Engineer readers think that ensuring tariff-free trade with the remaining EU states is the most important factor for the sector following the UK’s exit from the Union
In a strong response from 685 readers, preserving tariff-free access to the Single Market came out as the most popular option for how The Engineer should shape its coverage of the Brexit process, attracting 38 per cent of votes. This week’s poll will study this option in more detail. Defending manufacturing jobs was the second favourite option, with 27 per cent of votes. Securing sources of funding for R&D came next on 14 per cent, with addressing the skills gap on 11 per cent. Six per cent of respondents thought that we should eschew campaigning but focus instead on connecting those who are having difficulties post-Brexit with expert help, while the options for clarifying standards and leveraging the expertise of retired engineers both attracted 2per cent of votes.
As we indicated last week, all of these options are likely to be important during and after any negotiation process, and we will continue to highlight the issues on which the prosperity of the science, engineering, technology and manufacturing sectors depends. Please coninue to send us your opinions on this subject.
UK should via its executive with the Queen as its head, be sensible enough to revisit the referendum outcome and suggest rerun within the next 24 months. Leaving the EU is a negative step. will be bad for every country not just the UK . “Little England” voted for its misguided/misinformed self interest. it ignored Scotland and Northern Ireland by voting to leave. If the outcome is not reversed then the UK as we know it is finished.
Wrong, I am delighted we are coming out. I was starting and growing businesses before 1970 we can just keep selling and buying from the EU without tariffs.
If I had a Euro for everyone who has told me they voted out, but didn’t expect a leave result, then I could afford to migrate to Europe. I have yet to meet anyone in the engineering sector who considers Brexit a viable option (well, maybe one lone voice), but have meet plenty of sweet old ladies who want to take the country back to a glorious era of rationing, TB and zero survivability for many currently survivable diseases. I urge every right-thinking individual interested in the future global prosperity to sign the govt petition to rerun the referendum – this time with a balanced informative debate demonstrating the values of continued integration, and cutting out some of the tub-thumping bigotry. Currently running at over 4m signatures, if the political class ignore this, then we really do have a problem with democratic representation.
The goverment petition to re-run the referendum was started by a person who thought that the remain campaign was going to win by a narrow margin and wanted to apply the union voting rules of 60% in favour if under 75% voted. He has since publically said he wish he could take it back as it is unnecessarily complicating the action that is now necessary. If anyone had a good argument for remain/leave than the campaign was the time to do it, not after the voting has taken place.
It cannot be right to re-visit the referendum. More than half the country thought that “Leave” was the right answer. Let us all work to make the decision a benefit. I would like to see us rebuild the trading relationships of the Commonwealth which had to be dismantled when we joined the EU. With the balance of trade in Europe’s favour it should be possible to get good access to their markets too. I voted “Remain” by the way.
Yes, and nearly half the country voted to remain. More to the point, those excluded form the vote and who will experience the greatest long-term impact, were unable to have a say in their future as they were too young. They are the future engineers the current generations should be voting for!
And I am getting sick of all those campaigning outside parliament and at other places up and down the country wanting the vote overturned because they do not like the result. The working people of this country have been told what to think and do for the last 40 years and have had enough of London. But those outside Parliament want more of the same. If this vote is overturned there will be violence on the streets because the feeling of exasperation will boil over. Besides when I was at university we marched against bureaucracy and railed against the banks. How ironic that this present youth have become so reactionary.
Only 37% of eligible voters voted leave. All the experts said leaving the EU was a bad idea but we were told to ignore experts and it looks like many of us did. It’s not democratic if the electorate votes on misinformation. It seems we ignored the important things so voting was more to do with ill defined emotions about sovereignty and foreigners etc. Never mind, it will soon be Christmas.
Somebody above stated that just over half the country voted to leave the EU, Actually it was just over half of the people who voted; voted to leave the EU . Now with the recent Camoron, Boris Johnson and Gove shenanigans and revelations regarding the falsehoods quoted during the election campaign many that voted out now wish they hadn’t. Especially those that have a foreign holiday booked!
We should campaign for foreign companies with large numbers of employees in the UK to keep their facilities here. Also we should be campaigning to continue trade with the eu, without tariffs.
It won’t happen unless we have free movement of people and pay towards the EU.
Just like we do at the moment but with no say in the laws we have to obey!
