Little England and not-so-Great-Britain

[MJP]

Germany's Siemens embraces 'Project Optimism' in Brexit U-turn

Europe’s largest industrial combine has vowed to press ahead with investment in Britain despite the vote to leave the EU, backing away deftly from earlier suggestions that Brexit would cause a painful freeze on new activities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/germanys-siemens-embraces-project-optimism-in-brexit-u-turn/

This correlates with the decision of the board of one of Europe's biggest firms to increase investment in the UK following Brexit, of which I have first hand knowledge. They were delighted by the referendum result.

I used to work for a Siemens' company in the UK, their investment in the UK economy is huge and very tightly integrated into the wider Siemens corporation - any investment message from Siemens needs to be understood in its impact on confidence on Siemens (not Siemens' confidence in the UK).

Brexit will take at least 2 years, possibly a decade, might possibly not happen at all.

The announcement from Siemens makes good business sense. For the time being.

But don't hang your hat on it.

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

UK will become an alternative to EU. A better, lower priced, faster, more productive economy with more liberal regulations.

Personally, I really doin't think UK should bother with a single market trade deal as it stands.

Neither do I. Go straight to WTO rules. Sort out a decent visa system. Sort out tariffs (start at zero on EU stuff) . . . and let them come to us. If they don't, oh well never mind.

[ilostmypassword]

You're being silly -- does the EU control the weather for the whole of EU-land? If so I'll be glad to get out of the EU so that UK can give us our own sweet summers..

I'm being silly? I wasn't aware that foreigners were consuming British weather.. Or that the UKwas consuming foreigner's weather. The supply of weather is inexhaustible. The supply of fish is not. I thought it was impossible to top Missandry. But you've managed to do it. I have to hope that you were just joking. But given your previous comments, that seems unlikely.

The comprehension issues appear to be on your part. Once we exit the EU, we are free to negotiate the best terms for OUR fishing industry. Not Spain's. Not any other EU country that relies heavily on fishing. And if countries such as Spain try to ignore our treaties, we can legally send them packing with gunboat diplomacy if needs be.

Maybe you can find another news article that twists the UK fishing industry's words the way that the Grauniad one did?

You people are amazingly obtuse. I'll try again. Here's why the UK can't unilaterally impose anything.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these “shared stocks” without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for theihttps://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/r shared stocks.

[jpinx]

I'm being silly? I wasn't aware that foreigners were consuming British weather.. Or that the UKwas consuming foreigner's weather. The supply of weather is inexhaustible. The supply of fish is not. I thought it was impossible to top Missandry. But you've managed to do it. I have to hope that you were just joking. But given your previous comments, that seems unlikely.

The comprehension issues appear to be on your part. Once we exit the EU, we are free to negotiate the best terms for OUR fishing industry. Not Spain's. Not any other EU country that relies heavily on fishing. And if countries such as Spain try to ignore our treaties, we can legally send them packing with gunboat diplomacy if needs be.

Maybe you can find another news article that twists the UK fishing industry's words the way that the Grauniad one did?

You people are amazingly obtuse. I'll try again. Here's why the UK can't unilaterally impose anything.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these “shared stocks” without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for theihttps://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/r shared stocks.

You are consistently mixing your commentary about the fishing "areas" with the fish "stocks". Of course the UK will do deals with whoever shares adjoining waters, but that expressly does not include Spain, and many other countries currently plundering the Atlantic fish stocks all within the EEZ and with the permission of Brussels. That will stop, and UK will be happy to share with Iceland, Norway, etc as was the case many years ago, and with the guidance of fish-stock experts.

[GuestHouse]

Germany's Siemens embraces 'Project Optimism' in Brexit U-turn

Europe’s largest industrial combine has vowed to press ahead with investment in Britain despite the vote to leave the EU, backing away deftly from earlier suggestions that Brexit would cause a painful freeze on new activities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/germanys-siemens-embraces-project-optimism-in-brexit-u-turn/

This correlates with the decision of the board of one of Europe's biggest firms to increase investment in the UK following Brexit, of which I have first hand knowledge. They were delighted by the referendum result.

I used to work for a Siemens' company in the UK, their investment in the UK economy is huge and very tightly integrated into the wider Siemens corporation - any investment message from Siemens needs to be understood in its impact on confidence on Siemens (not Siemens' confidence in the UK).

