Whilst we're on Monty Python sketches, how about "what did the Tory manifesto ever do for us?"
Bankruptcy!
- Thread starter finnbear270
- Start date
Whilst we're on Monty Python sketches, how about "what did the Tory manifesto ever do for us?"
The Plaid woman seems to think Airbus is going to stop building wings in Broughton because we are leaving eu!
Strangley I order stuff from China & America all the time????? How can this be?
I can see you drank the cool aid, I am sorry but your in for one mother of a shock when sod all hapenes with the rest of the world in 2021.
If your lucky in 2030 we may have some significant trade deals as the average negotiation time is about 10 years.
And in you view we are going to get a better deel than we could have got inside the EU as part of the single largest economy in the world with a turn over of 16 trillion?
Sorry I don't think your drinking cool aid more like Special Brew
There is no argument as to wether or not we will suffer economicaly when we leave the EU, the only argument is how badly we will suffer and for how long.
Average is 2 years actually. And the EU only manage to stuff this up by being so crap at it. That's what happens when you have e 27 very different countries, all with very different perspectives trying to agree a deal with one outside country. Most other countries outside the EU manage it fine by themselves. Though it seems that people like you forget that the rest of the world actually exists and manages trade arrangemenets far quicker on their own!
Not sure what your point is about you buying stuff from America. Point is, as country we are not allowed to do that without the EU dictatcting the terms.
I also disagree that we will be worse if outside the largest dictatorship in the world. I know that we will be be better if out. It will allow our own workforce to find employment at the right pay. It will increase the value of our own produce. It will allow us to govern ourselves. Clearly all things you feel we don't need. Clearly you have back bone to be able to stand up on your own with out Merkel or junicker providing you support. How truly sad. N
Last edited:
No I am affraid it's you not understanding.
Why should we pay for your daughter's PhD?
You fail to mention who actually employes her? No one? Well there is your problem!
Get a sponsor or pay yourself. Don't come asking me for money!
If you can't find sponsorship then that tells you all you need to know about the value of your PhD. To be honest, they are worthless any way. Once you get one, most end up becoming employed by research companies (wich is good, but I let if you have a sponsor), or they become lecturers........ again without a sponsor you have limited worth to society! That's the cold hard truth. Efore you ask, I have around 14 years experience in this field.
Last edited:
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
Dont waste your breath mate. His sense of self entitlement is clouding his judgements. Anyone who thinks that they are working for free and not looking at futures earnings is just myopic at best deluded at worse. Agree with your comments about funding hence why I didn't do mine as it was only partially funded by the EU/UN somewhat ironically.
big ears
Well-Known Member
i see your point but am not 100% sure of the conclusions. There are many reasons why sponsorship is difficult some as you outline but other as we do not have a massive culture of corporate sponsorship. We as a country are one of the lowest investors from corporate companies in our graduates in the G7 group. Our companies pay one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in the G7 group. Other G7 countries ask their corporations to invest in graduate schemes we do not per se.
I'm not suggesting this but an interesting fact from Question time last night is that as large buisineses are the major benefactors of graduates if we put up corporation tax to 27%, which where it was and still lower than most G7 countries, it will raise enough money for free undergraduate and graduate education (no tuition fees) for everyone and a free bursary/grant for the lowest income group.
its food for thought especially if we want as Mrs May says to "invest in our future" and "not burden our children".
Chasey
Well-Known Member
From that well known source of lies and deceit the London School of Economics
We would be looking at renegotiation of over 100 trade agreements
LSE BREXIT Leaving the EU would mean renegotiating more than 100 trade agreements
Last edited:
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Chasey
You seem to be partial to a swig of the Kook-Aid yourself.....
Where does your 10 year average come from? Care to cite any independent references for that number?
By being part of the EU we had access to over 50 trade agreements (not necessarily the same as a trade deal, since some are customs unions or have development aims as well). Roughly 17 more are in process. These trade deals do not cover countries like the US, China, Australia, India and much of Africa and Latin America - some of these are being negotiated, but many are not: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.pdf
TTIP - the agreement that never happened - would have covered 45% of global GDP alone. Don't expect to see it come back to life any time soon. So, in its absence, how long would it take us to negotiate a UK-US trade deal? President Obama told us during the Brexit campaign that the UK would be at the back of the queue, but what does that actually mean? The TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US took 4 years before they failed, whereas the average length of time to negotiate a trade deal with the US is just 1.5 years - this from the World Economic Forum: With Brexit in mind, just how long do trade deals take to agree? | World Economic Forum.