I 100% support re-running the referendum. Brexit will be a disaster for UK manufacturing and engineering. The electorate were misled into making the wrong decision by a campaign of deceit and propaganda which will do nothing bu harm our country. I encourage you to sign the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
I voted for “information service” because I thought that it would be novel to have some facts in the debate
There are no “facts”, only opinions. My opinion was that we are better “In” but the majority thought otherwise. Now let us all work to that end.
First priority is to do what we’re good at; so raise the funds and do it. Closely linked with this would be to generate tangible links / partnerships; company to company, individual to individual. Those partnerships will be the bedrock of the future, being isolated and not performing helps nobody. Jobs, Tariffs, Regaining influence, etc. will follow and can only be realized if we do our engineering well and that means leading.
I wonder why no option to “Identify and Fix the UKs woefully low Productivity issues”?
Both the UK and the EU area are suffering from low productivity growth – infact the whole referendum debate was about routes of trade rather than being more productive in WHAT we trade and how it could be made more productively. Productivity is not of course all automation and mechanisation but I would have thought a publication called The Engineer might spare some of its pages to cover it, even including a ‘Tame’ economist in to explain in clear but non patronising terms what our productivity issues are.
Questions around the media stories on one hand predicting how we are going to have all of our jobs automated coexist with the actual relatively low growth in Industrial Robots on the other. Worth a explore?
So my own multiple choice ( a cheeky but useful joke):Does The Engineer not cover productivity because:
i) It does not consider it important as a subject
ii) It might be better dealt with elsewhere in other publications
iii) The readers may be shocked by what they find out
iv) We are reaching somekind of technological limit to increasing productivity
V) Increasing productivity is more important
vi) None of the above (please explain your reasoning)
As I said, we’re happy to accept suggestions; and as it happens, we’ve covered productivity recently with more articles in the pipeline
Stuart that is good but I guess my point is that it is THE subject that mainstream economists seem less than happy to go into any real detail (preferring to go on about Trade deals and ‘Market Confidence’- all important of course). Politicians only pay lipservice to the subject – preferring to talk up and support ‘sexy’ semi new-industries such as Driverless cars, IoT etc. Even Industry 4.0 is rarely talked about in terms of addressing productivity. As I’ve said before – the connection between unproductive sectors ‘hoarding’ engineers who may be better employed to satisfy the skills gap in new and potentially more productive industries is not talked about – because it might actually require us to be critcical about some engineering sectors rather than flattering?
The media is always seeking sensation so we get one report on how we are heading towards disaster because of an aging population and therefore no workforce followed by another forecasting unemployment because of the development of robots. The latter is the solution to the former. The trick will be to get the balance right and manage the change.
Should have read ‘an explore’ and v) Increasing productivity inservices is more important.
It wouldn’t have caught the last one – but it would be nice to have a subeditor for the publication of any comments in the ‘print’ edition? – Some comments (my own included )do go on and sometimes a subeditor extracting out a core point may be of benefit to everyone.
Apologies for that. Our resources are spread rather thinly, and sometimes it’s difficult to pinpoint what a commenter’s core point in a long comment is.
The choices given remind me of the classic Star trek issue where Picard as a cadet is put in an unwinnable situation to test his ability in zero chance survivability, but broke the simulation rules to survive. We also need an option to survive and fight the exit!
Even Farage has stated that if close we need a second referendum
He said: in May “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”
He just got the margin the wrong way round!
As engineers we need to show how bad this is tor the UK and fight for another referendum (the current one was not binding anyway) – even Farage has to see the fairness in that 🙂
It was Kirk, and if I could get on the Enterprise I would, provided it wasn’t going near Planet Farage or Planet Corbyn.
If it was, then you could always vote to leave the ship and step out into the deep unknowns of a vast uncharted territory….I suspect you’d get the same sort of aimless drifting feeling that many of us are feeling right now.
That was Kirk, but what we really need now is a time portal such as in “City at the edge of time” so that we can send all of those who are now having second thoughts about their Leave vote back through it and get them to change it. There are so many of those that it looks like Nigel would then have had a reason to concede at the beginning of the count
We could get more people back if we used a Tardis. Plenty of space, and it’s more energy-efficient.
Yes you are of course correct, I was just thinking of the crush in the control room but as you say the inside of the TARDIS is infinite, however you might have illegal immigrants from the future infesting the timeline for decades.
