|
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 |
On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation.
I imagine if financial services change their place, then it'll probably be Germany. They're already rich. Getting richer will be crazy. :D
|
I think the UK shouldn't be content with a deal like Norway's because, unlike Norway, the UK is a big country which means a lot of votes in the council and the parliament. Norwegians can say their vote wouldn't matter anyway, but the Brits have the potential to win some important votes with good diplomacy. The fact that they rarely win these votes in the current setup doesn't mean they should stop trying.
If I was in charge of Britain I'd seriously consider rolling the dice and going for hard Brexit. If things go badly you can always behead Nigel Farage and re-enter the union in like 6-10 years. I think the hard option has a small chance of succeeding while the soft option is just accepting worse conditions without really proving the eurosceptics wrong.
|
On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation.
No this is not true. London has been a big financial centre for decades and became the most important financial centre in the world (more important than wall street) after the big bang. Yes being in the EU helped but London didn't become the biggest financial.centre in the world because of it. Loose regulation, an educated populace, friendly politics, network effects etc. Made it what it is. Being in the EU is just one factor of many.
|
On September 23 2017 08:34 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation. No this is not true. London has been a big financial centre for decades and became the most important financial centre in the world (more important than wall street) after the big bang. Yes being in the EU helped but London didn't become the biggest financial.centre in the world because of it. Loose regulation, an educated populace, friendly politics, network effects etc. Made it what it is. Being in the EU is just one factor of many.
Would it stay that way after Brexit?
|
United States42864 Posts
On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation.
This is false. London became the Wall St of the EU because London was already the Wall St of the world in 1750. It didn't come into being because of the EU. London is London of the EU because London is the London of the world. That will change over time but the EU has literally nothing to do with the financial position of London within global commerce.
|
On September 23 2017 00:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 17:28 Razyda wrote:Please someone tell me if I am reading this right because my mind is running in circles right now: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/theresa-may-to-ask-eu-to-be-creative-about-brexit-in-florence-speechParticularly this bit: "She is also likely to make an offer to ensure no country has to pay more into the budget until 2020 as a result of Brexit, without committing to permanent payments to the EU. Her proposal would involve the UK continuing to pay into the EU during its transitional period after leaving the bloc in March 2019 at a cost of around €20bn (£17.5bn)." Because whatever way I spin it, it seems that she will offer transitional deal maintaining status quo (eg: paying into EU budget) and also she is about to offer that UK will pay int EU budget during transitional period (which UK would had to do anyway)? What else is she going to offer?? Beautiful city of Paris together with rural areas? Why would there be a need to honour anything beyond upholding preexisting agreements? What should May offer that she hasn't in your opinion?
Maybe that just about wording, but I'll try to explain:
Transitional period maintain status quo so UK is paying into EU budget anyway, therefore : "Her proposal would involve the UK continuing to pay into the EU during its transitional period" doesnt make any sense.
"Her proposal would involve the UK (NOT) continuing to pay into the EU during its transitional period" would make sense (although it would be pretty rubbish proposal).
On September 23 2017 08:34 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation. No this is not true. London has been a big financial centre for decades and became the most important financial centre in the world (more important than wall street) after the big bang. Yes being in the EU helped but London didn't become the biggest financial.centre in the world because of it. Loose regulation, an educated populace, friendly politics, network effects etc. Made it what it is. Being in the EU is just one factor of many.
He is actually right and you missed most important factor in WHY London became financial center - which is British Empire, basically when you were doing business in London you were doing it in half a world, after that you were doing it in EU, yes everything you mentioned helped, but it was just that - help
|
|
|
United States42864 Posts
Increased costs of government borrowing should it continue to run a deficit.
|
On September 23 2017 09:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation. This is false. London became the Wall St of the EU because London was already the Wall St of the world in 1750. It didn't come into being because of the EU. London is London of the EU because London is the London of the world. That will change over time but the EU has literally nothing to do with the financial position of London within global commerce.
literally nothing?
Would London be as big financially today if not for its free access to the EU market?
Would losing that access likely cause a (dramatic) shrink in its relevance as a financial hub?
Yes I undersold the length that London has been an important financial hub, yes I ignored the British Empire. But there is no British Empire anymore and we are talking about the impact of varies forms of Brexit on the UK economy.
What happened 200 years ago isn't really relevant anymore for that.
|
On September 23 2017 19:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 09:28 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation. This is false. London became the Wall St of the EU because London was already the Wall St of the world in 1750. It didn't come into being because of the EU. London is London of the EU because London is the London of the world. That will change over time but the EU has literally nothing to do with the financial position of London within global commerce. Would losing that access likely cause a (dramatic) shrink in its relevance as a financial hub?
Not if we turn London into a tax haven (even more than it currently is) at the expense of the rest of the UK.
|
On September 23 2017 22:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 19:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 09:28 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2017 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Isn’t London the Wall Street of the EU? Yes, but this only came into being because London was the best place to have it inside the EU. If the UK doesn't get free service access with the EU then all these companies would have to pay extra to do their EU business (which is why their in London currently). So many of them would likely start up branches in another EU location, while downsizing their UK operation. A transition period that would no doubt be uncomfortable for the EU but they are a big enough market that people will move to have unlimited access to it. And the UK is unlikely to get service access without accepting EU law and paying into the EU (the Norway model). Which is basically what the UK has now, only losing their ability to influence those laws. Taxation without representation. This is false. London became the Wall St of the EU because London was already the Wall St of the world in 1750. It didn't come into being because of the EU. London is London of the EU because London is the London of the world. That will change over time but the EU has literally nothing to do with the financial position of London within global commerce. Would losing that access likely cause a (dramatic) shrink in its relevance as a financial hub? Not if we turn London into a tax haven (even more than it currently is) at the expense of the rest of the UK.
