Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

Gina Miller, bringing the case, is pro-Leave - she wants it to happen, just under parliamentary oversight. The government, defending, are also (obviously) pro-Leave. So nobody in this particular case is going to challenge that particular assumption, so the supreme court's verdict is basically going to be tiptoeing around the elephant in the room. Since nobody is challenging the notion, they're not going to refer it just for shits and giggles.

I think Jo Maugham QC is getting to ready to challenge the government in the courts over it, though. So we'll be playing the Olympic gay fencing game a while longer.

I had imagined that at some point in the supreme court's deliberations, they'd have tripped up on that elephant in the room and then they'd have had to take it up to the ECJ for a ruling. But we'll see.

To be honest I only wanted it to go to the ECJ just to see the reaction from the Express and Mail.

Could someone explain royal prerogative in this case to a dumb foreigner? Is the crux of the issue that the PM is trying to enact a law without a parliament vote? Is that not allowed? What is royal about it if the PM makes the decision and not the queen?
Thanks

Basically, the European Communities Act of 1972 gave UK citizens certain rights. Leaving the EU would, as a matter of course, rescind those rights. The Sovereign, on in this case, Theresa May, cannot strip rights from UK citizens. Only Parliament can. So Parliament needs to give it's approval.

And as a reminder, because I've not yet seen any Leaver address the bare-faced hypocrisy of this point, you guys are the ones who insist that you voted Leave, not out of racism or bigotry or intolerance about immigrants, but chiefly because you want to 'take back control', and now you are unilaterally whining about the fact that you have to follow British laws.

I'll give you a proper answer. The UK voted to leave the EU. But it didn't decide on how to do that. The proper place for how that would take place to be decided would be Parliament, as our national body for discussing political matters. So it's entirely right and proper that Parliament should have a say. My personal preference would be for Parliament to have a lot more say over the process, even to the point of tying Theresa May's hands in negotiations, because I sure as hell don't trust her over them.

Seeing the likes of Dominic 'Rent-a-quote' Rabb pipe up every day about how we should just go back to the times before the Civil War and let the executive do whatever they want disgusts me. The law is the law, and you don't get to ignore it just because some people might disagree with what you want to do.

Besides which, I worry that the only way we're going to have a UK after this is if Parliament gets to have some say over what happens with Brexit, and we manage to muddle through to some broadly acceptable if disappointing outcome for all. Not that I'm sure such an outcome is possible.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is probably the right decision but I don't think it'll make any difference to the "quality" of the Brexit

 

[twobear]

I'll give you a proper answer. The UK voted to leave the EU. But it didn't decide on how to do that. The proper place for how that would take place to be decided would be Parliament, as our national body for discussing political matters. So it's entirely right and proper that Parliament should have a say. My personal preference would be for Parliament to have a lot more say over the process, even to the point of tying Theresa May's hands in negotiations, because I sure as hell don't trust her over them.

Seeing the likes of Dominic 'Rent-a-quote' Rabb pipe up every day about how we should just go back to the times before the Civil War and let the executive do whatever they want disgusts me. The law is the law, and you don't get to ignore it just because some people might disagree with what you want to do.

Thanks for the answer and please see my apology in my post above if you haven't already.

Besides which, I worry that the only way we're going to have a UK after this is if Parliament gets to have some say over what happens with Brexit, and we manage to muddle through to some broadly acceptable if disappointing outcome for all. Not that I'm sure such an outcome is possible.

I frankly don't see how it is, because the red lines for a large bloc of remain voters (free movement, single market access) are also precisely the things that are red lines from the other direction for a large bloc of leave voters.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah I feel bad about putting it in those terms now, with yourself and Uzzy posting to remind me that there's plenty of Leave voters who understand this point. I'm just beyond aggravated at the entire Brexit Merry-Go-Round now and it came across as an ill-thought-out rant. Apologies to you and the other Leavers with actual consistent positions about this stuff.

