Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit.
Nov 5, 2016 17:32:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 17:32:34 GMT
Not me, though I agree there are an awful lot of really bad consultants who you just described pretty well. I don't really know how they get through the day, it must be a pretty miserable existence.
However, not me. And whilst I may never know as much about your industry as you do, I( bet I could improve your company performance. And I mean substantially and proveably improve where justification would be measured using your metrics and standards and extended over time
So sure in fact, that I'll come and do it for free no salary, no expenses, simply a 10% share on the first 2 years gains.
I make more money that way.
The upside of using a consultant is that I don't have to worry about my career path, about my job in two years, about being unpopular, etc. etc. I can focus entirely upon the goals.
I rely entirely on word of mouth from those I have worked for encouraging those I will work for. Consequently the added valuable has to be real.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Brexit.
Nov 6, 2016 17:16:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Nov 6, 2016 17:16:10 GMT
Today we've had Jeremy Corbyn apparently offer Labour's opposition to an Article 50 bill, only for Tom Watson to contradict him, while Farage repeated his threats of violence if the Shrinking 37% don't get their way, and abused Gina Miller for having done the right thing in the High Court. I'm very much afraid this will get worse before it gets better.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Brexit.
Nov 7, 2016 13:51:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Nov 7, 2016 13:51:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 16, 2017 15:31:55 GMT
Well it seems to be getting worse, doesn't it? The UK government is about to announce its intention to take us out of the Single Market and Customs Union, despite this not being on the ballot paper and explicitly said to be outside of the leave campaign's intentions, winning the referendum by convincing sufficient people that a soft brexit (i.e. remain in SM, CU) was the plan to tip it over 50%.
Meanwhile, the incoming US administration seems to be teaming up with Russia to undermine and fragment the EU - the Russians will be looking to regain territory in Eastern/Northern Europe and the US will be looking to send its chosen, Trump supporting businessmen to asset strip the devalued UK (£ slide continuing every time a Brexiteer opens a mouth) and implant its private healthcare providers in place of the NHS.
Isn't this all just peachy.
I hope Leave voters are happy and proud of their 'patriotic' choice. Gove's shit-eating drivel on the radio this morning was quite the spectacle, his interview of Trump being worth nothing more than what you'd get if you asked your Nan to write your CV for you.
Oh, and I forgot to mention NATO. We now have US and Russian presidents who agree that NATO is obsolete. Each for their own, nationalistic reasons. So, Leavers, how's the security argument for brexit standing up? it was all about NATO being the guarantor of peace and stability in Europe, wasn't it? Don't we think we might want a strong EU around about now?
Time goes by and I'm getting ever less tolerant of anyone who will admit to voting Leave. Utter stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Jan 16, 2017 17:04:56 GMT
You know my views and stance, I am a devout Bremainer But. Well it seems to be getting worse, doesn't it? The UK government is about to announce its intention to take us out of the Single Market and Customs Union, despite this not being on the ballot paper and explicitly said to be outside of the leave campaign's intentions, winning the referendum by convincing sufficient people that a soft brexit (i.e. remain in SM, CU) was the plan to tip it over 50%. Sorry but thats just plain wrong on every count. Every brexiter assumed that brexit mean a hard brexit, no customs union. Didnt need to be on the ballot paper and none of the pre brexit campaigners alluded differently with respect to a "soft brexit" a term that has only come to light and coined by bremainers as an option. Its posturing, words, negotiating stances. Trump has no intention of (is actually incapable of because of the national security council) softening a stance to Russia. Trump is between a rock and a hard place, becuase if he goes hard on Russia that will confirm the election hacking and hence the legitamcy of his election, and if he goes soft on them Putin will shred his arse. Gove was quite disgusting, he sounded like an arse licking acolyte. However all that has done is reinforce the public and parliamentary view (both remain and brexit) that he is a spineless untrustworthy slimy snake. Nato? It is obsolete. Thankfully Putin publicly and quickly agreed with that which will ensure that everyone in the west agrees it needs to be reinvented.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
Member is Online
|
Post by Rob on Jan 16, 2017 23:11:44 GMT
We all not Trump is an embarrassment but some of what he says he will do won't come about. He might become commander in chief in a few days but there will be checks and balances in place to stop crazy thing. Okay invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a bit crazy but you know what I mean.
If he does let up on sanctions for Russia he's alluding to them helping him. And as Nogbad says, not doing anything will have Russia doing something. A lose-lose situation.
And NATO needed re-inventing after the cold war ended - about time it did. And I actually agree with Trump when he says the other members of NATO need to contribute more, e.g. more manpower and equipment in their own countries.