The Tardis being telepathic, it could detect the ill intentions of anyone on board and jettison them safely.
Hence in May, a leave voter created a petition to make a rule to the referendum for repetition, if the participation is less than 75% and the winner gets less than 60%. Now that petition got close to 4 million signatures.
Even though I voted to remain (the marginal lesser of two evils), I don’t actually think we were doing all that well even as part of the EU. We have a deeper problem in this country when it comes to productivity which goes way deeper than being, or not being, a member of the EU.
We need a fundamental re-evaluation of our ambitions as a nation that puts science and engineering at the forefront. This includes what sort of people we want to be running it (enough lawyers and accountants already) and how we prepare our young people for the future, especially when it comes to putting vocational and academic education on a level (and equally valued) footing.
I have to admit to having changed my mind at the last moment in the referendum, having originally been a ‘leaver’. The thing that changed my mind was a strong doubt that we have either the political leadership or the commercial nous to make it on our own – initial signs post 23rd June seem to bear this out…
As Brexit’s entirely honest and believable “campaign” put it, we can rely on the financial sector to make us all rich. No need to worry, as that’s 100% guaranteed! So I guess it may not matter if we have an industrial basis after all, as we’ll all be rich beyond our wildest dreams, basking in a post-exit world of honey and glory. No, sorry, wait … what’s this I hear? Banks are leaving the City. Well, I don’t think anyone could possibly have foreseen that eventuality.
As a neighbour, – and a CEng, – I’m dismayed with the news from England (yes, England), – and so are so many of us here in Ireland. Thanks, Stuart Nathan, for the opportunity to comment. As you can see from the above comments, the Engineer can usefully host a forum ‘post Brexit’.
We made a bit of a mistake in a referendum on the Nice Treaty, so we held it again. Problem solved. You have a very much bigger problem, and at least half of it seems to emanate from Westminster. Ignore the referendum (that’s allowed)? Hold it again? Maybe a general election? Vote Green Party? Remember, – climate change is a far far greater concern for us ALL than Brexit.
Again, a series of well argued views and comments based upon ‘the scientific method’ which I am sure all ‘Engineering’ bloggers were trained and educated to apply to all our thinking! but see how the word-weasels are already wriggling. And we let their contemporaries write-up and decide on technical matters (patents):
Actually havn’t heard a whisper about that matter!? Presumably the 6,000 (I will repeat that, 6,000) technically impotent word-smiths who inhabit the european patent Office must be…Well what must they be thinking?
The true shame of this is that now the referendum has gone ahead, against all odds the “Leave” vote has won albeit with a slim margin (<4%). The situation now is that we have a parliament which as was pointed out by Michael Heseltine would, in a straight vote in parliament, vote for Remain with a huge majority of over 300 representing a country with a slight desire to leave in negotiations to leave with the EU. In reality "Call me Dave" should have asked for parliament to be dissolved and a new election should be run on the basis of a government of National Unity where the party lines are ignored but the candidates are chosen based on their leave/remain stance. If this falls out to leave again, then we have a government that has the will to withdraw and do so properly, if remain wins then we have a government that can go back to the EU and sort the mess out. After that we can have another election in 3-4 years time intending to return to business as usual either in or out of the EU. This situation is so serious and so dangerous to the continuation of the UK that it can't be left to the traditional parties to resolve, they are too divided, and the present crop of MP's are too invested in the EU anyway
My interests are in the working of the EU single market. I notice that the poll identifies two aspects of the UK single market that are likely to affect UK engineering related to the single market:
1) tariff free access to the single market and
5) clarification on standards.
Although Tariff free access is important, WTO identifies that non tariff barriers are a greater impediment to trade than tariff barriers. These are represented by both possible differences in standards (voluntary practices) and technical regulations. In practice engineered products sold in the EU internal market are often subject to regulations based on EU directives or regulations. This will not change. The difference for the UK is more likely to be in the Conformity Assessment that is necessary to support regulations – if UK Conformity Assessment Bodies are “delisted” (ie can no longer accepted) this will require the use of foreign conformity assessment bodies that continue to be accepted in Europe. I’d suggest that a strong message needs to be sent to UK government of the importance of not allowing a gap between UK and EU regulatory practices to avoid the risks of change. For other non EU markets the provisions will not change, and those that are currently marketing should continue to do so. I think sadly this issue is not well understood, as indicated by the question in the poll. Although this is not as headline grapping as the fall in value of the pound it should be of importance to those engineering products in sectors that are regulated.