For what it's worth, I'm as fucked off about the 'literally everybody who voted Leave is a dimwit racist who shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion' mantra that you frequently hear from Remain voters too.

Appreciated. And I can understand people's frustrations on this.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I frankly don't see how it is, because the red lines for a large bloc of remain voters (free movement, single market access) are also precisely the things that are red lines from the other direction for a large bloc of leave voters.

I would be surprised if free market access is actually a red line for the majority of leavers. I'd assume we'd keep it if possible, but they're willing to give it up over the immigration issue they have vs remainders who aren't.

Might be wrong though.

 

[tuxfool]

This is probably the right decision but I don't think it'll make any difference to the "quality" of the Brexit

It might make them more honest about it, though.

 

[twobear]

I would be surprised if free market access is actually a red line for the majority of leavers. I'd assume we'd keep it if possible, but they're willing to give it up over the immigration issue they have vs remainders who aren't.

Might be wrong though.

Well it obviously depends on the EU's actual negotiating position, but their posturing so far is that they're unwilling to allow (our current level of) access to the Single Market without our being in the Customs Union, which means negotiating trade deals as part of the EU; of which leaving the Customs Union to make our own deals with other countries has been a major plank of the Leave camp's pitch.

 

[Audioboxer]

Spoiler

because it hasn't been posted yet

Was hunting for this on post one. Post 3? Unacceptable. It is the defacto Brexit.gif.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I would be surprised if free market access is actually a red line for the majority of leavers. I'd assume we'd keep it if possible, but they're willing to give it up over the immigration issue they have vs remainders who aren't.

Might be wrong though.

The public is split, unsurprisingly, 50/50 on the issue of free market access versus restricting freedom of movement, if the polls are any judge.

I've said on this board before about the impact this vote will have. It switches the issue from an issue of a referendum to one of parliament, and ties every MP down based on how they voted. Think about that for a moment. In 2010, for example, it was a mark of shame to have been an MP that voted for the Iraq War - and that was 7 years after the invasion.

May will be forced to have a debate on Brexit. She will likely have to show her hand before negotiations start, too. Then she's locked in to whatever course she sets - as we already know, there isn't much of a coherent course right now, and that's deliberate. Dragging out a reality of either soft OR hard Brexit hurts her. This current half-boiled Brexit is the compromise that keeps the markets happy and her backbenchers from knifing her.

Labour will also be passing Brexit, and consigning themselves to the dustbin in the process. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

The SNP position is that they're very serious about hard Brexit = referendum and soft Brexit = no referendum, and will be representing the majority of Scots when they reject Brexit. The LD position is that the public should have the right to vote on the final deal, and so our nine will be voting no unless that happens (Olney will be voting no regardless, as she promised her voters in RP). The DUP et al are about to have a very nasty punch in NI, so will probably not be contributing much to the discussion.

 

[ittoryu]

How can I not have trust in the government and its ability to accomplish this idiotic Brexit move, when there are so many great minds behind this operation, such as:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...r-levy-for-skilled-eu-workers-robert-goodwill

 

[Uzzy]

Thanks for the answer and please see my apology in my post above if you haven't already.

I did and it's appreciated.

I frankly don't see how it is, because the red lines for a large bloc of remain voters (free movement, single market access) are also precisely the things that are red lines from the other direction for a large bloc of leave voters.

Yeah, I struggle to see how either. I hope something gets found, because I don't think Scotland or Northern Ireland would find a Brexit that just focuses on Theresa May's priorities very appealing.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

My main frustration is this limbo where nobody knows what's going to happen. If you're going to do it, do it now and put us out of our misery. Let people plan for their futures. If you're going to delay it this much then might as well cancel the whole thing (I wish).

 

[Bleepey]

You joke but I knew a guy who did all his shopping at Harrods and considered Waitrose 'slumming it'

That's something i'd say if i was being facetious and parodying a toff. What did you say to him, ask him for Ostrich egg recipes and where he got his fois gras?

 

[Madness]

There's nothing legally to stop it happening. As people have said millions of times over, it wasn't really much more than an opinion poll.

