The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[fatmanfilms]

How many students did you teach each year who went to Oxford or Cambridge. Interested to get some real life info to back up this fact.

Your link says 'Universities', only quickly looked but saw no Oxbridge reference.

	Quote:
	If you read my post again- you may understand. Where did I mention private or State schools? As a 6th Form Tutor with exerience in career advice and Uni applications - it is a very well known fact that Oxbridge actively and positively discriminate to ensure talent and the brightest kids, but from disadvantaged backgrounds, get a chance to access Oxbridge. A bit of research of your own, perhaps. https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...h-lower-grades For those not really 'au fait' with UK education, students can retake any GCSE, or GCSEs, concurrently with studying for AS'Levels. And can retake individual A'Levels, cocurrently with studying for some more, or not ... unlike the Matu/Bac system where the whole year, and the whole set of exams- have to be retaken, even those that were sucessfully passed. Students can choose some new A'Levels at some point, and drop others, etc. VERY different systems. Having to re-take will be taken into consideration for some courses, at some universities, for instance for medicine or veterinary medicine - but re-take you can, always, providing the school agrees. Back to Brexit..

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Why would anyone want to own an airline?

I wouldn't mind a share in American Airlines' profits. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pa...-12-08-01.aspx

	Quote:
	- it is a very well known fact that Oxbridge actively and positively discriminate to ensure talent and the brightest kids, but from disadvantaged backgrounds, get a chance to access Oxbridge.

Must have changed a lot since my day then.
Two lads who were in my class all through school (from age 4-16), went to Oxbridge. I get confused as to who went to where, because they switched Oxbridge unis for their masters', but one took Theology and the other took Pure Maths and Economics. The later guy ended up working for JPMorgan in the WTC, but (thankfully) was on annual leave on 9/11.

Better than that, one of my other classmates (and still a close friend) rejected an offer from Oxford. She'd got the highest political science A Level result in the country, and was in the top 5% of History results too, but her parents had just got divorced so she chose Leeds Uni so that she could to be closer home for the sake of her younger siblings.

So, out of my class of 36 kids, one rejected an offer from Oxford, and two more had offers from both Oxford and Cambridge each. None of them were 'disadvantaged', but they were definitely working class. Not bad going for a bog standard comprehensive up north that was far more accustomed to turning out professional rugby players!

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I wouldn't mind a share in American Airlines' profits. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pa...-12-08-01.aspx

American Airlines Group (AAL) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 29, 2011, so being a long term shareholder would have not paid off. Airlines have destroyed more shareholder value than any other business's, I suspect Banks come second.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	A sucker came along, BA is totally bankrupt due to it's pension liability shortfall exceeds it's market value by a huge margin. Since the Wright Brothers first flight the airline industry as a whole has not yet made a profit, most airlines have gone bust at least once some many times. Why would anyone want to own an airline?

Not the first time you've claimed that on here and it's as untrue now as it was then. But I really can't be bothered to yet again dig up the links that disprove it.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	...Your link says 'Universities', only quickly looked but saw no Oxbridge reference.

Then you should read a bit harder. My very quick scan picked this out

	Quote:
	Earlier this year Anna Vignoles, professor of education at the University of Cambridge, told the Telegraph: "Private schools are very effective at getting good grades for people whose ability is a bit lower, whose degree performance is not as good as people (from state schools) with the same grades. Admissions officers will take this into account when making offers."

The cartoon is quite appropriate.