London is already the centre of a spider's web of tax haven's that, taken together, are the worlds premier destination for dirty money. After Brexit it's the only reason anyone takes us seriously as a world power. The amounts we have helped strip mine and hide from economies around the world (including our own) is in the Trillions.
If an analysis of Britain's future doesn't take this into account it's a flawed analysis.
Without radical intervention what we'll have is a tale of two Brexits.
1: The people of the united kingdom will continue to see their incomes shrink, poverty will increase, our healthcare system and social safety net will deteriorate.
2: The City will continue to do what it does best, grow fat by dipping its beak into a torrent of dirty cash.
|
A researcher has been refused permission to study cases of people who have surgery to reverse gender reassignment by a university that said it risked generating controversy on social media sites. The proposal was rejected with an explanation noting that it was a potentially “politically incorrect” piece of research and could lead to material being posted online that “may be detrimental to the reputation of the institution”.
James Caspian, a psychotherapist, who wanted to conduct the research for a master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University, accused it of failing to follow “the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry”. Mr Caspian, 58, a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people, embarked on the research after speaking to a surgeon who had carried out operations to reverse gender reassignment surgery, as people came to regret their decision.
Mr Caspian was at first given approval by Bath Spa for his research, which needed clearance from the university’s ethics sub-committee in order for him to conduct the interviews He was, however, unable to find people willing to take part and asked to amend the proposal for his master’s so that it would include women who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women, but without reversing their surgery. Mr Caspian also asked if he could post a request on an online forum for people working in this field — the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — as a means of recruiting participants. He was told this would require a new submission to the university’s ethics sub-committee which, after discussion with the dean of the relevant department, rejected this request.
On the sub-committee’s rejection form, it said: “Engaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the university. “Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university.” Under a section on ethical issues needing further consideration, it added: “The posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university.” It also said that there were potential risks to Mr Caspian’s own safety and wellbeing and in ensuring the confidentiality of participants and their personal details. He said that “in the language of psychotherapy, my ego is strong enough to withstand attack or criticism should I read it elsewhere than social media”.
Referring to the reply, Mr Caspian, who has lodged a complaint with the university, said: “That would mean that the university cannot withstand disagreement, argument, dissension. “Where would stand the reputation of a university that cannot follow the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry? I am more concerned about the potential impact of that stance on its reputation than I am about possible comments on social media.” Bath Spa University said that it was unable to comment while the complaint was being investigated.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/university-of-bath-bars-research-into-transgender-surgery-regrets-ddxxlbfzh
Here we go.
This is a difficult subject for Caspian to be taking on, but for the university to ban his research because the results may not be politically correct is the absolute worst implementation of PC policy imaginable. Science and learning really shouldn't be hampered because the conclusions you come to could be difficult or could clash with an ideological assumption.
To me, this is a very important area of research. I'm sure for the vast majority of trans people, they are born into the wrong body and a surgical change can have massive psychological benefits. However, to bury your head in the sand and ignore the few (if there really are some people like this) who are negatively affected is inhumane, counterproductive and just plain lacking in empathy.
To do this because of PC optics is even worse, its selfish to the point of absurdity.
This study could ask some quite important questions about how we are educating young people, how trans awareness should be treated with care, instead of being taught to primary school kids with reckless abandon.
Then again, it might conclude that we are on exactly the right path.
Banning the study just leaves us in the dark.
Just so people are aware, the guy wanting to conduct the study isn't some die hard conservative transphobe, he is this guy:
http://transgenderawareness.co.uk/about-me/
|
Well, that's why people like Trump and AfD get elected. Political correctness has skyrocketed recently.
|
Yes! That must be it. We found the solution for the rise in populist bullshit. It's talking as if we were respecting one another.
|
I wouldn't say PC is responsible for Trump. There is something that relates to Trump and this case at Bath University though. Angry online mobs of morons witch hunting anything which falls outside their extremely narrow ideological view of politics. They apparently inspire such fear that you can't do science any more if they might dislike the results of your study.
Its the opposite of political correctness, because respect has nothing to do with it, its purely misplaced anger and resentment.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said jockl.
Having thought about a career in environmental sciences / engineering myself after graduating, I strongly support the scientific endeavours and seeing them shut down by fear of negative responses is self-censorship. The university could take it as a challenge and use this project to promote self awareness of such mechanisms and lay bare the underlying motives. It may be difficult to have the scientists work closely with the PR dept on that one, but if this becomes a recurring trend it is imperative to challenge that.
|
On September 25 2017 03:25 Artisreal wrote:
Yes! That must be it. We found the solution for the rise in populist bullshit. It's talking as if we were respecting one another.
It's a very big reason but not the only one. Getting silenced by vocal left wingers can only fuel the far right. Look around and you will see it.
|
See the post above yours.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
This john mcdonnell speech is straight out of some fantasy piece
|
On September 25 2017 20:49 ahswtini wrote:
This john mcdonnell speech is straight out of some fantasy piece
What makes you say that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