It also will never ever happen.

I'm not ok with the PM unilaterally making decisions without following proper legal protocol. Why on earth would I be?

Just remember that you said this and remember it the day Brexit happens. It is no longer a question of IF but WHEN. The damage to the pound, EU, has already happened. There is no way the UK stays in the EU. France especially wants the UK out fast and Germany wants a clean break too.

 

[Hasney]

This is probably the right decision but I don't think it'll make any difference to the "quality" of the Brexit

Totally. I'm glad the decision is going this way because if it didn't, governments would try and get other things through this route, but the same thing will end up happening.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Whether or not Brexit is a success - one thing is clear, this vote has opened up divisions that will probably never heal.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Whether or not Brexit is a success - one thing is clear, this vote has opened up divisions that will probably never heal.

Agreed. This will be a landmark issue for the next 40 years, minimum - like the Winter of Discontent and the echoes that left.

 

[Disagree Guy]

Whether or not Brexit is a success - one thing is clear, this vote has opened up divisions that will probably never heal.

The vote, for some unknown reason, has made some people feel like it's acceptable to overtly spout racist bullshit on a public forum like social media.

It's even made some people feel like it's now acceptable to commit hate crimes (as that has risen since Brexit vote)

It's even made some people feel like they have a greater sense of entitlement to the things that make Britain such a desirable place to live (like healthcare and benefits) simply because 'they were born and bred' in the UK rather than as a reward for any contribution to the economy in any way. Personally I don't care who you are, what you believe, or where you come from. If you contribute to society you are entitled to it's benefits. If you choose to sit on your arse doing fuck all you lose that right.

One thing it has highlighted to me in a really disturbing way is that tabloid newspapers can spout whatever they want with NO SOURCE to back up their claims and that a very large proportion of people take the headlines as fact..... That's terrifying. Who even regulates this shit?

 

[Stead Fast]

Whether or not Brexit is a success - one thing is clear, this vote has opened up divisions that will probably never heal.

I don't believe it opened up the division, as much as shine a light on it.

Johnson and other class-warriors like him have been using the old mentality of 'us v Europe' for decades now, often hiding underneath the political apathy brought about post Thatcher and post-Iraq war. It was only in recent years that he and others like him managed to shoulder their way into the spotlight and tell us all how important it is. And sadly, there were far too many people willing to buy into it's 'importance'.

 

[sohois]

Whether or not Brexit is a success - one thing is clear, this vote has opened up divisions that will probably never heal.

Agreed. This will be a landmark issue for the next 40 years, minimum - like the Winter of Discontent and the echoes that left.

The only way I see it becoming a real long term divider is if the end result is unclear. Should brexit be followed by a clear recession or depression then it will become a mark of shame. If somehow the economy powers ahead then it would largely be accepted. But then there is the very real possibility that growth slows to ~1%, the London/RoB divide remains strong and no one can really agree if Brexit was bad or not. Economists would say that it wiped off x amount of value, brexiteers would bang on about experts and the whole thing would remain divisive.

 

[theaface]

I would be surprised if free market access is actually a red line for the majority of leavers. I'd assume we'd keep it if possible, but they're willing to give it up over the immigration issue they have vs remainders who aren't.

Might be wrong though.

I think you give voters too much credit. Remember how "What is the EU?" was a top Google Search on 24th June? I suspect a large proportion of leave voters had never heard of the single market/understood what it was pre-referendum, much less have a strong opinion on whether or not we should remain in it.

The strength of conviction from some quarters of the public arguing for a hard Brexit bears all the hallmarks of simply parroting what that likes of Farage, Nutall, the Mail and the Express have been peddling only recently. Single market access really wasn't a big talking point for either leave or remain in the run up to the referendum, unless you count the Vote Leave championing the 'Norway model' which, ironically, would see us remain in the single market.

One of the many amusing quirks of asking such an overly simplistic binary question in a referendum on an insanely complex issue, I suppose.

