Brexit Referendum Superthread

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I specified *senior* level absolute numbers for French and German above and that was what you queried. You are moving my goalposts that I set out because it transpired I wasn't wrong. I threw you a bone and pointed out Spanish was different.

This is not a comparison of the education systems. It is a comparison of how many teenagers take languages to senior level in absolute numbers and not proportionally. Saying I should look at gcse and junior cert numbers is not answering that question.

in the UK, senior level is GCSE.

neither really answers your point that the Irish consider themselves more european.

The reason I was surprised, is that I would consider the language skills in Ireland no different to those in the UK. The only difference being that to me, it appears more people can speak conversational Spanish in Ireland than in England, but more French in England.

But then, I grew up in an area where people were known to nip to France once a month for shopping, or to drive to the Alps every year for skiing. It may be different the further you go north.

In the UK senior level is GCSE? And you want me to compare that to Junior Cert? Really?

I speak fluent French and German btw and I live in a country where both are official languages. I provided you with a source for the claim I made in terms of numbers.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

In the UK senior level is GCSE? And you want me to compare that to Junior Cert? Really?

well, no. GCSE is a higher level than junior cert, but there is no direct comparison for the leaving cert. Post GCSE, people will either leave education, or move on to one of the numerous other types of education.

Calina wrote: »

speak fluent French and German btw and I live in a country where both are official languages.

that's nice for you.

Calina

dinorebel wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I specified *senior* level absolute numbers for French and German above and that was what you queried. You are moving my goalposts that I set out because it transpired I wasn't wrong. I threw you a bone and pointed out Spanish was different.

This is not a comparison of the education systems. It is a comparison of how many teenagers take languages to senior level in absolute numbers and not proportionally. Saying I should look at gcse and junior cert numbers is not answering that question.

A better comparison would be languages at degree level the figures you highlighted are pretty meaningless given the differences in education systems.

Not certain I can lay my hands on those numbers and they aren't straightforward to compare either as languages exist as stand alone or as components of mixed honour degrees. I do know that a significsnt number of language courses in the UK have closed over the last 10 years however owing to reduced demand.

I reiterate that I made a very specific claim about a specific cohort of students and backed up that claim with numbers and source.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

In the UK senior level is GCSE? And you want me to compare that to Junior Cert? Really?

well, no. GCSE is a higher level than junior cert, but there is no direct comparison for the leaving cert. Post GCSE, people will either leave education, or move on to one of the numerous other types of education.

Calina wrote: »

speak fluent French and German btw and I live in a country where both are official languages.

that's nice for you.

You might point me at the stats for those students who go straight from gcses to a university undergraduate course.

But you did advise me to compare JC with GCSEs in post 8575.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we keep to the referendum please instead of comparing schooling systems?

First Up

djpbarry wrote:

The commission does not drive the bus, the elected representatives of member states do and, by extension, the citizens of those states.

In an earlier post I used the analogy that the Commission drives the bus on routes assigned to it by the member states.

djpbarry

First Up wrote: »

In an earlier post I used the analogy that the Commission drives the bus on routes assigned to it by the member states.

I think you're being a bit generous in implying that governments have a road map.

First Up

djpbarry wrote:

I think you're being a bit generous in implying that governments have a road map.

Well the European Union is by some distance the most successful political and economic initiative in history so if they have managed that without a map, fair dues.

catbear

First Up wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

I think you're being a bit generous in implying that governments have a road map.

Well the European Union is by some distance the most successful political and economic initiative in history so if they have managed that without a map, fair dues.

Well the goal was cooperation. Obviously the UK always kept a distance.

First Up

catbear wrote:

Well the goal was cooperation. Obviously the UK always kept a distance.

After two destructive wars in forty years, I think the goal was a bit more than that.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

After two destructive wars in forty years, I think the goal was a bit more than that.

The EEC was set up to make sure war in Europe would not happen again. In that they succeeded.

The next goal was to make sure people did not starve. In that they succeeded, that is why the Common Agriculture Policy was centre stage of EEC policies.

The third goal was to achieve social justice across Europe. In that they succeeded by setting up the ECHR .

On the whole, Europe is a more just (and richer) place than it would have been without it. It is more democratic and has a better rule of law than any other such region in the world - now or ever.

