• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • Politics
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit"
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
Mr Oleo Strut
21-12-2016
Originally Posted by TheEngineer:
“The view from Singapore

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/...n-crash-brexit



The last sentence is very telling”

Yes, train crashes are accidents and not caused by the train operators ignoring all the signals, ripping up the track in front of them and heading off into the unknown with a full complement of passengers who have paid for their tickets but have no idea where they are going or even when they might get there. They only know that the bag of sandwiches they have brought with them may not be enough to see them through. That is no way to run a railway company, let alone a flat-lining incompetent Tory government. It's time to pull the communication cord, I think, and put an end to this nonsense.
mRebel
21-12-2016
Originally Posted by MattXfactor:
“I voted remain but I would say this, believe in your country and believe we can make it work no matter what the deal. Speculating day after day about the different types of deal is literally not helping anyone.”

Keeps journalists busy. And a few members here. But it's just speculation, same as if we were discussing who'll win the Premiership this season.
John146
21-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Oleo Strut:
“Yes, train crashes are accidents and not caused by the train operators ignoring all the signals, ripping up the track in front of them and heading off into the unknown with a full complement of passengers who have paid for their tickets but have no idea where they are going or even when they might get there. They only know that the bag of sandwiches they have brought with them may not be enough to see them through. That is no way to run a railway company, let alone a flat-lining incompetent Tory government. It's time to pull the communication cord, I think, and put an end to this nonsense.”




Nah don't think so, the train will reach the station by March 2017...
andykn
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“While much of what you say is sensible - you ruined your post with that risible comment highlighted in BIB.

You are using a 'typical' baseless comment made by 'Remainers', who, lacking credibility in making a case for a requirement to join a 'Political Union' in order to benefit from trade, claim that criticism of UNCONTROLLED migration is racist and/or xenophobic.”

But the BIB doesn't say that, that's your own dishonest strawman.
thenetworkbabe
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by trevgo:
“It is, however, the EU we have. Not the one in the rose tinted dreams of May, the 3 buffoons, Farage or any of the Brexit delusionists.

It will be bloody. They will not be bending. They have already written off the impact on trade. Merkel got rousing applause from an audience of German industrialists when she said the UK would get no free access without accepting FOM.

It is not "as much a problem for the other 450M people in the EU". The majority do not share the UK's phobia.

I predict the outcome as seen from Singapore is exactly what will happen. It will be massively damaging to the economy, and there will be screams of anguish from business as it either shrinks or emigrates. And from the people it employs. And it will be the fault of the gullible who swallowed this experiment, who will be doing their level best to shift the blame onto the EU, but ultimately will have nowhere to hide.

No amount of handwringing will change this. We are where we are, with a PM hell bent on driving it as hard as she can.”

You are missing the point with May. . May can't not go ahead with brexit, and brexit, by any measure of what it will have to mean , means an end to freedom of movement. Only the liberals seem to think they can ignore the vote ,and they never have been a serious political party.

Brexit is a dumb choice, and one that may well end in economic, demographic, strategic, and diplomatic decline, but its not in May's hands to get a good deal . She will try for the best deal she can , she's clearly going for the minimum thats acceptable to the leave vote, and minimalises the economic efect. And there's 's zero reason to delay starting the process past March.

There's also no hope of a second referendum this early, no rational way of asking the question, and only a choice between what Europe offers us. or nothing.

There's nothing new here. It was fully explained to the leave voters what the consequences would be, and how European politics , not us, would be the prime determinant of what comes after - they will now have to bear the consequences of ignoring what they were told. .And the remain voters are going to have to accept that they can't reverse this process , at least for a decade, and can only keep on placing the blame where it belongs - on the leave voters , and those who lied to get a majority for Leave.
Mr Moritz
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“While much of what you say is sensible - you ruined your post with that risible comment highlighted in BIB.

You are using a 'typical' baseless comment made by 'Remainers', who, lacking credibility in making a case for a requirement to join a 'Political Union' in order to benefit from trade, claim that criticism of UNCONTROLLED migration is racist and/or xenophobic.

There is NOTHING either racist OR xenophobic about controlling immigration - it is a prime responsibily of ALL governments.........which is why the vast majority of countries duly exercise such control.