	Quote:
	May’s Brexit deal: the legal verdict The most important point about the draft Brexit withdrawal agreement is that, once it is ratified, the United Kingdom will have no legal route out of it unless the EU agrees to let us out and replace it with another agreement. This makes it unique among trade treaties (including the EU’s), which always contain clauses allowing each party to withdraw on notice. Politicians who claim that this is just a bad treaty — one we can get out of later — are being ignorant or disingenuous. Halfway through the 585-page document, we find Art. 185, which states a Northern Ireland Protocol ‘shall apply as from the end of the transition period’. Once the Protocol is in force, the UK cannot leave it except by ‘joint’ decision of the UK and the EU. This gives the EU a right of veto over the UK’s exit. In agreeing to this clause, the government has caved in over seeking a right to leave. Indeed, the Protocol — which has become known as the ‘backstop’ — locks the whole UK into a customs union with the EU with no decision-making power. Annex 2 Art. 3(4) states that the UK shall be ‘informed’ of any decision by the EU to amend the Common Customs Tariff ‘in sufficient time for it to align itself with that decision’. The EU has a huge (£95 billion) surplus in goods trade with the UK. This customs union gives the EU tariff-free access for its export goods into the UK market. It also forces the UK to maintain the EU’s high tariffs against competing goods from other countries. As one might expect, this is advantageous to EU exporters but catastrophically damaging to the UK. It prevents us from lowering tariffs if we want to in order to benefit our consumers. More importantly, it kills stone dead the possibility of forging trade deals with fast-growing economies around the world. They are not going to give us free trade in our services exports if we can’t offer concessions in return on their goods exports to us. And since the EU can just sit back and force the UK into these terms by default, why on earth should it give us a better offer — namely the long-term trade deal that the government is banking on? The government has negotiated a ‘political’ (i.e. not legally binding) declaration about the future relationship. This is thin gruel with only the barest outline of possible terms. Only three pages deal with trade. These talk of zero tariffs between the EU and UK, but notably omit any commitment by the EU that the deal would allow the UK to set its own external tariffs, as in a Canada-style Free Trade Agreement, or even under the Prime Minister’s Chequers dual tariff customs plan — which she has repeatedly claimed would allow the UK to conduct an independent trade policy. On the contrary, the declaration states that there will be ‘customs arrangements that build on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement’. This means that the EU will not even be under a moral, still less legal, obligation to agree a trade deal which allows the UK to conduct its own future independent trade policy. Art. 184 says that the EU and the UK shall use their ‘best endeavours’ to negotiate a trade agreement in time for the end of the transition. The Conservative party chairman claims that this is ‘a high legal bar’ for the EU. But an obligation to try to agree is completely non-justiciable: you cannot pin the blame on either party if each pursues its own interests and a deal is not reached. So the EU can easily slow down the negotiations — or just not agree to the kind of deal the UK wants. The UK will then be forced into the so-called backstop. Not only would this mean a customs union and onerous ‘level-playing-field’ obligations binding the whole UK, but also the annexation of Northern Ireland into the EU for laws relating to goods, customs procedures and taxes. The list of EU laws which will continue to apply runs to 68 pages alone — and that’s just the titles. Neither the UK Parliament nor the Northern Ireland Assembly would have any say over these laws or over changes to them by the EU in future. The ‘transition’ period would see most EU laws continuing to apply in the UK, enforced as now by the Commission and adjudicated by the ECJ. The difference will be that under Art. 7 the UK is excluded from ‘the nomination, appointment or election of members of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as the participation in the decision-making and the attendance in the meetings of the institutions’. This is true vassalage, during which we will be required to abide by laws which we have no vote in shaping. There are no legally effective safeguards in the Agreement against the EU making changes to its laws which actively damage vital UK industries such as financial services. The transition period was supposed to end in 2020, but the Prime Minister now envisages extending it to 2022. Art. 132 actually says that it can be extended up to ‘31 December 20XX’. The likely extension of the transition coupled with the very thin political declaration means that it could run indefinitely, prolonging the turmoil of the past 18 months and uncertainty about the future. During all this time we would be bound by EU law; our fishing industry subject to EU boats in our waters and quotas and rules imposed by Brussels. The second big legal point about this draft treaty is that the European Court of Justice, whose influence Brexit was supposed to end, is given wide-ranging jurisdiction over the UK, not just during the ‘transition’ but afterwards as well. Once we leave the EU, the ECJ will cease to be a multi-national court in which the UK is a participating member and will become an entirely foreign court. So why should the ECJ’s writ still run? Sovereign states generally never agree to be bound by the courts of the other treaty party. This is dictated by legal protocol and common sense. Even the agreements between the EU and the tiny landlocked states of Andorra and San Marino contain conventional bilateral arbitration clauses. But not this agreement. A supposedly neutral ‘arbitration panel’ has been set up to decide general disputes between the UK and EU. But under Art. 175, disputed questions of EU law will be decided not by the panel but by the ECJ — and the panel will be bound by the ECJ’s ruling. So the ‘independent’ panel will simply act as a postbox for sending the dispute to the ECJ. And as a rubber stamp when the answer comes back. This vassalage that the UK government now seeks is rare, but not unheard of. It is the system imposed on the former Soviet republics of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine in their EU association agreements. What will the world make of Britain agreeing to such debasement? Carl Baudenbacher is a Swiss jurist who until recently was president of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States. He knows better than most how the EU system works and says, ‘This is not a real arbitration tribunal. Behind it, the ECJ decides everything. This is taken from the Ukraine agreement. It is absolutely unbelievable that a country like the UK, which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this.’ Why is the Prime Minister so desperate for a deal that she is willing to humiliate her country in this way? This draft agreement will not take us closer to an acceptable final deal with the EU. Instead, it locks us down by throwing away in advance our two strongest negotiation cards: EU budget payments of £39 billion and the future access to our market for EU goods. At present, the EU treaties give us the right to withdraw on two years’ notice — a right we are currently exercising. But this new deal would lock us in with no right to leave at all, and destroy any benefits of the freedom of action which Brexit should give us. It would not let us forge our own trade policy with other parts of the world. It would not make our economy more competitive. It would not give us back control of our laws. This is not a bad deal. It is an atrocious deal.

Source

[st2lemans]

"Switzerland is worried about UK trade after Brexit"

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46287894

Tom

[greenmount]

	Quote:	amogles
	The kids. The mums love to be able to pamper their grown up kids. The dads complain when down at the pub but won't contradict mum when she's around.

Not sure how much the mums really like slaving away for their grown up kids or think it's their duty....anyhow, it's a bit weird that the exact same people would turn against EU when the solutions are out there:
- study abroad if the general level in a certain field is better somewhere else, and it's not difficult to check that out
- study something else that is required on the labour market - home or abroad
- get EU funds to open a business
- get a job that is better paid abroad.
Why would anyone think of cutting off these options? Maybe it's more comfortable to stay at home and complain about the ing immigrants who steal our jobs that we don't want and they work harder for than we would ever do. Maybe the problem is not the state, neither the austerity measures or the EU. Anyone thought about this explanation?