Brexit will take at least 2 years, possibly a decade, might possibly not happen at all.

The announcement from Siemens makes good business sense. For the time being.

But don't hang your hat on it.

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

You work for an organisation that is doing 'enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for a client firm', so I take it that is long term planning, regulation, risk assessment, etc (a lot of strategic planning and thinking) - and this outfit you work for has, in the short time since the referendum result, made a decision to increase its UK operations by 10% - Despite nobody having a plan for the extraction of the UK from the EU, the faintest idea when the process will begin or what the outcome of the exit process will be.

What was this 10% increase in UK operations? The purchase of a fax machine.

It would make sense, if they were paying on a Non sterling account they managed to buy at a discount.

Smart people your bosses, they know a fire sale when they see one.

[GuestHouse]

I'm being silly? I wasn't aware that foreigners were consuming British weather.. Or that the UKwas consuming foreigner's weather. The supply of weather is inexhaustible. The supply of fish is not. I thought it was impossible to top Missandry. But you've managed to do it. I have to hope that you were just joking. But given your previous comments, that seems unlikely.

The comprehension issues appear to be on your part. Once we exit the EU, we are free to negotiate the best terms for OUR fishing industry. Not Spain's. Not any other EU country that relies heavily on fishing. And if countries such as Spain try to ignore our treaties, we can legally send them packing with gunboat diplomacy if needs be.

Maybe you can find another news article that twists the UK fishing industry's words the way that the Grauniad one did?

You people are amazingly obtuse. I'll try again. Here's why the UK can't unilaterally impose anything.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these “shared stocks” without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for theihttps://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/r shared stocks.

You are consistently mixing your commentary about the fishing "areas" with the fish "stocks". Of course the UK will do deals with whoever shares adjoining waters, but that expressly does not include Spain, and many other countries currently plundering the Atlantic fish stocks all within the EEZ and with the permission of Brussels. That will stop, and UK will be happy to share with Iceland, Norway, etc as was the case many years ago, and with the guidance of fish-stock experts.

Putting aside the argument between Fishing Areas and Fishing Stocks.

The controls against overfishing and subsequent rebound of fishing stocks that were previously over fished and in danger of collapsing is an EU policy success.

[MJP]

Germany's Siemens embraces 'Project Optimism' in Brexit U-turn

Europe’s largest industrial combine has vowed to press ahead with investment in Britain despite the vote to leave the EU, backing away deftly from earlier suggestions that Brexit would cause a painful freeze on new activities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/germanys-siemens-embraces-project-optimism-in-brexit-u-turn/

This correlates with the decision of the board of one of Europe's biggest firms to increase investment in the UK following Brexit, of which I have first hand knowledge. They were delighted by the referendum result.

I used to work for a Siemens' company in the UK, their investment in the UK economy is huge and very tightly integrated into the wider Siemens corporation - any investment message from Siemens needs to be understood in its impact on confidence on Siemens (not Siemens' confidence in the UK).

Brexit will take at least 2 years, possibly a decade, might possibly not happen at all.

The announcement from Siemens makes good business sense. For the time being.

But don't hang your hat on it.

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

You work for an organisation that is doing 'enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for a client firm', so I take it that is long term planning, regulation, risk assessment, etc (a lot of strategic planning and thinking) - and this outfit you work for has, in the short time since the referendum result, made a decision to increase its UK operations by 10% - Despite nobody having a plan for the extraction of the UK from the EU, the faintest idea when the process will begin or what the outcome of the exit process will be.

What was this 10% increase in UK operations? The purchase of a fax machine.

It would make sense, if they were paying on a Non sterling account they managed to buy at a discount.

Smart people your bosses, they know a fire sale when they see one.

Their finance director, who's German by the way, was encouraging everyone to vote for Brexit well before the referendum, stating that if the UK leaves the EU he'll "move to the UK and bring all his money with him". From the horses mouth.

Said the EU was finished.

[jpinx]

You people are amazingly obtuse. I'll try again. Here's why the UK can't unilaterally impose anything.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these “shared stocks” without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for theihttps://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/r shared stocks.

