Basically there were too things that propelled the Leave vote. First the lie that Brits had no representation in the EU (even some using the phrase "no taxation without representation"), except that the UK had representation in the EU, all member nations do.
Indeed.
Sure they don't always get their way but that's true for all unions.
You forgot the legitimate point that there was representation, however the bit where majority vote can be completely overruled by the EU commission and ignore the will of the majority which genuinely was never used to protect the interests of the people, but of the EC.
You also seem to have forgotten that areas that had an overall majority leave were places where the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy, the sustainable development project, the European climate change programme and so on all lead to drastic problems that affected people's life adversely.
UK MEPs have previously brought up problems such as the Common Fisheries Policy leading to overfishing (in 2013 it's powers were extended and became in some respects more problematic after 40 years of problems already) and killing the environment in some waters, there have been instances of other MEPs (particularly from nations benefiting such things) denounce them as xenophobic and wanting to keep the fish stocks to themselves (as opposed to hearing out the issue) - Majority vote wins in these cases.
But then, even if you ignore all these particular issues and just look at prosperity, it doesn't lead to a good number either. When you consider what power the EU has, when Iceland, a relatively small and no where near a big player in the world stage is able to negotiate a free trade deal with China in less than a year and the EU is going on for decades trying to negotiate one... There isn't really much in this department either.
Of course, you won't see that reported in the media that prefers polarised and sensational issues.
Second, a big push was the idea that they'd get rid of all the non-Brits if they left the EU.
That was really a remain camp's claim, not really anything to do with the leavers.
First off, amazingly racist and there is currently a big surge in racism in the UK.
A few hundred reported incidents in a nation of 65,000,000 since brexit is not really a "big surge" to me. The idea that over 50% of the UK is racist to the degree leavers are portraying it to be is somewhat laughable too. Certainly the timing represents brexit has a catalyst for some acts. I should also note that I live in a major UK city that has a history of racism, prejudice and acts of violence against foreigners, not a single racist incident since the vote.
The reality is that there were legitimate reasons and concerns to leave the EU and you're just perpetuating more of the remain camp's story and media sensationalism, you should be ashamed.
It wasn't someone local that asked for that money and decided how to spend it
No shit, the poor allocation of funds and ridiculous lack of spending checks on something fruitless will finally be gone. This was never an issue with the various trusts setup in the UK.
Luckily you wont see any more of that filthy EU money landing on your doorstep from now on. Fixed that problem real good, didn't you.
UK was one of the very few countries paying a positive balance into the EU.
The only people you'll find to fit that profile are people who have been switching jobs constantly. Do you really want someone like that?
We've found a guy still in university that worked that way and I would say that most people that work this way have been previously contractors and consultants, which most of the company is currently built up of. Thus far we haven't had a retention problem. All you have to do is offer a decent work-life balance, decent work environment and suitable wage, who knew?
What happens when employers stop re-training employees and start shitcanning anyone as soon as possible, relying on obtaining trained people from the rest of the economy when people are needed again?
The vast majority of people that apply to my company are already trained and do have qualifications, but when you do some simple practicals in the interview that just slightly requires out of the box thinking (they're allowed to Google and find the answer to do the practical), you'd be amazed how many people simply cannot.
If employers really wanted better (and more loyal) workers, they should stop just requiring a degree before getting a job and instead help train workers on the job
My company already does this, but you have to show you're able to do things like being able to think for yourself, use Google to find answers etc. Something most people are surprisingly failing at... Sadly, that basic intuitiveness is not something we can teach, we've tried. We also are particularly not interested in people who aren't driven or interested in technology and you would be surprised how many people apply and don't actually have any genuine interest in what they do.
I get offered more on LinkedIn for a placement in London weekly usually. Stuff like tdd/bdd, scrum, agile and then a few technologies really puts you in the headlights of recruiters.
I know handfull of double degree or degree + masters CS, IT, comp eng Spanish friends whom couldnt find work for 8 years in Spain
Am I the only one who has had an overall negative experience with such people in the IT industry? Like, their practical skills are often (not always) really poor.
Says they know Windows, can't do windows script, powershell, doesn't know the registry entries for anything, doesn't know how to setup group policies, doesn't know how to do unattended installs, doesn't know how Windows language runtimes work, doesn't know how Windows debugging works, doesn't know how to use the start menu, doesn't know common keyboard shortcuts.