But Trump is crazy and I will be surprised he lasts 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 17, 2017 10:33:23 GMT
You know my views and stance, I am a devout Bremainer But. Well it seems to be getting worse, doesn't it? The UK government is about to announce its intention to take us out of the Single Market and Customs Union, despite this not being on the ballot paper and explicitly said to be outside of the leave campaign's intentions, winning the referendum by convincing sufficient people that a soft brexit (i.e. remain in SM, CU) was the plan to tip it over 50%. Sorry but thats just plain wrong on every count. Every brexiter assumed that brexit mean a hard brexit, no customs union. Didnt need to be on the ballot paper and none of the pre brexit campaigners alluded differently with respect to a "soft brexit" a term that has only come to light and coined by bremainers as an option. Absolutely not the case. Many leading brexit campaigners were clear that, to quote Daniel Hannan, "Nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market". The referendum was won on a false prospectus, the illusion of a "soft" brexit. If that promise hadn't been dangled, remain would have won.
Run it again now, with the same Remain option and a leave option of hard brexit only. Remain wins.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 17, 2017 10:37:33 GMT
We all not Trump is an embarrassment but some of what he says he will do won't come about. He might become commander in chief in a few days but there will be checks and balances in place to stop crazy thing. Okay invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a bit crazy but you know what I mean. If he does let up on sanctions for Russia he's alluding to them helping him. And as Nogbad says, not doing anything will have Russia doing something. A lose-lose situation. And NATO needed re-inventing after the cold war ended - about time it did. And I actually agree with Trump when he says the other members of NATO need to contribute more, e.g. more manpower and equipment in their own countries. But Trump is crazy and I will be surprised he lasts 4 years. My point was that NATO is being weakened on two fronts, meaning the EU becomes more important to European security. And we're about to waltz out of it. Madness.
Sure, I agree too, that, if NATO members have been derelict in their duty to fund it properly, rectify that. But saying the whole thing is 'obsolete' is merely succour to Russia and its clear intentions to retake USSR territory, as it is doing in Ukraine already, in more and more independent nations.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 17, 2017 14:12:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 17, 2017 14:57:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 16:13:05 GMT
Here is the point you are missing;
You are using economic, financial and business reasons along with the practicalities of actually leaving to justify your belief that leaving is the wrong thing to do.
But amongst those who voted leave, and in my experience the fanatical and vocal part, they are not using any economic, financial or business reasons to justify leaving. Teh most they say is something along the lines of "it'll be alright".
Many of these voted out to stop foreigners taking their jobs, to stop foreigners over-loading their health system, to stop foreigners stealing all their benefits, to stop foreigners filling their country up, to stop foreigners making laws and forcing them on good old Blighty etc. etc.
Also, in my experience, many of these people have no understanding or awareness of business, financial, trade issues.
You will never convince a bunch of people scared of the bogeyman by using logic. Because the sensible, aware and intelligent people who voted to leave are not your issue. And who knows, they might even have a point. Its the Daily Mail lookers and their ilk that are the danger. Whether they voted in or out. It is simply a fact that most of them voted to Leave.
So, as is always the way, the whiners and scaredy cats will dig their heels and and the rest of us will have to make it work. It will be not other way. You cannot persuade someone who simply doesn't care what you have to say.
And in truth, as everybody knows, we will stop being a member, we will continue to abide by all the restrictions, we will continue to adopt all the laws and we will continue to financially contribute.
The *ONLY* concessions we win will be those supported by other Member States, and we could have got those anyway.
And they will continue to spout with their little nicknames, and clever headline quoting, but those capable of thought will look back 5 years from now and go "oh. Ooops".
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jan 17, 2017 16:28:18 GMT
I'm not missing that point, I do get it. I expect you're right. However, I think it's worth fighting against, and I think that sufficient Leave voters were inclined towards a soft brexit as to render the referendum result, advisory as it was and non-legally binding, null and void by the government's attempts now to implement the extreme scenario, merely because it's easier for them than the better, more difficult path. Much of the Vote Leave campaign team wanted to stay in the single market, as I've pointed out.
Sadly people can now only register opposition by voting LibDem, SNP, Plaid Cymru and anyone-but-DUP in NI. Tory Europhiles have caved in, Labour have caved in.
I know, it's probably pissing in the wind now, but so what? I'm entitled to speak up for what I think is right.
I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court judgement on A50 and the Northern Ireland angle.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Feb 2, 2017 13:54:42 GMT
From today's Shite White Paper:
Well well well. Three holes in the ground. Did anyone vote Leave specifically to restore sovereignty? Were they told we never lost it but didn't believe it? Well, here's the truth from the mouth of David Davis, 7 months too late.
|
|
|
Post by commerdriver on Feb 2, 2017 14:51:20 GMT
Sovereignty is an interesting concept in the UK, as I understand it even this bill to start the process to leave the EU will require HM's signature will it not?
Also made me think, how does it work for the cousins across the pond, I have read a number of times how Obama couldn't get what he wanted done because it got blocked in the senate / congress. That nice Mr Trump appears just to make things up as he goes, big public signing and there it is, done. How does that work then?
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Feb 2, 2017 14:58:16 GMT
In the US there are some things which are in the direct purview of the President, and can be enacted by Executive Order. Obama did some things this way also, but not everything falls under that banner. Even so, those must be legal, and I think some of Trump's EOs will be challenged in court. I suppose our equivalent would be using the Royal Prerogative, as our current government tried to do with A50, which was likewise challenged in court.
|
|