You are consistently mixing your commentary about the fishing "areas" with the fish "stocks". Of course the UK will do deals with whoever shares adjoining waters, but that expressly does not include Spain, and many other countries currently plundering the Atlantic fish stocks all within the EEZ and with the permission of Brussels. That will stop, and UK will be happy to share with Iceland, Norway, etc as was the case many years ago, and with the guidance of fish-stock experts.

Putting aside the argument between Fishing Areas and Fishing Stocks.

The controls against overfishing and subsequent rebound of fishing stocks that were previously over fished and in danger of collapsing is an EU policy success.

It was a success for the Spanish and other fishermen, but the UK and Irish boats were tied up -- how's that a good idea?

[jpinx]

Germany's Siemens embraces 'Project Optimism' in Brexit U-turn

Europe’s largest industrial combine has vowed to press ahead with investment in Britain despite the vote to leave the EU, backing away deftly from earlier suggestions that Brexit would cause a painful freeze on new activities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/germanys-siemens-embraces-project-optimism-in-brexit-u-turn/

This correlates with the decision of the board of one of Europe's biggest firms to increase investment in the UK following Brexit, of which I have first hand knowledge. They were delighted by the referendum result.

I used to work for a Siemens' company in the UK, their investment in the UK economy is huge and very tightly integrated into the wider Siemens corporation - any investment message from Siemens needs to be understood in its impact on confidence on Siemens (not Siemens' confidence in the UK).

Brexit will take at least 2 years, possibly a decade, might possibly not happen at all.

The announcement from Siemens makes good business sense. For the time being.

But don't hang your hat on it.

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

You work for an organisation that is doing 'enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for a client firm', so I take it that is long term planning, regulation, risk assessment, etc (a lot of strategic planning and thinking) - and this outfit you work for has, in the short time since the referendum result, made a decision to increase its UK operations by 10% - Despite nobody having a plan for the extraction of the UK from the EU, the faintest idea when the process will begin or what the outcome of the exit process will be.

What was this 10% increase in UK operations? The purchase of a fax machine.

It would make sense, if they were paying on a Non sterling account they managed to buy at a discount.

Smart people your bosses, they know a fire sale when they see one.

This style of response does nothing to further the debate. If a posting is not taken at face value - ignore it. Responding with condescending commentary does your own argument no good at all. Many companies are saying they will increase investments in UK - now that it's out from under the EU thumb. Some are merely waiting for TM to announce that article 50 is invoked and the dealing will start - maybe Thursday.....

[GuestHouse]

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

But let's have a bit of black catting while we are at it.

I'm currently working on one of two projects with a combined value of $25billion, the project I'm on is a little less than half that value.

Both projects are making extensive use of companies, equipment designers, suppliers and personnel from across the globe and across the EU. Systems specified in one EU state are being designed across multiple other EU states, manufactured across the countries across the world and shipped (tariff free) into an EU state for integration, configuration and testing, before being reshipped out of the EU (tariff free) to the final designation user facility. Money, equipment and personnel are constantly being moved across the nations performing these works but it is only between EU nations that these transactions and movements are happening completely free of tariffs and visas.

The transactions and movements between all other none EU nations (with the single exception of Singapore) are all constrained and restricted by tariffs, and such matters as visas for specialist staff - Hence the reliance of the EU as the centre for the very high value, high complexity tasks requiring high levels of integration.

This is precisely the kind of international markets and the international business that Brexit supporters say the UK shall be able to go after and win for Britain free from EU constraints and regulation - and yet here we are doing exactly that, huge value international business free from any EU constraints or regulations.

The EU is an enabler of international business far from constraining or restricting international business, it facilitates international business.

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

[MJP]

^^GH, I was only stating exactly what I've been told first hand.

Edited July 12, 2016 by MJP

[GuestHouse]

This style of response does nothing to further the debate. If a posting is not taken at face value - ignore it. Responding with condescending commentary does your own argument no good at all. Many companies are saying they will increase investments in UK - now that it's out from under the EU thumb. Some are merely waiting for TM to announce that article 50 is invoked and the dealing will start - maybe Thursday.....

Is this a frame of thought you are applying to arguments on both sides of the discussion, including your own?

[MJP]

We're doing the enabling and ground works for a £2bn development in London for the firm of which I speak. They have a total of fifty developments planned across the UK from this point on and have increased their investment in their UK operations by 10% because of Brexit.