Skills gap. Whatever the outcome of anything, we need skilled personnel in all sectors. The apprenticeship scheme for all you don’t go on to universities shall be strengthened. To accommodate lifelong learning, we need modules. Basic modules for beginners, extended modules for seniors and changers.
2 years for a starter from school after which they have a certificate to show and can start earning serious money. This will also benefit flexibility and mobility of the workforce and founding of a family elsewhere. We shant bound young people for too long onto one place.
I believe this is something that can be delivered by the engineering profession. Which is better than just to demand something from the politicians.
Just a reminder to people that this is not a forum to call people who voted for either referendum option idiots; nor is it a place to tell people who don’t like the result to ‘live with it’. Such comments have been and will continue to be deleted. This discussion is to determine how we should handle the fallout from the poll, which will happen regardless of how anyone feels about the result. It should be obvious that doing nothing is not an option.
Many of you will have experience of a technical ‘due diligence’ exercise, and a margin of +/- 2% would hardly add credibility to such a momentous decision as Brexit. Re-run the referendum, with well-informed pollsters or (with a new government), just put it aside.
IF (and that should be a big ‘IF’) Brexit does go ahead, then Britain will need, inter alia, engineers, so – address the skills gap.
We need engineers and skilled workers in any case. The bonus with skilled workers: they can be skilled anywhere in the world. Happy employees will make happy customers. More money is easily spent, nobody can take away your skills. If those certificates are recognized all over the country it’s good. If they are recognised beyond the border it is even better. A good education creates a strong bond, regardless of where the people move to later.
Engineers are trained to make pragmatic decisions based on fact. As such we should council those around us to find and check information. Then we should make decisions based on likely best outcome . This can be guided by political or personal belief but, and here is the key, we cannot stand by and watch people vote for anything on a wish again. ALL of the press, and the Engineer is part of this, should offer factual content and so advise.
And of course when I say wish, lies too. As a profession we should lead the way by correcting errors on both sides of the argument. Shame this clearly does not rub off onto many of those who work in “our” factories. This is maybe why so few engineers enter politics.
The only way i can comment on how i am feeling at the moment is like a child who has found themselves alone in the dark and is seeking someone to show them the way to the light and reassure them that it will all will be well again
But even the ranks of the Leave Lobby nobody can see the light and does not even seen to know where to find it?
I have thought for many years now that to leave the EU would amount to Economic Suicide and believe me i really would like to be proved wrong in the statement but at the moment?????
From reading the comments about a second vote being the way forward. i have to say that with such a small Out/In Margin surely this has to be looked at.
As one comment has already pointed out this decision will affect us for many decades to come and is this the sort of legacy we wish to leave for our Children – we have to be 100% sure about this
I believe many people who voted leave, fired up by lie`s and also not believing it would actually happen, there should now be another referendum, so the country can get out of the mess it has got itself into, though who would blame our European partners if they were to say good riddance.
Well said Nick. Do you wan the job of PM, as you talk a lot more sense than any politician?
Brexit will be a disaster for UK manufacturing and engineering. The electorate were deceived by a distorted campaign of propoganda into making the wrong decision, which is now becoming, by the day, ever more apparent. The result was marginal and the consequences are too severe to ignore. The referendum needs to be revisited after a more informed debate. I encourage you to sign the petition below: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
I have copied and pasted the following important paragraph from Wikipedia , albeit sadly with no relevant source reference available regarding same . Could someone please confirm /expand on the following reported claim, which if reported accurately, may significantly distort or negate UK benefit ,versus other EU member States , quantitatively based on the volume / size of successful UK applications for EU funds , submitted from the UK during each and every year while UK was a EU member ;
“The rebate distorts UK funding negotiations with the EU. Normally, countries and independent agencies within each country bid to receive central EU funds. The UK government is aware that two-thirds of any EU funding will in effect be deducted from the rebate and come out of UK government funds. Thus the UK has only a one-third incentive to apply for EU funds. Other countries, whose contributions into the budget are not affected by funds they receive back, have no incentive to moderate their requests for funds.