 

[Amalthea]

Appaling how those virtuous elite are outraged at the plumber from Croydon who only does the Devils work!

whatamireading.jpg

 

[CyclopsRock]

It might make them more honest about it, though.

But how?

 

[Moosichu]

The vote, for some unknown reason, has made some people feel like it's acceptable to overtly spout racist bullshit on a public forum like social media.

It's even made some people feel like it's now acceptable to commit hate crimes (as that has risen since Brexit vote)

It's even made some people feel like they have a greater sense of entitlement to the things that make Britain such a desirable place to live (like healthcare and benefits) simply because 'they were born and bred' in the UK rather than as a reward for any contribution to the economy in any way. Personally I don't care who you are, what you believe, or where you come from. If you contribute to society you are entitled to it's benefits. If you choose to sit on your arse doing fuck all you lose that right.

One thing it has highlighted to me in a really disturbing way is that tabloid newspapers can spout whatever they want with NO SOURCE to back up their claims and that a very large proportion of people take the headlines as fact..... That's terrifying. Who even regulates this shit?

I disagree with the bolded. Ideally everyone should be entitled to benefits and free healthcare. Obviously with the former, you have to restrict who receives benefits based on nationality/residency, to avoid people coming over for the sake of benefits. But even for healthcare, things like 'healthcare tourism' (which itself is rare enough to not impact NHS services much, if at all), bring more money into the economy than they take out. And the alternative, being required to show ID documents when you get treatment is a path that really shouldn't be gone down.

 

[jimbobsmells]

But then there is the very real possibility that growth slows to ~1%, the London/RoB divide remains strong and no one can really agree if Brexit was bad or not. Economists would say that it wiped off x amount of value, brexiteers would bang on about experts and the whole thing would remain divisive.

This is exactly what I think will happen. London/rUK divide may even grow.

 

[Maledict]

The only way I see it becoming a real long term divider is if the end result is unclear. Should brexit be followed by a clear recession or depression then it will become a mark of shame. If somehow the economy powers ahead then it would largely be accepted. But then there is the very real possibility that growth slows to ~1%, the London/RoB divide remains strong and no one can really agree if Brexit was bad or not. Economists would say that it wiped off x amount of value, brexiteers would bang on about experts and the whole thing would remain divisive.

I think for a certain group of people, like myself, it will never not be an issue. The fact that rights that I was born with have been stripped away from by people aged 70+ is a really horrifying thing, and regardless of the economic outcome I have been left with an incredibly dark and unpleasant view of a large part of my country. That hasn't gone away et, 6 months later, and I don't expect it ever will.

 

[Disagree Guy]

I disagree with the bolded. Ideally everyone should be entitled to benefits and free healthcare. Obviously with the former, you have to restrict who receives benefits based on nationality/residency, to avoid people coming over for the sake of benefits. But even for healthcare, things like 'healthcare tourism' (which itself is rare enough to not impact NHS services much, if at all), bring more money into the economy than they take out. And the alternative, being required to show ID documents when you get treatment is a path that really shouldn't be gone down.

I understand your point.

It's just a massive annoyance for me that people think they are entitled to free money and all the benefits of this country simply because they were born here. It annoys me no end.

Everyone should be entitled to it if they are willing to work towards it. Obviously people physically unable to work should be excused from this demand but it's the people who CAN work but choose not to that are a massive drain on this economy.

It does my head in.

 

[jimbobsmells]

I think for a certain group of people, like myself, it will never not be an issue. The fact that rights that I was born with have been stripped away from by people aged 70+ is a really horrifying thing, and regardless of the economic outcome I have been left with an incredibly dark and unpleasant view of a large part of my country. That hasn't gone away et, 6 months later, and I don't expect it ever will.

Yup me too.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

This is exactly what I think will happen. London/rUK divide may even grow.

How can it not? The government isn't interested in revitalising or helping huge parts of the country. They are more than happy to let them rot.