But let's have a bit of black catting while we are at it.

I'm currently working on one of two projects with a combined value of $25billion, the project I'm on is a little less than half that value.

Both projects are making extensive use of companies, equipment designers, suppliers and personnel from across the globe and across the EU. Systems specified in one EU state are being designed across multiple other EU states, manufactured across the countries across the world and shipped (tariff free) into an EU state for integration, configuration and testing, before being reshipped out of the EU (tariff free) to the final designation user facility. Money, equipment and personnel are constantly being moved across the nations performing these works but it is only between EU nations that these transactions and movements are happening completely free of tariffs and visas.

The transactions and movements between all other none EU nations (with the single exception of Singapore) are all constrained and restricted by tariffs, and such matters as visas for specialist staff - Hence the reliance of the EU as the centre for the very high value, high complexity tasks requiring high levels of integration.

This is precisely the kind of international markets and the international business that Brexit supporters say the UK shall be able to go after and win for Britain free from EU constraints and regulation - and yet here we are doing exactly that, huge value international business free from any EU constraints or regulations.

The EU is an enabler of international business far from constraining or restricting international business, it facilitates international business.

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

No reason for there not to be free movement of workers. No reason for tariffs to be applied.

We just don't want further political integration and to be run by Brussels. That's all.

[GuestHouse]

^^GH, I was only stating exactly what I've been told first hand.

Perhaps you can give me a first hand response to the question I asks above, her it is for your convenience:

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

[Khun Han]

You're being silly -- does the EU control the weather for the whole of EU-land? If so I'll be glad to get out of the EU so that UK can give us our own sweet summers..

I'm being silly? I wasn't aware that foreigners were consuming British weather.. Or that the UKwas consuming foreigner's weather. The supply of weather is inexhaustible. The supply of fish is not. I thought it was impossible to top Missandry. But you've managed to do it. I have to hope that you were just joking. But given your previous comments, that seems unlikely.

The comprehension issues appear to be on your part. Once we exit the EU, we are free to negotiate the best terms for OUR fishing industry. Not Spain's. Not any other EU country that relies heavily on fishing. And if countries such as Spain try to ignore our treaties, we can legally send them packing with gunboat diplomacy if needs be.

Maybe you can find another news article that twists the UK fishing industry's words the way that the Grauniad one did?

You people are amazingly obtuse. I'll try again. Here's why the UK can't unilaterally impose anything.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these shared stocks without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for theihttps://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/r shared stocks.

How does the word "negotiate" get translated into "impose"? Like I said, you seem to be having comprehension issues.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Khun Han

[MJP]

^^GH, I was only stating exactly what I've been told first hand.

Perhaps you can give me a first hand response to the question I asks above, her it is for your convenience:

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

No WTO seat. Can't have free trade agreements between UK and others, has to go through the EU.

Not that it matters. Still don't want to be subjugated by Brussels. Ever.

But go on. Keep slagging us all off in your usual patronising, condescending holier-than-thou manner. It's a laugh.

[GuestHouse]

No reason for there not to be free movement of workers. No reason for tariffs to be applied.

We just don't want further political integration and to be run by Brussels. That's all.

Outside of Europe free movement of workers does not exist, tariffs exist - and a significant argument made by the Brexit campaign is based around the call for the UK to extricate itself from the EU regulations on the free movement of workers.

So while I accept that Brexit is a broad church, the in/out vote was based on all arguments for out - you can't just pick and choose the ones you wish to apply now and talk of a free movement tariff free world post Brexit when we have made no such treaties outside of the EU and will not be able to do so for a significant amount of time.

[GuestHouse]

^^GH, I was only stating exactly what I've been told first hand.

Perhaps you can give me a first hand response to the question I asks above, her it is for your convenience:

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

No WTO seat. Can't have free trade agreements between UK and others, has to go through the EU.

Not that it matters. Still don't want to be subjugated by Brussels. Ever.

But go on. Keep slagging us all off in your usual patronising, condescending holier-than-thou manner. It's a laugh.

You are being ironic right?!

[MJP]

No reason for there not to be free movement of workers. No reason for tariffs to be applied.

We just don't want further political integration and to be run by Brussels. That's all.

Outside of Europe free movement of workers does not exist, tariffs exist - and a significant argument made by the Brexit campaign is based around the call for the UK to extricate itself from the EU regulations on the free movement of workers.