Despite the high historical immigration record of the UK, the question of whether or not the UK can sustain the recent rate of immigration is certainly open to sensible debate - but opposite sides of that argument should accept, (as you correctly point out), that immigration should be 'controlled', such that immigrants are either what the UK actually needs, or are genuine refugees.

And although, like many countries, we unfortunately have more than our fair share of racists, and xenophic elements in our society, such accusations are way off the mark when criticising individuals or organisations that condemn the lack of sensible control that is associated with EU internal migration.”

You made too much of an issue re (condemns immigration mostly in a nasty unforgiving way) especially as the poster qualified their viewpoint via the use of 'controlled immigration'.

Perhaps it would be better for those who are rabidly anti EU to start stating what shape training, development and investment will take for those that have felt disenfranchised by the EU.

Because from what I can see there's a lot of talk re markets not a lot of talk regarding getting people skilled up well enough to exploit both existing and emerging markets, I think it's called being sensibly proactive.

The worry is that when the Remoaning and Brexshiting zealots have finished throwing mud chairs bottles etc at each other, we'll have left the EU with no clear future development plans.
Mr Moritz
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Dacco:
“Heavily weighted view form a hard-line remainer, well worth ignoring..... Next.”

From Singapore as well, I await the view from Uzbekistan followed by ...
B-29
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Moritz:
“From Singapore as well, I await the view from Uzbekistan followed by ...”

PLEASE DON'T GIVE THE OP IDEAS!
Hazy Davy
22-12-2016
It will be a train crash because Mrs May is strongly rumoured to be prioritising total control of our borders ahead of everything else. She is being repeatedly told by the EU that that means no Deal on trade.

So we are heading for the disaster of WTO rules.

With the EU rumoured to be asking for a Euro 50 billion divorce settlement there may not even be one of those. Two years could expire without settlement.

Relationships with Eu states could be very sour for many years.

All the rumours coming out of Whitehall and people who have Brexit meetings with the government are that the gov't is completely unprepared, out of its depth, and only cares about immigration. Anyone with a differwview is told they will not be listened to. The government has its fingers in its ears. It no longer cares about business and prosperity, only about keeping east Europeans out.
i4u
22-12-2016
The joke has to be that we have a government saying it will collect data from all departments and 50 industries and come to a decision within 9 months, when it takes it as long or longer to consult & decide much such simpler matters such as grammar schools, bits of Leveson, broadband etc...
David_Flett1
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“While much of what you say is sensible - you ruined your post with that risible comment highlighted in BIB.

You are using a 'typical' baseless comment made by 'Remainers', who, lacking credibility in making a case for a requirement to join a 'Political Union' in order to benefit from trade, claim that criticism of UNCONTROLLED migration is racist and/or xenophobic.

There is NOTHING either racist OR xenophobic about controlling immigration - it is a prime responsibily of ALL governments.........which is why the vast majority of countries duly exercise such control.

Despite the high historical immigration record of the UK, the question of whether or not the UK can sustain the recent rate of immigration is certainly open to sensible debate - but opposite sides of that argument should accept, (as you correctly point out), that immigration should be 'controlled', such that immigrants are either what the UK actually needs, or are genuine refugees.

And although, like many countries, we unfortunately have more than our fair share of racists, and xenophic elements in our society, such accusations are way off the mark when criticising individuals or organisations that condemn the lack of sensible control that is associated with EU internal migration.”

The sentence you have highlighted is out of context with the previous post I had made where I highlighted why we have become so dependent on immigration. If you read through the previous post you will find that the sentence makes more sense although I have to say even as an isolated sentence it isn't wrong. The media and again I highlighted this in my previous post especially the Daily Mail makes headlines almost daily on immigration and has racist undertones in much of it's opinions. No one can deny that it doesn't nor can anyone deny that much of the media climbed on this bandwagon before, during and after the referendum.

However let me put the sentence you have highlighted in the context it was made not forgetting it was a direct response to someone who actually responded to me.

In the previous post I highlighted the problem with immigration and our dependency is because for decades governments of all colours abdicated their responsibility in training enough nurses and doctors to make our basic health service work far less provide the best health service that we should expect for the money constantly poured into it but lacks credible management to manage resources properly. We also have a critical problem in farming and agriculture where we are dependent on immigration for getting our food out of the ground. These are only two areas that I have highlighted but I could add several layers more and much of them such as basic services such as construction, plumbing, electricians are the result of the same mis management by governments. We abandoned proper funding of apprenticeships but instead concentrated on sending as many children to universities. Thise that weren't suited to academic skills were left behind yet thise same students who may not have been academically proficient may well have had a bright future in a better funded vocational system.