Britain (or more specifically - England) has chosen to walk away from this institution that has helped it too become wealthier.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

On the whole, Europe is a more just (and richer) place than it would have been without it. It is more democratic and has a better rule of law than any other such region in the world - now or ever.

And it came from the rubble of two of the most destructive wars in history, themselves the legacy of centuries of fuedal monarchies and plundering empires.

Nothing in history comes close to matching the vision and courage of Schumann and those who drove it forward.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Britain (or more specifically - England) has chosen to walk away from this institution

Or to be actually correct, England and Wales.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or to be actually correct, England and Wales.

And a very slim majority in both.

devnull

Sky News are live from Dublin this morning to discuss impact of Brexit and politics etc.

steddyeddy

Yes Micheal Barnier was in DUblin to address the Dail. From the BBC.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said he will work to avoid a hard Irish border after the UK leaves the European Union.
He was speaking at a joint session of the Irish houses of parliament in Dublin.
He is the first non-head of state or prime minister to make such an address.
Mr Barnier told Irish parliamentarians he had a duty to speak the truth and that the "UK's departure from the EU would have consequences".
He also emphasised that customs controls were part of EU border management.
When the UK leaves the EU, it means the Irish border will become a customs frontier.
'Creative approach'
The British and Irish governments have both said they do not want a return to customs posts on the border.
The EU's negotiating guidelines call for a "flexible and creative" approach to the customs issue.
However, no solid plans have yet been advanced by either the EU or the UK.
Mr Barnier said that whatever happened in negotiations, "nothing should put peace at risk".
He added that he wanted to "reassure the Irish people" that in the Brexit negotiations the Republic of Ireland's interest will be the EU's interest.
Mr Barnier said the EU wants the negotiations with the UK to succeed.
"We will need to negotiate a 'bold and ambitious', but fair, free-trade agreement," he said.
Addressing Mr Barnier in the joint committee, Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams told him he wanted to see a border poll within the next five years.
The EU negotiating guidelines state that issues relating to the Irish border will have be resolved in the first phase of its talks with the UK.
The guidelines call for "flexible and imaginative solutions" to avoid a hard border.

But they caution that any solution needs to "respect the integrity of the EU legal order".
That is understood to refer to how customs controls will be enforced between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Barnier said the Irish border issue would be "one of his three priorities in negotiations".

The UK and Irish governments have repeatedly said they do not want a return to customs posts at the border.
The taoiseach (Irish prime minister) has described Brexit as being bad bad for the UK, for Europe and the Republic of Ireland.
Enda Kenny said it challenges Ireland's peace and prosperity, although he said the country would maintain its close relationship with the UK.

he Republic of Ireland's economy is particularly vulnerable to any new tariff or regulatory barriers with the UK, which may arise as a result of Brexit.
The chief economist of the Irish Central Bank has warned that within 10 years of a "hard Brexit", the number of people employed would be 40,000 fewer, compared with a no-Brexit scenario.
Gabriel Fagan said that some small and medium-sized Irish businesses are "likely to be among the hardest hit by Brexit".
Seán Ó Fearghaíl, the speaker of the Dáil (Irish parliament), said Mr Barnier's address was "timely and appropriate" given that Brexit "could have a greater impact on Ireland than any on other EU state".
"As legislators there is an onus on us to be fully informed on the implications of Brexit on this country in particular and on the EU in general and to communicate our particular concerns on Brexit," he added.
Mr Barnier is expected to visit a food production business close to the Irish border on Friday.

BoatMad

Theres an easy solution to the North , that is to basically leave it inside the Single Market , The unionists will never buy it of course

The bigger issue of ireland trading with the UK is far more important then NI

Consonata

BoatMad wrote: »

Theres an easy solution to the North , that is to basically leave it inside the Single Market , The unionists will never buy it of course

The bigger issue of ireland trading with the UK is far more important then NI

Thats a solution alright.

I wouldn't call it easy though :pac:

BoatMad

Consonata wrote: »

Thats a solution alright.