So while I accept that Brexit is a broad church, the in/out vote was based on all arguments for out - you can't just pick and choose the ones you wish to apply now and talk of a free movement tariff free world post Brexit when we have made no such treaties outside of the EU and will not be able to do so for a significant amount of time.

We don't want free movement of a. criminals. b. human traffickers, c. welfare tourists. d. terrorists.

I, personally would like to see the free movement of workers.

I don't want to see tariffs between UK/EU and I want the European countries to flourish too.

[MJP]

^^GH, I was only stating exactly what I've been told first hand.

Perhaps you can give me a first hand response to the question I asks above, her it is for your convenience:

You, or others, may have concrete examples of where the EU constrains or restricts the UK participating in international business - If you do please give us examples. I don't know of any.

No WTO seat. Can't have free trade agreements between UK and others, has to go through the EU.

Not that it matters. Still don't want to be subjugated by Brussels. Ever.

But go on. Keep slagging us all off in your usual patronising, condescending holier-than-thou manner. It's a laugh.

You are being ironic right?!

Nope. Where have I been offensive to anyone on here?

[GuestHouse]

Nope. Where have I been offensive to anyone on here?

You have not, and I apologise for any offence I have given you personally.

[MJP]

Nope. Where have I been offensive to anyone on here?

You have not, and I apologise for any offence I have given you personally.

Sorry I barked at you. Stressy day at work.

[GuestHouse]

We don't want free movement of a. criminals. b. human traffickers, c. welfare tourists. d. terrorists.

I, personally would like to see the free movement of workers.

I don't want to see tariffs between UK/EU and I want the European countries to flourish too.

Once again, the Brexit campaign is a broad church, the message that people coming to the UK from Europe are all a. criminals. b. human traffickers, c. welfare tourists. d. terrorists. is writ large across much of the pro-Brexit debate, you'll find it frequently shows its face here on TVF expressed by pro-Brexit TVF members.

The presence and predominance of this view is a Brexit problem, never mind how do we negotiate with the EU, how do we negotiate with the xenophobic and racist mindset so predominant amongst Brexit supporters.

[MJP]

We don't want free movement of a. criminals. b. human traffickers, c. welfare tourists. d. terrorists.

I, personally would like to see the free movement of workers.

I don't want to see tariffs between UK/EU and I want the European countries to flourish too.

Once again, the Brexit campaign is a broad church, the message that people coming to the UK from Europe are all a. criminals. b. human traffickers, c. welfare tourists. d. terrorists. is writ large across much of the pro-Brexit debate, you'll find it frequently shows its face here on TVF expressed by pro-Brexit TVF members.

The presence and predominance of this view is a Brexit problem, never mind how do we negotiate with the EU, how do we negotiate with the xenophobic and racist mindset so predominant amongst Brexit supporters.

I agree. The racist nonsense needs to stop. This isn't about race, colour, etc.

It is about the UK's future self-determination outside an increasingly centralised federalist EU, an EU which ain't all roses.

By the way. Do you know anything about the ITER Tokamak project?

[GuestHouse]

There is also another problem I see far bigger than the negotiation that the UK must have with the EU if indeed Brexit does go ahead.

It's a very bitter, nasty problem that is almost perfectly demonstrated in this extract I've placed below:

I can see from your grammar that you're not British. What's your birth country?

I see the ugliness of your nationalism is breaking out.

You tell me what you think my birth country is and then enlighten me on why you think that matter?!

Rather (unintentionally ) ironic wouldn't you say?

Accusing someone ( a Briton) of displaying ugly nationalism in a thread whose title is itself a sneering play on the United Kingdoms geographical name!

We are now a nation bitterly divided, the division is political and socio-economical, but it is also being used as a springboard by racists and xenophobes and has, as the title of this thread suggests, drawn into question what is arguably the most effective and democratic political, social and economic unions - The Union that we know as the UK.

The nation is divided, that division needs to be healed before we can ever have a hope of making our way in the world (in or outside of the EU).

The very fist thing we need to stamp out is the use of racism and xenophobia to divide the nation and sadly too much of the condemnation of racism and xenophobia is being left the the supporters of the remain campaign. Too many Brexit supporters are either passive in their acceptance of racism and xenophobia within the Brexit camp or worse still actively take part in the promotion of racism and xenophobia.