Furthermore, many EU grants are conditional on the recipient finding a proportion of funding from local sources, frequently national or local government. This increases the proportion coming from UK government revenue even further. This has the effect of artificially reducing EU expenditure returning to the UK and worsening the deficit which the rebate is intended to redress. “
To quote the press and other media “Shock waves are being felt throughout Europe” I voted to remain, however, not one leave or remain pundit articulated ‘Critical Mass’ and therefore should not be surprised at the results. Whether we stayed or left understanding critical mass was key to making an informed decision.
The question that should have been asked of those politician were 1) Has the UK got sufficient critical mass to stay within the ‘golden sector’ if it left and 2) Did the UK have sufficient critical Mass to stop a ‘runaway Europe’ if we stayed in the EU?
Now that we have voted to leave we need to stop crying and moaning over ‘spilt milk’ and unite to form an exit plan that will put the UK in a position to hold onto the ‘golden sector’
One big step in this direction would be properly financed applied research and engineering that a) attracts investment and b) produces a saleable commodity.
For those not familiar with critical mass theory it affects every living thing and dynamic process- there are plenty of books out there on the subject if we care to read them.
If we are to remain out of Europe then I would like to see a lot more emphasis from the government on the fundamental issue of getting Britain back to being a manufacturing nation as we used to be. It will take many years of continued investment in manufacturing , research and bringing our many innovative ideas to fruition as products made by UK companies. We used to rival countries like Japan and Germany, but successive governments have forgotten that it is the adding value to and the sale of products that generate true wealth and employment in an economy and not service industries. If we can spend several billion pounds on the HS2 rail link then surely we can find money to fund longer lasting projects in research and manufacturing that will provide much longer benefits to more people across the country.
Push for a) a General Election and b) A re-run of the referendum
How about suing Boris (where’s my cricket bat?) and Gove (a pox on your experts) for the lies they uttered during their campaign?
Had this been other than a political bunfight the Advertising Standards Authority would have come down like the proverbial tonne of bricks. The exiters have already reneged on money for the NHS and fewer immigrants.
Not that Osborne and Cameron were much better.
How could anyone trust someone who has run a campaign of this magnitude based on disrespect, dishonesty and intolerance and who has openly misled those he hopes to represent.
Time and again, when asked, he has told us not to worry as we’re the worlds 5th largest economy (in what?) and that the finance industry will provide jobs, but has provided nothing for industry apart from ‘hope’ that things will be okay. Can you honestly trust this man?
I voted for preserving free tarrifs. I think, however, that the Engineers’s best ability is that it knows about engineering and can be a source of information to the public who usually don’t understand an industry. I think that people in a sense don’t know that “milk comes from cows, not supermarkets”. Even engineers stuck in one profession won’t know about others. So you could do articles or sort of “info pages” that explain the aspects of engineering in the UK, how it affects us and how it is connected to the outside world. How it works from an employment perspective – who it employs, what trades etc.
Rapid removal of the suffocating regulations that cripple our manufacturing industry.
Rapid removal from the tech transfer and R&D block exemptions and other regulations that prevent 100% grant for development projects.
Pushing for increased trade around the rest of the world.
It won’t be rapid.
Is there any details about this subject in other languages?
http://www.aracbuzdolabi.net
Surely the petition will require more than half the population to get re-vote? Keep going you only have a few more million people to find that really want it.
Try by looking in Scotland and London as they appear to want to stay. May be that has to do with where their money comes from??
P.s. I am Scottish and work in London, but voted out where I live!
Your remark on out campaign “tub thumping bigotry” is typical of an ivory tower view. Pat Glass, now in the shadow cabinet stated in a remain debate held in Wolverhampton that “older white men were the problem” ! Bigotry exists on both sides of the debate.
I believe Pat Glass has now resigned from the Shadow Cabinet.
The Engineer (and the IET) should use its influence to get an assurance that all current EU research funding (in the UK) will be replaced by UK funding when we leave.
The press said that half the £18billion we pay the EU comes back as EU funding. So there will be money available to replace EU funding. I’m guessing that this £9billion EU funding will include a few large projects and myriad small ones.
If the Government sifts through all of these, approving them one by one, it could take a decade, before a small but vital research project gets its EU funding replaced by UK funding (by which time it would be “dead in the water”).