The EU was helping though. The EU was pumping millions in to help revitalise towns and cities the UK government abandoned.

 

[Moosichu]

I understand your point.

It's just a massive annoyance for me that people think they are entitled to free money and all the benefits of this country simply because they were born here. It annoys me no end.

Everyone should be entitled to it if they are willing to work towards it. Obviously people physically unable to work should be excused from this demand but it's the people who CAN work but choose not to that are a massive drain on this economy.

It does my head in.

But who judges this? That is an issue. You can be perfectly physically healthy, but mental health is a completely different thng and much harder to judge.

If someone is going to be unemployed anyway, it's much more of a drain on the economy to have them on the streets, committing crimes to get buy, living in squalor etc, than it is for them to be provided with welfare. This is even more important if an unemployed person has children, children shouldn't have to disadvantaged because of their parents. (This is going to happen regardless, but all steps to minimise this should be taken, as in the long term you are building up a massive intelectual deficit if many citizens have rough childhoods).

Now, the problem is, you want working in a job to be more appealing than being on welfare. So minimum wage should definetely be higher than what you can earn in benefits, or even better, a negative income-tax could ensure that people on lower wages don't feel like they are 'losing out' compared to those people who are on benefits.

 

[SteveWD40]

How can it not? The government isn't interested in revitalising or helping huge parts of the country. They are more than happy to let them rot.

The EU was helping though. The EU was pumping millions in to help revitalise towns and cities the UK government abandoned.

This is the part that really gets me, the EU do far more for rural / underfunded parts of the UK, Westminster don't give a single fuck and I am not sure why people are so manic about giving them control.

I still see the Torys getting fucked by their base if we leave the Single Market though, our banking sector would be decimated and if they hurt the middle class / rich that's a first for them.

 

[SuperSah]

Brexit was a total waste of our time.


They have absolutely no clue about what they're doing and it's clear they're stalling as much as possible.

 

[groansey]

Wish I'd known having an English degree makes me part of the 'elite'?

You'd think the elite would earn more in the job market than a plumber, for a start.

Anti-intellectualism and anti-academia are rife in the North of England. I was told by the job centre to take my degree off of my CV when applying for jobs in the town where I grew up. This sentiment has been bubbling away for decades.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Wish I'd known having an English degree makes me part of the 'elite'?

You'd think the elite would earn more in the job market than a plumber, for a start.

Anti-intellectualism and anti-academia are rife in the North of England. I was told by the job centre to take my degree off of my CV when applying for jobs in the town where I grew up. This sentiment has been bubbling away for decades.

I don't think that's really anti-intellectualism or anti-academia. Depending on the job you're applying for (but quite a lot that would be advertised in the Job Centre) you can be rejected on the grounds that you're overqualified.

For example, if you're applying for a retail job, a degree of any sort may indicate that you're only intending to work there temporarily while you look for a better paying job in the field of your degree, and the shop may want someone who is intending to work there for the long haul.

 

[Uzzy]

This is exactly what I think will happen. London/rUK divide may even grow.

Of course it will. We're close to ten years of economic decline in the rUK, while London and the South East steam ahead as always.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Of course it will. We're close to ten years of economic decline in the rUK, while London and the South East steam ahead as always.

That suggests everywhere except Northern Ireland has been growing since around 2010, or the end of the recession. It's not really ten years of economic decline even if a lot of it is still lower than that was ten years ago.

 

[Uzzy]

That suggests everywhere except Northern Ireland has been growing since around 2010, or the end of the recession. It's not really ten years of economic decline even if a lot of it is still lower than that was ten years ago.

Economic standstill would be a better term, I suppose. London and the South East have seen economic growth since 2007, while every other region has, at best, gotten back to 2007 levels, or, at worst, not recovered at all.

 

[groansey]

I don't think that's really anti-intellectualism or anti-academia. Depending on the job you're applying for (but quite a lot that would be advertised in the Job Centre) you can be rejected on the grounds that you're overqualified.