A divided Britain will not get any deal out of anyone.

We need to get back to common decency and some understanding on what the acceptable bounds of public debate are.

[GuestHouse]

I agree. The racist nonsense needs to stop. This isn't about race, colour, etc.

It is about the UK's future self-determination outside an increasingly centralised federalist EU, an EU which ain't all roses.

By the way. Do you know anything about the ITER Tokamak project?

I agree entirely - accept the bit about he UK's future self-determination outside an increasingly centralised federalist EU

My view is the UK's best interests are in a reformed EU and I shall continue to make that argument.

[MJP]

There is also another problem I see far bigger than the negotiation that the UK must have with the EU if indeed Brexit does go ahead.

It's a very bitter, nasty problem that is almost perfectly demonstrated in this extract I've placed below:

I can see from your grammar that you're not British. What's your birth country?

I see the ugliness of your nationalism is breaking out.

You tell me what you think my birth country is and then enlighten me on why you think that matter?!

Rather (unintentionally ) ironic wouldn't you say?

Accusing someone ( a Briton) of displaying ugly nationalism in a thread whose title is itself a sneering play on the United Kingdoms geographical name!

We are now a nation bitterly divided, the division is political and socio-economical, but it is also being used as a springboard by racists and xenophobes and has, as the title of this thread suggests, drawn into question what is arguably the most effective and democratic political, social and economic unions - The Union that we know as the UK.

The nation is divided, that division needs to be healed before we can ever have a hope of making our way in the world (in or outside of the EU).

The very fist thing we need to stamp out is the use of racism and xenophobia to divide the nation and sadly too much of the condemnation of racism and xenophobia is being left the the supporters of the remain campaign. Too many Brexit supporters are either passive in their acceptance of racism and xenophobia within the Brexit camp or worse still actively take part in the promotion of racism and xenophobia.

A divided Britain will not get any deal out of anyone.

We need to get back to common decency and some understanding on what the acceptable bounds of public debate are.

+1 It'll take some fixing, but I'm sure it can be done.

We need to stand in the shoes of others to know why they think like they do. If you're an unemployed/under-employed redundant steel worker with a family to support in Redcar your beliefs will be much different to a city trader living in SW1. Although, no less of a person.

Mass uncontrolled immigration certainly hasn't helped in this regard and I can understand why people from the working class feel both embattled and bitter. It's not all of it, but it is part of it and that needs to be recognised.

[MJP]

I agree. The racist nonsense needs to stop. This isn't about race, colour, etc.

It is about the UK's future self-determination outside an increasingly centralised federalist EU, an EU which ain't all roses.

By the way. Do you know anything about the ITER Tokamak project?

I agree entirely - accept the bit about he UK's future self-determination outside an increasingly centralised federalist EU

My view is the UK's best interests are in a reformed EU and I shall continue to make that argument.

EU was never going to reform. Its instinct was expansion of both power and geographical influence. Not good in my opinion.

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” ― Mikhail Gorbachev

Edited July 12, 2016 by MJP

[GuestHouse]

+1 It'll take some fixing, but I'm sure it can be done.

We need to stand in the shoes of others to know why they think like they do. If you're an unemployed/under-employed redundant steel worker with a family to support in Redcar your beliefs will be much different to a city trader living in SW1. Although, no less of a person.

Mass uncontrolled immigration certainly hasn't helped in this regard and I can understand why people from the working class feel both embattled and bitter. It's not all of it, but it is part of it and that needs to be recognised.

I think its far bigger than that and I'm not so sure it is fixable within a time frame to bring us into a position were we are working together as a nation.

There is a deep rooted distrust of politics and politicians through the Brexit supporters, I agree with the point you make regarding the experience of individuals and I certainly agree that politicians themselves have not helped their own image - but lets be absolutely clear about something, the only people who will negotiate any deal for the UK is parliament, we need to restore trust in Parliament.

Looking at our politicians from overseas, the 'high levels of corruption and self serving behaviour' that they are charged with is laughable, there is certainly some level of corruption and self serving, but compared with politicians elsewhere in the world the UK's houses of parliament are a paradigm of honesty and public service.

