Munkeymon posted:

A second referendum could be actually binding and could even include a clause to stay for at least 60 years with no requirement to revisit the question after that. Also require 66% to leave? Might at least restore some certainty, depending on how binding the timeline can be under UK law, which IDK.

I heard an interview with an old man who thought he was taking his country back from the Germans who all those soldiers and airmen died fighting... but he was 80, so he just grew up with stories of the war(s?). JFC

gradenko_2000 posted:

Someone that's 80 years old now would have been 3 when Germany invaded Poland.

Firos posted:

Does Germany have any room for chemical engineering graduates? Please?

Edit: I can even string a sentence together in German (my grammar is horrible tho)

blowfish posted:

yeah probably

There is a ~Fachkräftemangel~ in Germany right now actually this lack of skilled workers is more because of a lack of investment in corporate training schemes in many cases but if you already have a clue about things you might have a good chance
Wages in Germany are not super high but living costs are only moderate and even the bigger cities are much less overpriced than London.

Firos posted:

Does Germany have any room for chemical engineering graduates? Please?

Edit: I can even string a sentence together in German (my grammar is horrible tho)

Bryter posted:

The non-binding nature of the referendum isn't particularly meaningful. The government made clear it's intentions to abide by the result and didn't purposely set out to make it non-binding, it just happens that the nature of British constitutional law makes a binding referendum impossible.

ErIog posted:

avoiding a derail in the GOP meltdown thread by responding to this here


It's pretty meaningful since the government said they intended to abide by the result then the head of the government stepped down and passed the buck to the next government. The government's very first official act after the Brexit vote was only possible due to the non-binding nature of it, and sets a pretty clear precedent that this is actually going to be more complicated than Leave voters were led to believe.

So yeah, it's pretty meaningful since if the referendum had been binding there would be no question about Article 50 right now, and yet that's what we're arguing about.

Bryter posted:

I'm saying that it was as binding as it's possible for a referendum to be in the UK and was very clearly presented as such in the lead up to the vote.

Guavanaut posted:

The AV referendum was far more binding, because it actually included a legislative trigger within it.

I agree that it was presented by some parts of the press as if it was final and binding and the country would be out by the following Monday if Leave won though, but that's on their shoulders.

quote:

The Government’s position is that the referendum is an advisory one, but the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, but if there are any consequential considerations, they will be dealt with in accordance with the proper constitutional arrangements that have been laid down.

FT posted:

Michael Gove has taken aim at bankers and big businesses as he set out his case to take over from David Cameron as Conservative Party leader and UK Prime Minister.

He said too many people in financial services “are paid vast fortunes as if they are outstandingly skillful when in many cases they are simply lucky”. He also bemoaned that rewards in Britain have gone too often to “big businesses who have rigged the market in their interests”.

quote:

Pounded by the pound: Brexit inspires its first erotic novel
Article 50 Shades of Gay: Book is latest of 50 sexually explicit stories by Chuck Tingle, and offers what he says is a ‘pretty realistic’, haunting vision of the UK after the Brexit vote

waitwhatno posted:

Could someone give a synopsis of the book plot?

quote:

When Alex learns that Britain has decided to leave the European Union, he’s shocked by just hold normal everything seems. But the calm doesn’t last as Alex is suddenly accosted by a giant living coin from the not so distant future.

In this horrific future where Britain has left the EU, four story busses lie strewn about the streets of London after a failed plan to cut costs, the Queen’s Guard have been replaced by flying reptiles with machine guns and the River Thames runs red with molten lava.

Now Alex and his handsome sentient pound must travel back to the past and sway the vote for European solidarity, by proving that all you need is love.

This erotic tale is 4,200 words of sizzling human on monetary unit action, including anal, blowjobs, rough sex, cream pies and living pound love.

Benjamin Timothy Blaine posted:

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

The Larch posted:

Anos posted:

So how accurate is this?

waitwhatno posted:

How is it gay to have sex with money? I feel like the title of the book is very misleading.

waitwhatno posted:

How is it gay to have sex with money? I feel like the title of the book is very misleading.

nm posted:

WWII (VE day) was 71 years ago, so I'm pretty sure he would remember it (but wouldn't have fought in it).

Anos posted:

So how accurate is this?

Laradus posted:

It is all a right royal fuckup.

vyelkin posted:

https://twitter.com/flashboy/status/748858483550937090

Kurzon posted:

I don't know what to think of Brexit because I don't know enough about economics or European politics to predict the outcome. It seems everyone is acting based on emotions. The Leave voters are all going "gently caress all these drat foreigners", while the rest of Europe is going "bwaaah, Britain doesn't love us anymore". What is the consensus among the intelligentsia of Europe?

Kurzon posted:

The Leave voters are all going "gently caress all these drat foreigners", while the rest of Europe is going "bwaaah, Britain doesn't love us anymore".

waitwhatno posted:

That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable.

waitwhatno posted:

That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable.

waitwhatno posted:

That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable.

Alkydere posted:

Well, the Leave part of the statement is accurate at least. The vote won on the back of racism and xenophobia.

Kurzon posted:

I don't know what to think of Brexit because I don't know enough about economics or European politics to predict the outcome. It seems everyone is acting based on emotions. The Leave voters are all going "gently caress all these drat foreigners", while the rest of Europe is going "bwaaah, Britain doesn't love us anymore". What is the consensus among the intelligentsia of Europe?

quote:

Chancellor George Osborne has abandoned his target to restore government finances to a surplus by 2020.

In a speech he said, given the effects of the referendum vote, the government had to be "realistic about achieving a surplus by the end of the decade".

The target had been the chancellor's most prized goal and had been driving austerity measures in previous budgets.

But he said the economy is showing "clear signs" of shock following the vote to leave the European Union.

Bryter posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36684452


Does this mean you'll admit austerity has been pointless and will stop then George? No? Oh okay then.