I wouldn't call it easy though :pac:

easy to implement, practical to control as controls can be easily placed on the UK mainland, easy both for the UK and the 27 to agree on too ( its a small place )

not easy for certain sections to accept , of course, thats a different issue

Consonata

BoatMad wrote: »

easy to implement, practical to control as controls can be easily placed on the UK mainland

not easy for certain sections to accept , of course, thats a different issue

It would mean that the UK would have to accept they have no say over trade or a vast number of economic policies in the NI, since they would be effectively working on a different wavelength to the UK on a few issues.

It would be easier to give it to us with a blank check.

Zubeneschamali

Consonata wrote: »

It would mean that the UK would have to accept they have no say over trade or a vast number of economic policies in the NI

True, but then they don't give two hoots about NI, and wish it would quietly leave anyhow, so that won't worry them.

BoatMad

Consonata wrote: »

It would mean that the UK would have to accept they have no say over trade or a vast number of economic policies in the NI, since they would be effectively working on a different wavelength to the UK on a few issues.

It would be easier to give it to us with a blank check.

No it would mean that NI would operate economically and from a migrant perspective under an agreed set of rules agreed between the UK and the EU , given its in effect governed that way , I see little practical issues, the issues are of course all emotional .

the UK itself wouldn't give a fig and would be delighted to take NI off the agenda ( and it would give it a bargaining chip to play elsewhere in its negotiations )

First Up

BoatMad wrote:

No it would mean that NI would operate economically and from a migrant perspective under an agreed set of rules agreed between the UK and the EU , given its in effect governed that way , I see little practical issues, the issues are of course all emotional .

Plenty of devil in the detail of that one. Will UK customs be asked (and agree to operate) an internal border? How will goods destined only for N.I. be separated from goods going to the Republic (and potentially on to elswhere in the EU)?

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

Plenty of devil in the detail of that one. Will UK customs be asked (and agree to operate) an internal border? How will goods destined only for N.I. be separated from goods going to the Republic (and potentially on to elswhere in the EU)?

no different from the many customs areas that operate in similar ways, Canary islands, Channel islands ( which are not in the EU ) , etc

NI will be inside the Customs union, goods in NI are in free circulation, goods ships from the UK mainland and vice versa are subject to whatever rules are agreed between the EU and the Uk

simple and easy. same process for migrants , EU nationals circulate freely on the island of ireland and are subject to whatever rules when the enter mainland UK

Ni would not benefit from any UK specific third country trade deals , but would remain subject to EU trade rules & directives , however it would not be subject to subsequent EU regulations until agreed on a case by base basis

Will UK customs be asked (and agree to operate) an internal border

yes , they effectively did so post ww2 for people movement . In practice implementing the border on mainland UK is the only practical way to police such a border.

First Up

BoatMad wrote:

In practice implementing the border on mainland UK is the only practical way to police such a border.

And getting that into operation will be where the fun begins.

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

And getting that into operation will be where the fun begins.

practical problems , none, emotional issue for Unionists , 100%

First Up

Assuming the UK is in the Customs Union. And Unionists may not be the only ones objecting to HM government enforcing an internal border on behalf of the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Assuming the UK is in the Customs Union. And Unionists may not be the only ones objecting to HM government enforcing an internal border on behalf of the EU.

UK will not be in the customs union. Look at how much sovereignty Turkey had to give up to get that. For a start it means the EU would decide all of the UK's foreign trade tariffs , without the UK having a say.


If NI stay in a customs union with ROI then it means that instead of 200+ border crossings to manage 24/7 there's just a few ports with scheduled ferries. Airports are already setup , just need to change a few signs about which channel to use.


IIRC there was something earlier in the week about companies registering for customs fast clearance if they have the proper documentation in place for place of origin and destination, to prevent stuff being reclassified once it crosses the border.

steddyeddy

A special status for NI might be a solution for NI but I don't see unionists accepting it. I don't know why.

Water John

Interesting, the status of the Channel Islands and Gibralter that some posters brought up. The Isle of Man too, has some strange status.
I'm sure if discussions are going reasonably well, an innovative solution for these and NI can be found.
Thus the Unionists cannot see themselves as being treated as lesser Britons.
They would then be part of a group of states/entities, with attachment to the UK but having a special relationship with the EU.

This then is not a special relationship between NI and the ROI, which Unionists may baulk at.