To understand where the general public (but certainly not all of the general public) get this view of our politicians we need to examine who is promoting the message - this winds up at the right wing press and media.

The other side of the coin is the negative or worse still dismissive attitude the winners in our society have of the losers. Its not simply that the winners don't understand the view of the losers, the view of SW1 does not see the guy at Redcar, the winners have actively dismissed the losers. A personally lay the blame for this at the feet of Tony Blair and Nu-Labour with his focus to the winners in society while ignoring the very people that Labour were founded to represent.

A call to unite the country is obviously in to the benefit of all, and very clearly a united nation can do far better in or out the EU, an nation in disunity will not be able to negotiate any deal worth having with anyone.

But who now has the moral authority to make that call for unity and to pull it off.

Both sides of the referendum result distrust each other and one side completely distrusts our political system and politicians.

I'll say it again - we are a nation divided, this division is a far bigger issue than whether we remain in the EU or leave.

I do not see this division being resolved in at least a couple of decades, if ever.

[MJP]

+1 It'll take some fixing, but I'm sure it can be done.

We need to stand in the shoes of others to know why they think like they do. If you're an unemployed/under-employed redundant steel worker with a family to support in Redcar your beliefs will be much different to a city trader living in SW1. Although, no less of a person.

Mass uncontrolled immigration certainly hasn't helped in this regard and I can understand why people from the working class feel both embattled and bitter. It's not all of it, but it is part of it and that needs to be recognised.

I think its far bigger than that and I'm not so sure it is fixable within a time frame to bring us into a position were we are working together as a nation.

There is a deep rooted distrust of politics and politicians through the Brexit supporters, I agree with the point you make regarding the experience of individuals and I certainly agree that politicians themselves have not helped their own image - but lets be absolutely clear about something, the only people who will negotiate any deal for the UK is parliament, we need to restore trust in Parliament.

Looking at our politicians from overseas, the 'high levels of corruption and self serving behaviour' that they are charged with is laughable, there is certainly some level of corruption and self serving, but compared with politicians elsewhere in the world the UK's houses of parliament are a paradigm of honesty and public service.

To understand where the general public (but certainly not all of the general public) get this view of our politicians we need to examine who is promoting the message - this winds up at the right wing press and media.

The other side of the coin is the negative or worse still dismissive attitude the winners in our society have of the losers. Its not simply that the winners don't understand the view of the losers, the view of SW1 does not see the guy at Redcar, the winners have actively dismissed the losers. A personally lay the blame for this at the feet of Tony Blair and Nu-Labour with his focus to the winners in society while ignoring the very people that Labour were founded to represent.

A call to unite the country is obviously in to the benefit of all, and very clearly a united nation can do far better in or out the EU, an nation in disunity will not be able to negotiate any deal worth having with anyone.

But who now has the moral authority to make that call for unity and to pull it off.

Both sides of the referendum result distrust each other and one side completely distrusts our political system and politicians.

I'll say it again - we are a nation divided, this division is a far bigger issue than whether we remain in the EU or leave.

I do not see this division being resolved in at least a couple of decades, if ever.

Politicians creep around subjects of importance. They hide hard truths from the public. They're not effective communicators and they're far too rapped up in party politics of both the inter and intra variety. In the long run, this doesn't help, it doesn't inspire confidence and leaves a confused and bewildered public who are bound to protest vote when given the chance.

UK example. Demographics and immigration. If it was clearly explained why the UK needs immigration on such a scale witnessed then perhaps it would be greeted more favourably. That said, Blair reckoned he did it to "rub the right's nose in it" which clearly wasn't a commendable reason. Could have been managed a bit better.

EU example. “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” Jean Monnet. (Now, there is still a question mark over the veracity of this quote, however, it does make for a good example).

Be straight with people. Be honest and true however hard the subject. Explain what the problem is, explain what the project really is. Much blame must be laid at the media's door on this, particularly the tabloids.

One of my favourite politicians in this regard actually comes from the Labour Party, being Frank Field. Straight, honest, says it how it is without vitriol without fervour.

Edited July 12, 2016 by MJP

[GuestHouse]

^ I agree entirely.

Joe Cox was another example of a hard working, honest, politician from the grass roots of our society, some who won her place at our very best university purely on merit and went back to represent the people she grew up with - look at the price she paid for the hatred being peddled in our society.