsense already - to the detriment of absolutely everybody. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
| ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
So yes, richer people can get into better schools (both free and fee paying schools). Being rich isn't required to get into good free schools though, you just have to live near them. Being rich helps you live near them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/11811580/Mapped-the-price-of-living-near-the-best-schools.html https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/02/one-in-four-families-move-house-to-secure-school-place-survey http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3610345/Living-near-primary-school-rated-outstanding-Ofsted-adds-44k-house-prices.html | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9246 Posts
On August 09 2016 04:22 bardtown wrote: I'll use Cambridge as an example, seeing as I live here. If you study at Cambridge, your job prospects are improved tremendously. There is a problem, however, because those from wealthy families are more likely to meet the challenging entry requirements. They can afford private tutoring, etc, and they may well have a better understanding of what is expected, allowing them to help their children in myriad ways. The meritocratic, equality of opportunity solution: provide tuition or other opportunities/resources for gifted children from lower income households. The equality of outcome solution: fill Cambridge with mediocre students (which, obviously, devalues the prestige of the institution). Gifted children from lower income households? This isn't about the wealthy being genetically superior with some exceptions here and there. The reason those from wealthy families and those from lower income families don't meet the academic entry requirements in similar proportion to their distrubution is exactly because they don't have equal opportunity. The only possible way of equalizing opportunity is by reducing the gap between families, and how do you do that if not by outcome based solutions such as stronger worker rights and social safety nets? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Beastyqt682 olofmeister384 Mlord303 KnowMe200 C9.Mang0143 UpATreeSC103 IndyStarCraft  84Mew2King58 Trikslyr55 SteadfastSC34 |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