For example, if you're applying for a retail job, a degree of any sort may indicate that you're only intending to work there temporarily while you look for a better paying job in the field of your degree, and the shop may want someone who is intending to work there for the long haul.

You're right, though it's still an unfair assumption for employers to make and a form of discrimination. I worked in retail and I left. But so did several other people without degrees. It's more a result of employing young staff than their qualifications. Plus, degrees have hugely devalued over the last 20 years, it's no longer reasonable to assume a graduate would have the opportunity to leave for something better.

Anecdotally, the anti-intellectualism and anti-academia is certainly prevalent in the attitudes of a huge proportion of the people I've encountered studying and working in England over the last 30 years.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

How can it not? The government isn't interested in revitalising or helping huge parts of the country. They are more than happy to let them rot.

The EU was helping though. The EU was pumping millions in to help revitalise towns and cities the UK government abandoned.

And the same towns, usually with tiny amounts of immigration, voted to leave, because they believed it would benefit them economically.

Where is the logic?

Okay, so you shun the EU money. Who do they think will replace it?

The fucking Tory government and their version of the "bootstraps" mantra?

Where is the logic?

They're tired of government ignoring them, so they'll stick two fingers up at Westminster and vote to leave, so that now the only support they'll get is from a government they already believe doesn't think they deserve attention?

Well, government is gonna be veeeeeeery busy for a while debating, negotiating, spinning, struggling, fixing, compromising, cutting and all manner of other actions trying to not fuck the country up while exiting the EU, so you'll still not be any kind of priority.

Where is the logic?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Economic standstill would be a better term, I suppose. London and the South East have seen economic growth since 2007, while every other region has, at best, gotten back to 2007 levels, or, at worst, not recovered at all.

Sure, but that doesn't tell us that the policies pursued since 2010 are failing to work because they've all grown since then (again, except NI).

 

[TimmmV]

The only way I see it becoming a real long term divider is if the end result is unclear. Should brexit be followed by a clear recession or depression then it will become a mark of shame. If somehow the economy powers ahead then it would largely be accepted. But then there is the very real possibility that growth slows to ~1%, the London/RoB divide remains strong and no one can really agree if Brexit was bad or not. Economists would say that it wiped off x amount of value, brexiteers would bang on about experts and the whole thing would remain divisive.

While I also think the bolded is whats likely to happen, I don't think even a decisive economic response will create consensus and help bridge the divide between leavers and remainers

If the UK has a recession/depression, remainers will be saying "told you so" and leavers will turn to "it was about sovereignty" or "its a price worth paying to regain control over our borders". Whereas if the UK economy goes on fine, leavers will be saying "told you so" and remainers will be saying "I don't care it was worth the price for working time directive/environmental protection/visa free European travel/[something else along these lines]"

Just talking anecdotally, but among my friends there is now a really significant resentment towards leavers, particularly old ones, that I don't think will ever heal. And from conversations I've had with leavers (again, particularly old ones) that is something they are finding really hard to understand, its either the stereotypical "leave won, get over it", or "well its happened now, so lets pick things up and move on", which is at least somewhat conciliatory but doesn't really help when the issue is so divisive in the first place

Sure, but that doesn't tell us that the policies pursued since 2010 are failing to work because they've all grown since then (again, except NI).

His point still stands though, the odds are that London will continue to grow at a faster rate then the rest of the UK. Its not really down to a failure of policy, more the institutional focus on London thats existed across governments since way earlier than 2010

 

[StayDead]

I think for a certain group of people, like myself, it will never not be an issue. The fact that rights that I was born with have been stripped away from by people aged 70+ is a really horrifying thing, and regardless of the economic outcome I have been left with an incredibly dark and unpleasant view of a large part of my country. That hasn't gone away et, 6 months later, and I don't expect it ever will.

This is the exact same as me. I can't look at anyone who voted Brexit and have any respect for them what so ever. I feel betrayed and I hate those people.

 

[mclem]

Just remember that you said this and remember it the day Brexit happens. It is no longer a question of IF but WHEN.

