Jan 2020
1:54pm, 10 Jan 2020
1,670 posts
|
JRitchie
Access to EU markets for Financial services is something the UK will want through some form of passporting and the EU holds the cards on. Its 12% of the UK economy so important to the UK (OK London, Manchester and Edinburgh). Don't expect a lot of noisy lobbying however, EU will, I suspect demand concessions and a lot of money for access. I'll be following how that develops with interest.
|
Jan 2020
1:55pm, 10 Jan 2020
9,956 posts
|
larkim
@jda - my point about Erasmus was that campaigners stating "“The Tory government has voted against continued involvement in the Erasmus scheme that allowed young people to spend time in other EU countries” is just not true. The commons (led by the Govt) did in fact oppose an amendment making Erasmus an "objective" so there is no hard and fast security that it might be retained. But they factually did not vote against such continued involvement. At best is is hyperbole intended to mobiles the remainers, at worst it is a fake news story. And I reacted to it because I saw it across my social media being repeated as a truth. It's not the finest example of remainers playing fast and loose with the truth in the way that the Brexiteers did, but it was a live example of the things I don't want to see the pro-remain lobby doing because it undermines proper debate and scrutiny. By all means remainers should highlight the severe threat to important EU related items which the govt can still choose to negotiate to retain - and keep those issues live. Erasmus is one, there are plenty of others out there. A robust level of debate can at least try to make Brexit as soft as possible; but just screaming "you're all Brexit liars" isn't (in my view) the tactic to achieve traction for that, either in the Commons, through the media or through personal contact / social media etc. That's the only point I'm trying (badly!) to make! |
|
Jan 2020
1:57pm, 10 Jan 2020
2,427 posts
|
Fellrunning
Essentially we're heading back to the 'Brain drain" days of the 1960s when anyone who wanted to get on in S&T left the country. The disturbing thing is that this time round some people seem to be positively welcoming the idea. |
Jan 2020
1:59pm, 10 Jan 2020
1,991 posts
|
Canute
Fellrunning Sadly, your irony might be accurate. It is absolutely crucial that we overcome scepticism regarding truth in public discussion. Many non-technical people are willing to be interested in the question of what science and technology might or might not offer our society, but they need to be able to trust the sources of information. |
Jan 2020
2:52pm, 10 Jan 2020
19,042 posts
|
DeeGee
Ironically, FR, leaving the EU might mean that all the football is back on one channel, and that will mean folk only have to have the one subscription. inbrief.co.uk So, again, win-win for the Brexitites! |
Jan 2020
5:00pm, 10 Jan 2020
6,094 posts
|
jda
larkim, that quote you provided is absolutely literally true. The govt quite definitely voted against an amendment seeking to keep us in erasmus. It would have been misleading to say that the govt voted to leave erasmus or that it voted to prohibit membership of erasmus or something along those lines. That's not what the quote says, however. It voted against a bit of (proposed) legislation that sought to keep us in. In the context of our parliamentary system, what else can "voted against [x]" mean other than "voted against a piece of legislation that seeks to achieve [x]"? |
|
Jan 2020
5:08pm, 10 Jan 2020
9,959 posts
|
larkim
No it's not true! They didn't vote "against continued involvement in Erasmus", that's simply not true. They voted against including it as a priority objective in the trade talks. As teh Ch4 factcheck report says "The rejected clause would have compelled the government “to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Erasmus+ education and youth programme”. Had it passed, the government would have been required by law to make staying part of the Erasmus scheme a priority in Brexit negotiations." So yes, they rejected making Erasums a compulsory priority. Yes, they did vote against an amendment seeking to keep us in Erasmus (your phrasing), but they did note vote against "continued involvment" in (their phrasing). Of course, their vote not to support the prioritisation of Erasmus can be seen as a sign of the govts level of commitment to it (relative to other issues), and despite their mealy mouthed words about the scheme after the vote, I don't have confidence it will exist beyond 2021. It's not a fruitful debate to be having though, I think we're just reading it differently (though I can't see how you read it your way, and you can't see why I read it mine!). That's fine. |
|
Jan 2020
5:11pm, 10 Jan 2020
199 posts
|
TommyK
JDA, the Erasmus amendment would have compelled the Government to include Erasmus as a priority in the negotiations, nothing more. Fact check say: "The rejected clause would have compelled the government “to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Erasmus+ education and youth programme”. Had it passed, the government would have been required by law to make staying part of the Erasmus scheme a priority in Brexit negotiations. ... Crucially, what many commentators seem to have missed is that voting the clause down, as Conservative MPs did last night, is not the same as scrapping UK involvement in the scheme.... " Full text here: channel4.com Having said that, I think Erasmus will be a casualty of Brexit, but it isn't yet. |
|
Jan 2020
5:12pm, 10 Jan 2020
200 posts
|
TommyK
Cross post with Larkim.
|
|
Jan 2020
5:28pm, 10 Jan 2020
6,095 posts
|
jda
Yes I understand all that (both posters). In the context of parliamentary votes, MPs don't get asked things like "are you for or against continued involvement in Erasmus?" and tick a box saying "against". Voting against something can only ever mean voting against legislation that seeks to achieve something. It's just a slightly more brief way of conveying the same meaning. How would you describe MPs voting against an early election, when they did that a few times in Sept/Oct? Is that a lie too, because actually all they voted against was a specific piece of legislation that would have called an election, they didn't vote "against an early election" in any general sense? |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