I don't know man, those people drive me up the wall.
Shouldn't it be at this point that the government steps in and forces the businesses to hire people who may not be trained, but has the educational background to prove that they can be?
My company's problem is more to do with the fact that you have people who have certifications and know those certifications well. So, for example, they may know their Redhat certification like the back of their hand. They could create a self signed SSL certificate, but ask them to sign that certificate with a Certificate Authority certificate and suddenly they don't know what to do. They can't Google, when you get them to Google, they can't seem to follow guides or anything. It's ridiculous. We don't even select based on what certifications you have, but whether your CV actually shows you've got relevant interests in what we're doing and can prove your ability during the interview practical.
Our company does not have a series of managers watching people, we expect people to get on with work, on their own without oversight. The team reporting to each other daily (daily scrums) etc.
of employers thinking that only 20-year olds fresh out of university can do the job, and so they ignore the 40- and 50-year olds with higher qualifications and longer experience, because they are "too old".
My company (UK based) doesn't do that and we struggle to find people who are knowledgeable and able to think on their feet. We don't even require formal experience or formal education behind it as we can assess that during the practical in the interview. At one point we interviewed around 49 people, only 1 was worthwhile. Amusingly, he's from Argentina and I believe he's in his late 30s.
We're looking for decent Linux, Windows administrators, network administrators, bdd/tdd scrum oriented software developers and we don't do traditional corporate roles of giving a single job or role to people, so they're expected to be a bit of generalists too.
It's an industry wide problem that has been getting worse for decade in a feedback loop.
In the industry, I have more problems finding people that can actually think a bit outside of training. It's terrible when you find people who know something like a Redhat certification perfectly, but ask them to do something that wasn't covered in the certification (like signing a certificate with a certificate authority certificate as opposed to just creating a self signed certificate) and they're completely unable to grasp how to research how to do that and get the job done.
It's been very strange watching indoor "womens work" of sitting typing at a keyboard, or applied math in general, turn into a complete sausage fest.
I haven't really lived long enough to see the transition, by the time I entered the workplace, it was pretty much already mostly men programmers/administrators/specialists only.
Ironically, in countries where I have lived where there was a genuine sexism towards women in IT (Eastern Europe), I discovered more women programmers than I do now (now I'm in the UK).
You're asking for straight up qualifications instead of looking at what's between the applicant's legs.
Qualifications, experience, hobbies. We don't really care how well you interview, the interview it self is mostly an open book (you can use Google, any tool) practical for an exercise on whatever you're applying for. Even if the task isn't something you've done in years, or something you've never done because/reasons/, should be able to do it regardless if you are who you say you are.
We don't advertise how we interview people though.
Only women? I am a man and wont apply too to places using a scrum/agile/whatever catchy phrase of the month. They are smarter than men, hence you see none.
I wouldn't have any males to employ if that were the case, but we do.
With regards to Agile, it was created in 2001 as was a Scrum variant to go along with it. To be quite frank, a 15 year old industry standard that was created to avoid the pitfalls, issues of 1970s industry software engineering standards like Waterfall isn't really a "catchy phrase of the month".
My husband is a house husband. I make the money, he takes care of the household. I love it. He'so not so keen on it. He's realized it's actually a LOT of work with very little reward.
I love my job, but, I think I would be complacent with being a house husband too. I know how much effort it is to take care of my house (I have to do it anyway), without work, I could invest more time into my hobbies, which would be fun as well.
Women can only get that after a lifetime of dating women. Dating men is a lot easier and less stressful and so they don't need the same coping mechanisms.
I think about my lesbian threads and there is an eerie amount of anecdotal truth to it.
We can do a lot to encourage girls as they are growing up, and to remove some of the gendered put-downs like describing them as "bossy" when we say boys who do the exact same thing are leaders.
I hear what you're saying and I've heard this argument before, but I don't think I've ever even witnessed this honestly; where-ever this happens, it seems to be outside of my sphere of influence. What do you suggest I do?
And most importantly, let's kill the stupid meme about girls just not being interested in or good at engineering and computers.
The only people I've actually heard this from in my real life is literally women; I don't really see what I could do?