I think the "it" the person you're replying to is referring to is the idea that "Couldn't we just change our minds?", not Brexit itself. If I've got my head around the context.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You're right, though it's still an unfair assumption for employers to make and a form of discrimination. I worked in retail and I left. But so did several other people without degrees. It's more a result of employing young staff than their qualifications. Plus, degrees have hugely devalued over the last 20 years, it's no longer a reasonable to assume a graduate would have the opportunity to leave for something better.

Anecdotally, the anti-intellectualism and anti-academia is certainly prevalent in the attitudes of a huge proportion of the people I've encountered studying and working in England over the last 30 years.

It probably is an unfair assumption these days. I certainly know uni graduates that have now been working retail a long time after they graduated (philosphy degree). But employers do still make it. Maybe that'll change in time.

Still, I think you were just given good advice by the Job Centre. For certain other jobs of course you'll want your degree there and it'll be more of an asset than a liability. But getting hired is always a kind of game, and you should be tailoring your CV towards the particular role in every case (I'm sure you've been told all this already, so I'll stop waffling).

 

[groansey]

It probably is an unfair assumption these days. I certainly know uni graduates that have now been working retail a long time after they graduated (philosphy degree). But employers do still make it. Maybe that'll change in time.

Still, I think you were just given good advice by the Job Centre. For certain other jobs of course you'll want your degree there and it'll be more of an asset than a liability. But getting hired is always a kind of game, and you should be tailoring your CV towards the particular role in every case (I'm sure you've been told all this already, so I'll stop waffling).

You're correct about it being a game, and I'm not challenging you personally, but this situation is a symptom of the problem.

A degree is always an asset. That's it. It's empirical evidence a person has a greater level of academic aptitude and skill than someone without higher education qualification. Doesn't mean they'll be the better person for the job, but employers are supposed to recruit based on empirical evidence. A business sacking off degree level applicants because the job only requires GCSE grades is basically choosing a worse skilled candidate, yet that employee may likely be developed into management over time anyway and perpetuate the same bias. And so degree-level candidates are completely blocked out of some management structures in some organisations, unless they come in higher up the ladder via graduate training programmes - because another reason not to recruit graduates at mid-level is a lack of experience of those low-paid jobs.

I've had many arguments with colleagues who refuse to shortlist graduates because they're overqualified. And generally people are employed and developed based on who they know rather than qualifications. Anyway, probably a topic for another thread.

 

[Maledict]

While I also think the bolded is whats likely to happen, I don't think even a decisive economic response will create consensus and help bridge the divide between leavers and remainers

If the UK has a recession/depression, remainers will be saying "told you so" and leavers will turn to "it was about sovereignty" or "its a price worth paying to regain control over our borders". Whereas if the UK economy goes on fine, leavers will be saying "told you so" and remainers will be saying "I don't care it was worth the price for working time directive/environmental protection/visa free European travel/[something else along these lines]"

Just talking anecdotally, but among my friends there is now a really significant resentment towards leavers, particularly old ones, that I don't think will ever heal. And from conversations I've had with leavers (again, particularly old ones) that is something they are finding really hard to understand, its either the stereotypical "leave won, get over it", or "well its happened now, so lets pick things up and move on", which is at least somewhat conciliatory but doesn't really help when the issue is so divisive in the first place



His point still stands though, the odds are that London will continue to grow at a faster rate then the rest of the UK. Its not really down to a failure of policy, more the institutional focus on London thats existed across governments since way earlier than 2010

I think folks are significantly overestimating the amount of power the government has over where the free market chooses to do business. Let's also not forget that New Labour did sink vast amounts of money and time into trying to rejuvenate places like the north east of England.

London isn't the wealthiest area of the UK because the government focuses on it. London is what it is because of the vast array of service industries there, mostly private, that have existed for decades if not centuries. It's hard to find an area of the world with a higher concentration of top tier legal and financial firms and all the service industries that exist to cater to them. The government can't wave a wand and shift all that to Hull.