[marton]

The official pro-Brexit campaign group has lost a judicial review aimed at trying to get an Electoral Commission ruling that it breached spending limits thrown out.

Vote Leave was challenging the findings of a report issued in July that it had exceeded the prescribed £7m limit by channeling funds via another campaign group, but the high court concluded on Wednesday that its case was groundless.

A judgment by Mrs Justice Yip said: “I do not consider that the claimant’s grounds are arguable.” She also dismissed an attempt to claim that the commission did not have the power to investigate the alleged overspending.

Source

Net is tightening!

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	How many students did you teach each year who went to Oxford or Cambridge. Interested to get some real life info to back up this fact. Your link says 'Universities', only quickly looked but saw no Oxbridge reference.

Totally irrelevant to this thread anyhow- but in short- quite a few. Many were offered places but turned them down as they did not feel comfortable with the atmosphere, and preferred going to more vibrant cities like Leeds, Newcastle, etc.

[greenmount]

	Quote:
	Totally irrelevant to this thread anyhow- but in short- quite a few. Many were offered places but turned them down as they did not feel comfortable with the atmosphere, and preferred going to more vibrant cities like Leeds, Newcastle, etc.

I don't doubt what you say but I'd like to understand why would anyone turn down Cambridge for instance. I think that many people would grab that chance and make the best out of it and would be grateful for that opportunity. What's the atmosphere like? Too snobbish? And why would that bother me if the professors are among the best and I have the best conditions to study something that I like. I'm curious.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	I have no doubt this exists, but i think the problem is overstated. I do know people in their 30ies still living in hotel mum & dad. But they are not one bit happy about it.

The rate of youth unemployment is highly distorted to begin with.

If 50% of your workers have academic degrees, it means that more than 50% of the young folk are studying as some will drop out or fail to graduate. With high unemployment, some more will study rather than seek a job right away due to poor prospects of finding a job, further increasing the number of students.

Unemployment rate is based on the number of people available for the job market, people unwilling or unable to work, including the students, aren't part of that group. So if 10% of the young are unemployed (the national average for Italy) and you have 67% students in that age range, youth unemployment will be 30%.

That effect may be reduced somewhat ("may" as in, I don't know if that's considered but it would make sense) by students doing part time jobs, but that effect would be rather small.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	greenmount
	I don't doubt what you say but I'd like to understand why would anyone turn down Cambridge for instance. I think that many people would grab that chance and make the best out of it and would be grateful for that opportunity. What's the atmosphere like? Too snobbish? And why would that bother me if the professors are among the best and I have the best conditions to study something that I like. I'm curious.

I find it odd too, however I do know 2 people who did turn down Oxbridge. 1 went to Bristol as he said the Engineering department was better & 1 went to UCL as she wanted to live in London for the first time. But to go to Leeds or Newcastle does not make any sense to anyone bright enough to get into Oxford or Cambridge.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	EU and UK officials agree draft political declaration on future relationship

https://news.sky.com/story/eu-and-uk...eport-11560120

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	https://news.sky.com/story/eu-and-uk...eport-11560120

Meanwhile outside Downing Street

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Might as well post this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46287894

Edit: And draft EU/UK agreement agreed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46300247

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	greenmount
	I don't doubt what you say but I'd like to understand why would anyone turn down Cambridge for instance.

I've visited both Oxford and Cambridge Unis. Cambridge is too isolated for my liking, but I love Oxford. The cost of living in both cities is a fair bit higher than Leeds or Durham, which are both excellent unis, and Leeds has a legendary nightlife and music scene. My brother and most of my mates went to Leeds and loved the whole experience. Another friend went to Edinburgh and loved it. The rest went to Durham, Newcastle and Manchester.

A lot of the choice students make is based upon the exact course structure offered. My mate who rejected Oxford, got a 1st in 20th Century Political History from Leeds, and met her husband there during the 2nd year. 33yrs, two kids and a fantastic international career later, I'm pretty sure she has no regrets.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The cartoon is quite appropriate.

Learn the difference between a legal opinion and a verdict.... not surprising, but you always seem to be able to provide the internment when one is waiting for a bus or train.... thanks for that BTW

[marton]

The EU/UK declaration has been leaked here.

From a quick read it is just a list of good intentions but nothing firm is agreed.

	Quote:	marton
	The EU/UK declaration has been leaked here. From a quick read it is just a list of good intentions but nothing firm is agreed.

It's just a set of intentions which aren't legally binding or enforceable. Not worth the paper it's written on. The fact is that if the UK signs up to that withdrawal agreement the EU will have the country bent over a barrel.

It's truly remarkable how obsessed Theresa May is with freedom of movement, giving everything else up in order to get that one concession. I suppose given her track record at the Home Office, we shouldn't be that surprised, but that was never the reason I voted for Brexit. Time to vote for Jeremy Corbyn!