So we have four key areas where for decades we have failed in health, vocation, construction and food supply all of which have been dependent on large numbers of immigration. We can debate the rhetoric behind the headlines but we cannot debate the symptoms they are as black and white and as clear as I have put them.

Just to note I take no notice of either side remain or leave and I crtainly don't back the extreme views of either. I felt the original concept of the EU was a good one however it has changed dramatically since it's inception and we have reached a stage where it is unbalanced and cannot in it's present form serve anyone well especially where Germany, France and even Britain dominate the rest of Europe especially Southern and Eastern Europe. You have to find a balance of all economies and it has to be acknowledged and not in any racist way more control over freedom of movement not for the UK but across Europe as a whole.
Nick1966
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Hazy Davy:
“All the rumours coming out of Whitehall and people who have Brexit meetings with the government are that the gov't is completely unprepared, out of its depth, and only cares about immigration.

The government has its fingers in its ears. It no longer cares about business and prosperity, only about keeping east Europeans out.”

Agreed.

Read this: http://www.open-britain.co.uk/the_br...ge_by_ian_dunt
Doctor_Wibble
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Nick1966:
“Agreed.

Read this: http://www.open-britain.co.uk/the_br...ge_by_ian_dunt”

Do I have to buy the book? The discount vouchers ran out last week.

e2a: the article is long enough to *be* a book


Yes, it's true. There really are rumours about it, incredibly these seem to be casting a poor light on the opponents* of the people spreading them, my god that's never happened before, total shock, oh the humanity...

Are the rumours true? Since when did anyone ever care about that?

* or in the case of those coming out of whitehall, the political masters of the oppressed serving masses
Nick1966
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble:
“Do I have to buy the book? The discount vouchers ran out last week.

e2a: the article is long enough to *be* a book ”

Do you mean this book ?

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32937732-brexit

I have a copy.

I've read the book from cover to cover. I've checked the author's sources. Seems a trustworthy and reliable account. When I finished it, I felt depressed.
mRebel
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Moritz:
“From Singapore as well, I await the view from Uzbekistan followed by ...”

Mars?
Doctor_Wibble
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by Nick1966:
“Do you mean this book ?”

No, a completely different book that the article isn't an advert for.
BrokenArrow
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by TheEngineer:
“The view from Singapore
”

No its not, its Gideon Rachman from the FT.

Truth doesn't appear to be in your nature.
andykn
22-12-2016
Originally Posted by BrokenArrow:
“No its not, its Gideon Rachman from the FT.

Truth doesn't appear to be in your nature.”

Printed in the Singaporean Straits Times as it reflects their view as well as that of the FT.
BrokenArrow
23-12-2016
Originally Posted by andykn:
“Printed in the Singaporean Straits Times as it reflects their view as well as that of the FT.”

Quote:
“The newspaper has been attacked as "the mouthpiece of the ruling party,". The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974 requires all newspapers to be publicly listed into both ordinary and management shares, with management shares having 200 times the voting rights of ordinary shares and approval from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts needed for any management share transfers. Past chairpersons of Singapore Press Holdings have been civil servants. SPH's former executive president, Tjong Yik Min, served as the head of the Internal Security Department from 1986 to 1993.

In his memoir OB Markers: My Straits Times Story, former editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng recounts how, since 1986, there has been a government-appointed "monitor" at the newspaper, "someone who could watch to see if indeed the newsroom was beyond control", and that disapproval of the "monitor" could cost a reporter or editor their job.[11] Cheong identifies the first monitor as S. R. Nathan, director of the Ministry of Defence's Security and Intelligence Division and later president of Singapore.[11]”

Yeah, the view of whatever they are told to say
Nick1966
23-12-2016
Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble:
“No, a completely different book that the article isn't an advert for.”

Which book is that ? Details please. I'm interested.
Doctor_Wibble
23-12-2016
Originally Posted by Nick1966:
“Which book is that ? Details please. I'm interested.”

It's the one that makes the whooshing noise
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map