Obviously it is not sensible to guarantee that all funding continues in perpetuity, but continuing after the exit must be the default, so that all these small research groups can keep their staff and plan their future from now until at least a few years after the exit.
(When the smaller projects are reviewed, some may be deemed not a priority for the UK and stopped, but continuation (without a brake in funding) of key UK projects would be assured. )
P.S. I’m not just talking about Engineering and manufacturing funding. It should include research all disciplines.
The position is very clear, the country voted OUT so the politicians should, as our elected representatives remove us with immediate effect. Only those companies tied to the EU markets will fail and those who want to trade with the world can do so freely and without tariffs imposed by an unelected, and often unwanted bureaucracy. This alone will reduce prices of British goods and services to a world market.
It is true that we make very little and this is predominantly due to the fact the EU has been systematically dismantled by the EU and British industry has been starved of funding and crushed in this EU funded campaign as this was their intention from the outset to gain control of the UK economy.
Only today have we seen the true EU when they try to secretly push ahead with plans to dismantle individual states to form one huge country and remove any vestiges of law, banking, and any other form of Governmental control and authority within a member state so these unelected and unremoveable few can take control.
Its time to take control of our own destiny and for British business to rebuild itself, do we need a money sucking EU? NO, we can use those savings to invest in our own business and world trade instead of subsidising a host of other economically depressed countries and focus on trading with the world.
The Engineer should get active in pointing out to the UK’s population who are not involved in science, engineering and manufacturing, the importance of manufacturing for the wealth (or not !) of the UK. A lack of goods to export, means lees income for the UK.
Why has nobody pointed out so far, that the reason Germany has been so successful (& wealthy), is that they looked after their manufacturing & exports !!
The majority of the UK I think has blamed the EU for all our problems, without looking at themselves. I grew up through the 70’s & 80’s & saw how the Unions and successive Governments did their best to decimate UK manufacturing. The polar opposite of Germany who I think have an approx. manufacturing capacity four times what the UK’s is ???
Or are we going to rely on our financial & service sectors, to get all this extra trade promised by Brexiter politicians, by trading freely with the rest of the World ???
I absolutely agree. This should be a common market, nothing else. We fought wars in order to remain under democratic control. The EU is just not democratic. England, with the highest population density of all major EU countries, needs points based immigration.
Which recent wars did we fight to remain under democratic control? Undemocratic? The EU has a system of proportional representation which allows UKIP to have 22 representatives against the single one they have in the UK parliament, and does not have an unelected upper house. By the way, Belgium and the Netherlands have higher population densities than the UK, as do several smaller European nations.
Unspoken and ignored by Brexitiers are tariff charges and VAT, both of which alone should be seen as potential barriers to continued economic growth WHEN – not ‘if’ – they are introduced on all goods and services that cross the UK border. The EU made trade easier, not harder. As an example, a heat-sink, brought in Europe will incur 20% VAT and 4.0% tariff charge (code: 8522908015) – that makes it 24% more expensive. I don’t know about anyone else, but that will really help industry. Those charges are applicable again should the items then be exported to anywhere outside the UK! Try looking through the trade tariff listings and seeing what tariff rates your own products attract – it’s sobering! I feel these are the facts that we should have been aware of before allowing ourselves to be distracted by propaganda
It’s Democracy so let’s live with it.
Where are the leaders who called this referendum???
Hopefully learning to negotiate!
Its a bit like the millennium crisis: nothing is happening and people seem a bit lost without the disaster that they expected.
The leader who called it resigned on Friday.
IMO, we need:
1. To decide as a nation what level of interaction any post-exit UK should *try* to take. Be that in a general election, or preferably (due to the limitations of essentially a two party system), another referendum. Furthermore, I would say retaining the current ineraction should be an option – which neatly encompasses two things people want/need – a rerun and a choice of where to go from here.
2. More controversially, this whole debacle once more shows up the ignorance of Westminster to the plight of the masses. There is no reasonable doubt that a significant, probably critical, proportion of the “out” vote was a protest vote at the continued indifference of the political classes to the actual needs of the electorate.
With this in mind, surely the time to consider legislation to ensure each elected representative is a suitably qualified or experienced person mush be enacted. Such as:
– Need to have 10+ years experience in a PRIVATE working environment.
– Or 20+ years experience in the civil service.
I’m tired of underqualified idiots who went straight out of Eton or similar and into political parties lecturing the public on what matters.