President Obama.....where is he now?
Where you are correct is that negotiating trade deals with the EU take a long time. We saw this with CETA, the recent Canadian deal, that took 7 long years to negotiate. This is because any agreement with the EU has to involve not just the European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the EU, but also the individual member states. Hence the fact that the Walloons could bring the Canadian deal to a halt....until they came under pressure from Brussels.
This same principal was confirmed in the EU courts just this week, meaning that the current trade negotiation between the EU and Singapore has to be agreed and ratified by each individual country: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/economy/europe-trade-singapore-ecj.html?_r=0
The reality is that being part of the EU makes it more difficult to negotiate trade deals, not less.
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. You may find that we can be far more nimble when it comes to international trade without the EU to hold us back.
I hope you are right and I am wrong I realy do
Sadly all the people I have discussed this with who are in the loop don't agree with you
By in the loop I mean people like a good friend of over 20 years who is a senior fund manager for City Bank
But hell what do the likes of him and the LSE know?
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Sorry if some how you missed it but her employer will be the NHS
I am assuming by your opinion we should not fund any training for medical staff or nurses for the NHS?
So do we import all medical staff from overseas and totally abandon the training of health care workers in the UK?
Admitedly that would save an awful lot of money
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Yes because lets face it after 7 years training and 100K+ expense that £35,000 sallery in London should net her a nice mansion and a Roles Royce at least.
Mind you she has to repay at 9% of earnings over threash hold so that's a bit of a bummer but on the upside the calculators reckons she should have it paid off in 26 years
My sense of self entitlement doesnt come into this. I earn well and have invested reasnobly well and will be for the most part unaffected by this or anything to do with Brexit. Its a bit like understanding handicapped people. Yo will never truly understand the restrictions on the disabled until you have tried to live using a wheel chare for six months.
I personaly had no idea how awfull it was trying to train as a NHS professional in the UK. Over the last two years I have lerned a lot.
Its frankly disgusting what the Con-artists have done to the NHS training of YOUR medical support staff.
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Chasey
Well-Known Member
The Plaid woman seems to think Airbus is going to stop building wings in Broughton because we are leaving eu!
EU referendum: Airbus warns Out vote may hit investment - BBC News
Haven't you noticed that TB, which was virtually eradicated in my teens is back with a vengeance. Scurvy was a lack of fresh veg and fruit, we grew those, Beri beri i believe is a tropical disease so didn't affect darkest Warwickshire. Ok we had chilblains,snotty noses,mumps,measles etc,only had a cold water tap but compared to today's Three times a day showered and reclothed kids we were far more healthy and things like MRS didn't occur in hospitals. This because hospitals were run by Matriarchs who made sure they were good for patients and not by some overpaid CEO.
While it would not relocate elsewhere in the event of EU exit, the company said it might reduce its investment. Airbus.
Cumbrian 1
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why people keep mentioning trade deals, trade deals are not required, trade deals reduce a country's ability to be competitive.
Below is Patrick Minford one of the world's leading economist's trying to explain to parliament why we don't need trade deals:
Below is Patrick Minford one of the world's leading economist's trying to explain to parliament why we don't need trade deals:
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
No. That's a myth. I worked in a very large NHS Hospital as Supplies Liaison Officer in the last year of the "old" NHS and the first year of Thatcher's "new" Trust NHS with privatised this and privatised that.
The MRS problem was directly down to Thatcher's privatisation of in hospital cleaning services by the Conservative Government. I'll explain.
Before the cleaning services were privatised all the cleaning products, the mops, the brooms and the etc. were kept on the wards and accessible 24/7 to those on the wards. These things were, after all, bought and paid for by the NHS and thus anybody could access and use them at ANY time of the day, on Bank Holidays, on Christmas Day and etc..