Given the unbelievably bad state many aspects of London have been in (transport until the London Mayor, housing crisis still ongoing and worse than anywhere in the country, etc etc) it's also hard to make an argument that London is the government's obsession. Looking at the cuts to local authority funding for London boroughs compared to day the Home Counties and that tells a very different story.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That suggests everywhere except Northern Ireland has been growing since around 2010, or the end of the recession. It's not really ten years of economic decline even if a lot of it is still lower than that was ten years ago.

I don't think that's real GDP. When you account for cost of living increases, two ore regions would also be in decline.

EDIT: no, I just can't read graphs on mobileGAF.

 

[CyclopsRock]

His point still stands though, the odds are that London will continue to grow at a faster rate then the rest of the UK. Its not really down to a failure of policy, more the institutional focus on London thats existed across governments since way earlier than 2010

That may end up being the case, but it seems to me that that specific graph suggests that whilst London and the SE recovered more quickly, the actual trend since about 2010 or 2011 has been rather similar. So - again, based on that graph - whilst London and the SE may well maintain their dominance, there's no sign that the gap will get larger.

This is corroborated by the fact that job growth is actually higher outside of London and the SE than within it (though the jobs in London and the SE tend to be worth more).

Maledict is also correct that there's only so much you can do to halt London's progress, given that it's basically the "best" in all regards in the country. Germany has multiple large cities that all have some sort of crowning achievement or dominance in the country, but the UK is more like France where London is the head of almost any sector or industry you can imagine. No amount of water-side developments and town center fountains north of Watford will change that.

Edit: Obviously London and the SE on that graph aren't the same, but some other regions are similar to London, others similar to the SE etc. There's not much of a discrepancy overall, I think.

I don't think that's real GDP. When you account for cost of living increases, two ore regions would also be in decline.

EDIT: no, I just can't read graphs on mobileGAF.

HAHA CRAB'S AN IDIOT

 

[TimmmV]

I think folks are significantly overestimating the amount of power the government has over where the free market chooses to do business. Let's also not forget that New Labour did sink vast amounts of money and time into trying to rejuvenate places like the north east of England.

London isn't the wealthiest area of the UK because the government focuses on it. London is what it is because of the vast array of service industries there, mostly private, that have existed for decades if not centuries. It's hard to find an area of the world with a higher concentration of top tier legal and financial firms and all the service industries that exist to cater to them. The government can't wave a wand and shift all that to Hull.

Given the unbelievably bad state many aspects of London have been in (transport until the London Mayor, housing crisis still ongoing and worse than anywhere in the country, etc etc) it's also hard to make an argument that London is the government's obsession. Looking at the cuts to local authority funding for London boroughs compared to day the Home Counties and that tells a very different story.

There is definitely an element of self perpetuation to it too - London also has like 1/5 people in the UK living in it iirc, and like you say, a big concentration of private firms. So its also logical that London gets a focus funding wise, just not as concentrated as it is at the moment

Saying that, I still think the accusation of investment bias by the government towards London is fair, just a quick google gave me these examples (also this, and this)

I would also see Londons public transport as more of an example that its favoured vs the rest of the UK too tbh. It definitely still has its problems, but compared to the privatised expensive crap there is in the north, it seems a hell of a lot better.

Edit: (managed to miss first paragraph sorry)

I agree with your first point about Labour, additionally moving the BBC to Manchester was also good for bringing jobs to the north west at the very least. Hopefully HS2 has similar effects (although I'm more sceptical about this one), it still seems ultimately London focussed

 

[Maledict]

Sorry, think some crossed wires there. I think London's transport is (strikes aside) really good now, and probably the best in the country. Busses are clean and regular, the tube works most days and is getting better every year, and the overland railway is a life saver.

But all of that came from having a London mayor with direct control over TFL. It wasn't central government at all - central government absolutely fucked over London's transport repeatedly. It was when control was passed to the Mayor that we started to see the huge improvements we now have.