3. Assuming the above is ignored on the basis turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. A second move to add a real structure of meritocracy to things. The house of lords as I see it is defunct. It should be replaced with a house of professionals. That is, a decision making house where a large number professional bodies (for instance, iMechE or BMA) elect representatives to add a layer of expert impartial judication to the House of Commons.
4. The EU is like bureaucratic entropy. While it may be the best for the UK to remain part of it right now – in time it ***will*** start to collapse under its own edicts and regulations – there is already a body of opinion on the continent that it needs to be reformed, shrunk and streamlined. Therefore, exiting the EU at the current time is not terminal, nor even guaranteed to be the lesser of two evils. The Swiss have recently said “enough”. Thus, consideration should be given to forming a trade bloc with like minded countries that want a largely common market (not necessarily with EU), but with controls over certain aspects and without the inane fees the EU charge. This trade bloc will then be in a much stronger position to negotiate with the EU.
Obvious potential members would include Switzerland, Norway & Canada. Additionally, commonwealth nations would worth approaching.
5. In the digital age, do we really need the only input the electorate has into the running of their nation an election ever 4 years? Official electronic opinion polls would be relatively straightforward to implement, and empower the electorate hopefully removing the feeling of indifference.
6. Whatever we do – don’t trigger Article 50 until we are ready. So what if the EU cry and bitch about it. Its more important that we’ve a clear sensible plan that everyone is (well, realistically the majority are) on board with than some unelected suits in Brussels are displeased.
“one thing we can all agree on is the importance of science, technology and maths and the businesses and industries that underpin the economy. We can probably also all agree that the interests of engineering, manufacturing and the science community are sometimes not at the forefront of the thoughts of politicians and civil servants.” This surely is the most important element of the entire farce. Unless and until they are (because an economy ‘run’ on the basis of call centres, shopping centres and men in red-braces trying to answer two telephones whilst watching six TV screens…is a casino…) we will still be pi**ing into the wind whilst our competitors are taking further strides ahead of us? The economics of the mad-house? The lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum,: and other phrases to point out the reality as opposed tom the hype.
“We fought wars in order to remain under democratic control.”
Dr Jon Clark might be surprised to learn that we are still not under democratic control.
There is not a single ‘elected’ lawyer of any status: and that group apparently supplies a commodity which is so important that only they may offer it. And of course market-forces (which keep the rest of us on our toes!) are entirely absent from all resolution of disputes. Well aren’t they.
“The electorate were deceived by a distorted campaign of propaganda into making the wrong decision” So nothing new there? It has been deceived (usually from the Right) but occasionally from elsewhere since the Whigs and Tories did do in the early 18th Century.. “there can be no peace within ‘industry’ whilst it has two ‘sides’-
If we can spend [we could not afford it before: now impossible?] several billion pounds on the HS2 rail link then surely we can find money to fund longer lasting projects in research and manufacturing [those suffering delusions of grandeur -which appear to happen to any and all who grasp any greasy pole of advance…, can not even spell research or manufacturing, let alone recognise its importance.] that will provide much longer benefits to more people across the country. Where is there any base-load of such, suitable for development. Not in my back yard?
Why don’t we debate the benefits of facing down and ignoring the laws of physics ? They can be so inconvenient, and it would be much easier if we could simply move forward as though they were not there.
I see this as a huge opportunity for a government to actively support manufacturing (something that hasn’t been done in my lifetime), building up local business coupled with a global, not just European, trade focus. So much of our home-grown industry has been sold off (and then we complain when it closes or is moved abroad) and financial institutions given political priority. Specifically use the reduction in “red tape” to boost SMEs and smaller companies (which have struggled with the costs of legislation compared to bigger entities). Having a weaker pound will automatically boost our exports too. Yes, it’s going to be hard work, but no-one should kid themselves about that.
The default position is 3% custom duty with some individual industries being 10%, as the EU would lose more on this default position surely we can get a better deal. I have always supported the EU because of common standards etc. and I believe we missed a trick not joining the Euro area but we can make the most of this opportunity and not pay exorbitant sums for inflated bureaucrats in Brussels.
Following up Roger’s point about the import / export duties; the government will quickly note that taxing EU imports will raise a lot more than it will cost as our EU trade balance is so negative (and increasingly so).
