|
Someone that's 80 years old now would have been 3 when Germany invaded Poland.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 05:53 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:46 |
|
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. WWII (VE day) was 71 years ago, so I'm pretty sure he would remember it (but wouldn't have fought in it).
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 06:07 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Someone that's 80 years old now would have been 3 when Germany invaded Poland. I think at that point you'd still remember the war, even if you didn't fight in it. Even if you were born in, say, 1943, your life could be personally and profoundly impacted by the war. You could write a rock opera about it and pair it with a crazy film that makes people question your sanity, if you so choose.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 06:18 |
|
Firos posted:Does Germany have any room for chemical engineering graduates? Please? 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.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 07:26 |
|
blowfish posted:yeah probably Firos posted:Does Germany have any room for chemical engineering graduates? Please?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 07:46 |
|
Siemens here in the Netherlands had plenty of engineers on my department that didnt speak a word of Dutch. Lot of Polish and Indians.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 08:37 |
|
avoiding a derail in the GOP meltdown thread by responding to this hereBryter 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. 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. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 09:35 |
|
Didn't Cameron outright say before the vote that he'd invoke art 50 immediately? His failure to do so makes that a flagrant lie, but it's not like he'll have to suffer any consequences for it. It's pretty much the ultimate example of how there's no "consumer protection" in modern examples of democracy. Edit: I guess on a more theoretical level you could argue that it then falls upon Parliament to pass an act to immediately invoke article 50, but the voters can't actually force them to do that, and even if they fail to do so and thus anger the electorate, that won't translate into an electoral result until 2020 (unless a whole 2/3rds of the Commons agrees to a snap election, or they repeal the fixed terms act). The legislature and the voting populace can't react to quick and immediate changes. That's what the government is for. This whole thing is so stupid and a week in we're discovering new hitherto unseen ways of stupidity. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 09:38 |
|
ErIog posted:avoiding a derail in the GOP meltdown thread by responding to this here Yeah obviously it would be a meaningful distinction in legal terms. We're talking about public perception though. You said "the public treated it with all the respect and concern of an opinion poll" because it was non-binding. 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. And what we were arguing about was actually whether the next prime minister could invoke article 50 and still avoid going through with withdrawal.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 10:23 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 10:26 |
|
Guavanaut posted:The AV referendum was far more binding, because it actually included a legislative trigger within it. It's still not fundamentally binding, and it's a pretty different situation, given that the legislative trigger is a lot more straightforward with domestic legislation than an unknown like art 50. I'll reword it as "as binding as a referendum on the question of leaving Europe could possibly be" then. And the government emphasised how final it would be, not just some elements of the press. 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. Bryter fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 10:39 |
|
Cross posting because its economics related https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/748808618888224768 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. What madness is this, the fanatically market worshiping Gove is attacking the bankers whilst Little Red Book loving McDonnoll is busy sticking up for there interests
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 12:07 |
|
The latest Guardian article should not surprise anybody in the thread: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/pounded-by-the-pound-brexit-erotic-novel-chuck-tingle quote:Pounded by the pound: Brexit inspires its first erotic novel
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 12:45 |
|
Chuck Tingle is an international treasure.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 12:56 |
|
DON'T DO THIS THEY WILL TIP OVER
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:04 |
|
Could someone give a synopsis of the book plot?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:05 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:07 |
|
Pound for pound, it's the best book about pound pounding since 'Pounds that go Pound in the night.'
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:16 |
|
So how accurate is this?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.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:33 |
|
How is it gay to have sex with money? I feel like the title of the book is very misleading.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:39 |
|
Anos posted:So how accurate is this? I read that in John Olivers voice, checks out
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:51 |
|
waitwhatno posted:How is it gay to have sex with money? I feel like the title of the book is very misleading.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:51 |
|
waitwhatno posted:How is it gay to have sex with money? I feel like the title of the book is very misleading. e: Plus the pound coin has a big golden donger and rods the protagonist in the butt with it. Really.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 13:55 |
|
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). Yeah, derp, I dropped a carry in my head math. E: to be fair, I was driving when I heard the interview and decided that he was born in the 40s so, unlike Tesla, I was much more concerned with not hitting anything than getting the math just right Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jul 1, 2016 |
# ? Jul 1, 2016 14:37 |
|
Anos posted:So how accurate is this? The leader of the Opposition is reluctant Remain. He campaigned that the EU isn't perfect but that you need to be inside to change things. There are photos of him after voting Remain outside the polling booth. It is all a right royal fuckup.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:04 |
|
https://twitter.com/flashboy/status/748858483550937090
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:26 |
|
Laradus posted:It is all a right royal fuckup. Actually I am fairly sure the Queen and all her family are super glad they have literally nothing to do with this.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:35 |
|
Impossible, he's been Varys from the beginning.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:37 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:44 |
|
Is the only way for Brexit to be beneficial to the UK in the long run is if the EU somehow falls apart? I don't know how it would fall apart with all these small countries to need access to the single market.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:52 |
|
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? I believe the educated consensus is that Britain is "hosed".
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:52 |
|
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". That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 15:55 |
|
waitwhatno posted:That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable. It's so wrong and overly simplistic it could be a south park episode.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:01 |
|
waitwhatno posted:That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable. It's so wrong and overly simplistic it could be a south park episode.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:01 |
|
waitwhatno posted:That's a remarkably wrong way to summarise the result of Brexit. Remarkable. Well, the Leave part of the statement is accurate at least. The vote won on the back of racism and xenophobia.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:02 |
|
Alkydere posted:Well, the Leave part of the statement is accurate at least. The vote won on the back of racism and xenophobia. And protest votes and misinformation and fearmongering and "accidental voting" and nationalism and wrong expectations and ... boredom? It's hard to tell how much each of these made up of the whole leave votes . Personally, I don't believe that racism was in the majority(but maybe plurality).
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:11 |
|
I think the European reaction is a mix of horror, pity and schadenfreude. Well, that's my reaction as a European.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:14 |
|
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? The UK had access to the european markets and lots of trade deals under EU regulations, all of that is gone now. Which screws the UK over massively, and their economy is predictably tanking, but also isn't great for their trade partners, who will lose those trade deals as well. The EU isn't upset for some weird emotional reason, they are upset because there is literally no upside to leaving, for anyone, and it makes poo poo more difficult for everyone. Nobody profits, everyone loses. The UK "leave" voters just took a poo poo in the playpen because the brown kid from next door wanted to play with the toys as well, and now everyone has poo poo in their playpen.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:14 |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36684452quote:Chancellor George Osborne has abandoned his target to restore government finances to a surplus by 2020. Does this mean you'll admit austerity has been pointless and will stop then George? No? Oh okay then.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:46 |
|
Bryter posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36684452 Ten years of austerity failed to return the UK to a budget surplus? Well, that just clearly shows that they didn't impose austerity hard enough.
|
# ? Jul 1, 2016 16:33 |