If there is a second referendum ...

Thrugelmir

MobileSaver wrote: »

Please could you explain how holding a referendum (the very definition of democracy) makes democracy irrelevant?!?!

Referendum should not be able to be reheld for a minimum period of time. If the peoples representatives put their own views above those of the electorate. Then confidence will evaporate. Respect will be lost in the institutions that are meant to govern us.

Moe_The_Bartender

MobileSaver wrote: »

The irony is that it is the Leavers like you who want to thwart democracy because you're no longer confident that the democratic majority would vote the same way as last time.

Or to put it another way, it's remainers like you who didn't want a referendum at all and only agreed to accept the result of the first referendum as long as it delivered the result that they wanted. It's fundamentally hypocritical to say in one breath that a referendum is the very definition of democracy but only if you get the right result. You are the people who want to thwart democracy. Why can't you be honest about this?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Only a decade later, and these same Indian firms were offering the full range of services, including the higher value work.

What did the programmers in India do. They subbed the basic coding work out to Romania. Back in 2004. The company I worked found out and as a consequence went direct. US $6 an hour, absolute bargain.

A reflection of the open world we live in. There's always someone somewhere willing to do the work for less. Hardly surprising that there's a wage squeeze in many industries. Particularly where menial tasks are involved. Or where's no shortgage of suitably skilled people.

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Could this outer group really change things though?

We know the modus operandii of the EU; they aren't adverse to individual states rerunning referendums until the 'right' result is arrived at.

Without further integration, I don't see how the EU resolves some of it's problems. You can't have multiple states in the Eurozone behaving like Italy when it comes to budget.

That would depend on who were in that outer group. My comment about EFTA is purely based on it being a reasonable stepping stone from IN to OUT, one that would be less disruptive than what we are in danger of seeing. Also it is a better reflection of the referendum and likely to be more unifying than a hard Brexit or Remain.

I agree with your last remark, but if UK were followed into EFTA by for example Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden it would be in better position to negotiate with a smaller EU. If it never happens its still a better solution than a cliff edge. Of course most people do not want a consensus.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

It's not going to bring an end to the dissatisfaction people feel.

Neither will leaving the EU.

So we may as well just stay and be more prosperous.

Thrugelmir

walesrob wrote: »

I wouldn't be sure about that. The UK is having problems leaving the EU club, I'd imagine the job of independence for NI, Wales or Scotland would be a lot more problematic, given the much tighter integration.

Doesn't seem to deter the idealists as far as Scotland is concerned. A reunited Ireland isn't as problematic from an integration POV. Difficult to see Wales standing alone without a major transformation of the economy.

BobQ

Banks and other financial companies have shifted at least £800 billion ($1 trillion) worth of assets out of the country and into the European Union because of Brexit, EY said in a report published Monday.

EY said that the companies it tracks have already created around 2,000 new jobs elsewhere in the European Union in response to Brexit.
Deutsche Bank (DB), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Citi (C) have already moved parts of their business out of the United Kingdom. Dublin, Luxembourg, Frankfurt and Paris were the most popular destinations.
EY said financial companies were likely to move more assets and create more jobs in other European cities over the coming weeks. "The closer we get to March 29 without a deal, the more assets will be transferred and headcount hired locally or relocated," Ali added.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/investing/brexit-banks-moving-assets/index.html

Thrugelmir

Assets are simply numbers on the balance sheet. No particularly bearing on anything. Liabilities will likewise have to be transferred. As banks hold little of their own equity relative to their size.

By 2015. UK banks had cut 186,000 jobs following the GFC. This includes branch restructuring etc. 2,000 needs to be kept in perspective. Funny how people now love bankers. When they couldn't kick them hard enough. Strange world we live in of contradictory views depending on the circumstances.

badmemory

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Respect will be lost in the institutions that are meant to govern us.

I fear that boat has already sailed!

Herzlos

There's quite a difference between wanting bankers to take less dangerous risk (driven by the bonus culture), and wanting rid of them altogether.

I may not like them, but I'm also aware they make up about 11% of the economy and we kind of rely on them to pay a lot of the tax take.