In a balanced situation with 3% duty each way, the cost is 3% of £60 b, i.e. £1.8b, which is a lot less than our net payment into the EU budget, even at 10% it is better to trade with duties than pay a membership fee: or am I missing something here.
If there is a skills gap, is it not best addressed by stopping the unfounded wingeing about Engineers’ pay?
You may be missing a lot. Import duties may apply to raw materials, raising our costs. The collapse of the pound will raise their cost and beneficially lower the apparent cost of our exports. And we need to know whether someone else in a non-tarrif situation is able to supply the same goods. The net result could be good or bad, but we cannot assume the same goods will be traded at the same rate.
Can you honestly trust this man?
Does that imply that is is possible to dishonestly trust him? think about the implications of that?
As another ‘leader’ (?) once opined: “the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it” -and lets be honest there have been some very large and long ‘porky-pies’ out there. Vicars, lawyers, military -the fancy-dress, non-producers of wealth who ‘hide’ behind the Royals (am I right?) and who have to create silly reasons for the rest of us who do create wealth to pay for their extravagant life-styles and posts. Come on Engineers: we now have their ‘nuts’ in our hands. Perhaps we did not realise it before, but we surely do now.
EdG- surely the key is simple: develop by manufacture the Value Adding (ie what we sell is our labour, the ‘goods’ are just transferred) verses simply buying ‘stuff’ from wherever and Profit Adding [what the entire retail consortia have done post-war. When John Smith was Leader of the Left I did suggest two ‘rates’ of tax. A punitive rate (50-90%) on firms who simply add profit: and an encouraging rate (1-5%) on firms who added value, via manufacture. This to be applied until our economy was re-balanced. His reply was simple: “we (the UK) cannot do this because of EC rules!” Well we surely can now! ASAP
After living here for 5 years we applied for permanent residence card. Our passports and original documents are now with the home office for months. And according to their letter will be there for some more months. So right now we are virtual prisoners here. No holiday. No job change. No moving to a new home possible, as estate agents require exact those same original documents. At least I transferred most of my money out, just in case we are kicked out like the Germans from Poland, or the Americans from Vietnam.
I wished to remain in Europe, however the vote went against remain. yes another referendum might be a good thing, but if the result is reversed wont those who wish to leave the EU want another referendum? I think, and I’ll paraphrase someone not known for his diplomacy here (Jeremy Clarkson) we’ve (the electorate) made a bad decision, lets have a day of mourning then lets work together to do the best we can. As engineers we should be at the fore front making this the best country in or out of Europe.
We had the government, the civil service, the bank of England, the city, major company directors, foreign presidents and the full machinery of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties press for vote remain.
So why did the average British voter vote to leave the EU?????
Simple — to regain our Democracy.
So it is disturbing to see those with something more to lose want to overturn the democratic vote… Those of that persuasion will make very good Europeans.
david james
Yea gods!
I think the majority of the leave vote was, unfortunately, derived from people who had been blatantly lied to about what the current situation was & what the future situation would be – look how fast the leave campaign rolled back its pledges once the vote was over. Unfortunately the people who will suffer, are not the educated (for example Engineers) classes, but rather the hoodwinked masses, who believe they will some how “gain control”, but rather are going to get most of their hard won employment rights removed/reneged on, whilst the “power” will go straight back to the “bosses” & their pocket politicians
my “Yea Gods” reply was in reply to ” S. Martin 29th June 2016 at 1:07 pm “, not David James – any chance you could move it?
Brendon’s views: what a pleasure to read comments which ‘gel’ with those I have expounded (and tried to implement ) for decades. My effort (as our editor knows well) has been to take-on the shams, the balder-dash & piffle-merchants, the bean-counters, the conflict groupings directly: to expose in public their nefarious ways. They have not enjoyed the experience at all Watch this space. I have sought to demonstrate that those with the privilege of an education in Science, applied mathematics et al would be more than a match for the 500 years of procedural trickery, deceit, purchased lies and ba**s**t that has kept ‘them’ in power for far too long. The venom with which I have been attacked surely demonstrated the accuracy of MY arrows!
Is that a simile or a metaphor (or an anachronism) I am but a simple Engineer.
I think the government should vote. The people voted on things that they don’t really understand how the EU runs & works. The government should have the last word on this & vote for remain or leave. If they vote for remain, then the people should accept their judgement!