I never get any female applicants at my company (I see all applicants that apply), which is focused on system/network administrators, developers and hyper-visor experts. Due to the company applying scrum/agile principles and working in teams, we do not even have a need for managers (where I've found females more often to be in traditionally in IT). We have never stopped looking for people since we opened.
On occasion, I have received weird loaded questions from some female recruiters on linkedin asking, "Do you have enough women in your company?" and I've always responded with all requirements for different types of roles we have available and stated I was interested in any applicants that fulfill these - They never respond after that?
I just don't see what we're doing as a company that particularly discriminates against women developers, system/network administrators, hyper visor specialists etc.
I'm wondering when countries will wise up and finally start changing the laws to make this sort of tax dodging hard or impossible. I realize to some degree this is playing a game of legal whack-a-mole but it needs to be done.
Uhm, it's not up to those countries to change it. It's up to the EU. The EU is more interested in dealing with other problems right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
You forgot the legitimate point that there was representation, however the bit where majority vote can be completely overruled by the EU commission and ignore the will of the majority which genuinely was never used to protect the interests of the people, but of the EC.
You also seem to have forgotten that areas that had an overall majority leave were places where the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy, the sustainable development project, the European climate change programme and so on all lead to drastic problems that affected people's life adversely.
UK MEPs have previously brought up problems such as the Common Fisheries Policy leading to overfishing (in 2013 it's powers were extended and became in some respects more problematic after 40 years of problems already) and killing the environment in some waters, there have been instances of other MEPs (particularly from nations benefiting such things) denounce them as xenophobic and wanting to keep the fish stocks to themselves (as opposed to hearing out the issue) - Majority vote wins in these cases.
But then, even if you ignore all these particular issues and just look at prosperity, it doesn't lead to a good number either. When you consider what power the EU has, when Iceland, a relatively small and no where near a big player in the world stage is able to negotiate a free trade deal with China in less than a year and the EU is going on for decades trying to negotiate one... There isn't really much in this department either.
Of course, you won't see that reported in the media that prefers polarised and sensational issues.
That was really a remain camp's claim, not really anything to do with the leavers.
A few hundred reported incidents in a nation of 65,000,000 since brexit is not really a "big surge" to me. The idea that over 50% of the UK is racist to the degree leavers are portraying it to be is somewhat laughable too. Certainly the timing represents brexit has a catalyst for some acts. I should also note that I live in a major UK city that has a history of racism, prejudice and acts of violence against foreigners, not a single racist incident since the vote.
The reality is that there were legitimate reasons and concerns to leave the EU and you're just perpetuating more of the remain camp's story and media sensationalism, you should be ashamed.
No shit, the poor allocation of funds and ridiculous lack of spending checks on something fruitless will finally be gone. This was never an issue with the various trusts setup in the UK.
UK was one of the very few countries paying a positive balance into the EU.
We've found a guy still in university that worked that way and I would say that most people that work this way have been previously contractors and consultants, which most of the company is currently built up of. Thus far we haven't had a retention problem. All you have to do is offer a decent work-life balance, decent work environment and suitable wage, who knew?
The vast majority of people that apply to my company are already trained and do have qualifications, but when you do some simple practicals in the interview that just slightly requires out of the box thinking (they're allowed to Google and find the answer to do the practical), you'd be amazed how many people simply cannot.
My company already does this, but you have to show you're able to do things like being able to think for yourself, use Google to find answers etc. Something most people are surprisingly failing at... Sadly, that basic intuitiveness is not something we can teach, we've tried. We also are particularly not interested in people who aren't driven or interested in technology and you would be surprised how many people apply and don't actually have any genuine interest in what they do.
Yeah, I'm sure that fancy new clock and the metal dragon statue in Ebbw Vale from EU projects is revitalizing industry there...
I get offered more on LinkedIn for a placement in London weekly usually. Stuff like tdd/bdd, scrum, agile and then a few technologies really puts you in the headlights of recruiters.
Am I the only one who has had an overall negative experience with such people in the IT industry? Like, their practical skills are often (not always) really poor.