Thus even though the actual cleaning staff might not be on duty or elsewise unavailable one of the Ward Clerks, one of the Nursing Auxiliaries, or usually one of the Porters could be asked to get the stuff out and clean any "spillages" or whatever needed. Usually the porters who would have one or two on duty 24/7 and did everything and anything when "needs must".
If not a hospital with a 24/7 portering service it would be tasked to one of the Nursing Auxiliaries of which there would be at least one on duty on each ward or unit 24/7.
After privatisation the cleaning products, the mops, the brooms and the etc. were taken off the wards as they were no longer bought and paid for by the NHS but by the privatised cleaning supplier were either taken off the wards or kept locked up and available ONLY to the staff of these new privatised cleaning suppliers
Usually SERCO in my time. So, as said, these items were kept under lock and key to which non SERCO staff had no access. After all the "owner" of these was now SERCO and SERCO was not going to allow the NHS (which hadn't paid for these things) to use them free as it were.
Thus if there were then a spillage it got left until the privatised cleaning supplier's cleaners were back on duty and, like everything else, as the more cleaning product got used the less profit SERCO made the cleaning product was used sparingly. As the staff of these privatised cleaners had to account for every last capful of cleaning product.
So the Matron myth is, I have to say, a story peddled by Conservative Health Ministers and their cronies to avoid truth about the real reason for the problem of MRS which is their privatisation of the in-hospital cleaning services.
Last edited:
The truth is that none of us know. It is all guesswork. In some cases informed guesswork, in other cases not. That's as true for the LSE and the fund managers as it is for you and most especially for me.
As to the LSE, they themselves say that to cover 92% of our current global trade requires a minimum of 24 trade agreements to be negotiated. To cover 61.4% of our current global trade would require just 4 - the US, China, the EU and Switzerland. Suddenly that doesn't sound quite so formidable as 100, does it?
I am also sure your friend is a good fund manager - I hope so as probably some of the money invested in that fund is yours and mine. But I don't see how being a fund manager qualifies someone to be right about the future. All fund managers will tell you that they pick both winners and losers - the successful ones just pick more of the former than the latter.
My work involves dealing with companies who trade goods and services internationally, helping them make sure they abide by international trade and compliance rules and that they manage their supply chains efficiently. This covers all aspects of international trade, from sourcing and manufacturing through to logistics. I deal with companies from the SMB space right up to global market leaders across a variety of different industries. Without international trade and logistics I wouldn't have a job.
Well whoop-de-do, that still doesn't make me any better qualified to predict what will happen post Brexit. Nor does it give me any great insight into the machinations of governments. It just gives me a perspective on how global trade is conducted, and exposes me to a wide variety of countries, companies and individuals who trade across the World. I am only telling you this to provide some context to my opinions.
I am certainly not your classic Kipper, but more the "reluctant Brexiteer". If there had been a third option - stay in a truly reformed EU - that would have got my vote. The sad thing is that there never was, nor is, any realistic prospect of reforming the EU to make it more democratic. The goal of the EU since its inception has been closer and closer integration - political, financial, commercial, military and social. Some may be willing to accept those policies as the price of staying in the EU, but as a firm believer in democracy I don't. That's why I voted leave. The attitude from the EU since the vote has only reinforced my opinion that I put my cross in the right box.
To get back to the relevance to the current election, there is no going back. Even if, as the LibDems, the SNP and perhaps Labour would prefer, we had a second referendum and voted to remain, the EU would not take us back on the same terms. Now emasculated, they would punish us for staying in much the same way as if we had actually left. You only need to look at what has happened since last June to see that the objective of a federal Europe is now firmly on the cards - shared budgets, shared military, shared social policies.
Whilst in the EU the UK was always a restraining hand on the federalists. Not any more.
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
Clearly not that much!! It seems your grasp of literacy is on par with your grasp of numbers!! Stop being so myopic about your daughters future.
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Here was me thinking this was a stalking forum? Strange that you can all slag one and other off but mention a badger and all hell brakes loose from admin.
COOL DOWN CHAPS. Its the weekend. go home pack yer stuff and get out for a buck. None of us will have an impact on Westminster, even with the vote we will have more of the same *RAP.
COOL DOWN CHAPS. Its the weekend. go home pack yer stuff and get out for a buck. None of us will have an impact on Westminster, even with the vote we will have more of the same *RAP.
Similar threads