Says they know Windows, can't do windows script, powershell, doesn't know the registry entries for anything, doesn't know how to setup group policies, doesn't know how to do unattended installs, doesn't know how Windows language runtimes work, doesn't know how Windows debugging works, doesn't know how to use the start menu, doesn't know common keyboard shortcuts.
I don't know man, those people drive me up the wall.
My company's problem is more to do with the fact that you have people who have certifications and know those certifications well. So, for example, they may know their Redhat certification like the back of their hand. They could create a self signed SSL certificate, but ask them to sign that certificate with a Certificate Authority certificate and suddenly they don't know what to do. They can't Google, when you get them to Google, they can't seem to follow guides or anything. It's ridiculous. We don't even select based on what certifications you have, but whether your CV actually shows you've got relevant interests in what we're doing and can prove your ability during the interview practical.
Our company does not have a series of managers watching people, we expect people to get on with work, on their own without oversight. The team reporting to each other daily (daily scrums) etc.
My company (UK based) doesn't do that and we struggle to find people who are knowledgeable and able to think on their feet. We don't even require formal experience or formal education behind it as we can assess that during the practical in the interview. At one point we interviewed around 49 people, only 1 was worthwhile. Amusingly, he's from Argentina and I believe he's in his late 30s.
We're looking for decent Linux, Windows administrators, network administrators, bdd/tdd scrum oriented software developers and we don't do traditional corporate roles of giving a single job or role to people, so they're expected to be a bit of generalists too.
In the industry, I have more problems finding people that can actually think a bit outside of training. It's terrible when you find people who know something like a Redhat certification perfectly, but ask them to do something that wasn't covered in the certification (like signing a certificate with a certificate authority certificate as opposed to just creating a self signed certificate) and they're completely unable to grasp how to research how to do that and get the job done.
I haven't really lived long enough to see the transition, by the time I entered the workplace, it was pretty much already mostly men programmers/administrators/specialists only.
Ironically, in countries where I have lived where there was a genuine sexism towards women in IT (Eastern Europe), I discovered more women programmers than I do now (now I'm in the UK).
Qualifications, experience, hobbies. We don't really care how well you interview, the interview it self is mostly an open book (you can use Google, any tool) practical for an exercise on whatever you're applying for. Even if the task isn't something you've done in years, or something you've never done because /reasons/, should be able to do it regardless if you are who you say you are.
We don't advertise how we interview people though.
You can probably sue them. Don't know if you'd win.
I wouldn't have any males to employ if that were the case, but we do.
With regards to Agile, it was created in 2001 as was a Scrum variant to go along with it. To be quite frank, a 15 year old industry standard that was created to avoid the pitfalls, issues of 1970s industry software engineering standards like Waterfall isn't really a "catchy phrase of the month".
No more than Facebook.
I love my job, but, I think I would be complacent with being a house husband too. I know how much effort it is to take care of my house (I have to do it anyway), without work, I could invest more time into my hobbies, which would be fun as well.
100+ CVs in the last eight months, no females ever applied. We're just looking for developers, system/network administrators, hyper-visor specialists.
I think about my lesbian threads and there is an eerie amount of anecdotal truth to it.
I hear what you're saying and I've heard this argument before, but I don't think I've ever even witnessed this honestly; where-ever this happens, it seems to be outside of my sphere of influence. What do you suggest I do?
The only people I've actually heard this from in my real life is literally women; I don't really see what I could do?
I never get any female applicants at my company (I see all applicants that apply), which is focused on system/network administrators, developers and hyper-visor experts. Due to the company applying scrum/agile principles and working in teams, we do not even have a need for managers (where I've found females more often to be in traditionally in IT). We have never stopped looking for people since we opened.
On occasion, I have received weird loaded questions from some female recruiters on linkedin asking, "Do you have enough women in your company?" and I've always responded with all requirements for different types of roles we have available and stated I was interested in any applicants that fulfill these - They never respond after that?
I just don't see what we're doing as a company that particularly discriminates against women developers, system/network administrators, hyper visor specialists etc.
The issue is corporation tax, not sales tax.
Are you a freeman?
Uhm, it's not up to those countries to change it. It's up to the EU. The EU is more interested in dealing with other problems right now.
It's better than what is in the UK, Czech Republic and Poland too.
Three did actually. All you have to do is ask the sales guy for a better deal, they always have one better than the advertised price.