Why is the public NOT happy with May's excellent Brexit deal? It's a total win for UK Watch

paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 11 months ago
#41
(Original post by ByEeek)
Eh? I thought they were part of the agreement that goes live on 29th March. Are you saying we might negotiate to go back into the CAP?
That agreement is for the transition deal.

They can still say oh you want x well we want your waters or free movement and so on in the trade talks.

Indeed Spain and France are already kicking off.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 11 months ago
#42
(Original post by paul514)
That agreement is for the transition deal.

They can still say oh you want x well we want your waters or free movement and so on in the trade talks.

Indeed Spain and France are already kicking off.
I'm sure. Just a shame that whilst we are argue the toss over what one or two companies will be able to or not able to do in the future, our rail infrustructure, NHS, education and welfare are all collapsing under the strain of neglect and under funding.
1
reply
Helloworld_95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 11 months ago
#43
(Original post by paul514)
That agreement is for the transition deal.

They can still say oh you want x well we want your waters or free movement and so on in the trade talks.

Indeed Spain and France are already kicking off.
Spain's problem was solved a while ago and was largely related to politics for upcoming elections where they needed to look strong on Gibraltar.

France is deferring their problem to the production of the free trade deal.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 11 months ago
#44
(Original post by Helloworld_95)
Spain's problem was solved a while ago and was largely related to politics for upcoming elections where they needed to look strong on Gibraltar.

France is deferring their problem to the production of the free trade deal.
Spain and France have both already deferred those issues to the free trade deal and that’s my point.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 11 months ago
#45
(Original post by ByEeek)
I'm sure. Just a shame that whilst we are argue the toss over what one or two companies will be able to or not able to do in the future, our rail infrustructure, NHS, education and welfare are all collapsing under the strain of neglect and under funding.
The NHS will be fine now it’s just had a large injection of cash.

In education they are spending 50% more than than what inflation would have been since the year 2000.

It’s gone down 5% in real terms since 2010.

All this crisis stuff is balls it’s because they have employed loads of classroom assistants etc.

In my day we didn’t have those and it was fine it’s all politics on that issue.

Where I agree is the large companies point, welfare especially and yea rail needs sorting out.
Last edited by paul514; 11 months ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#46
Report 11 months ago
#46
(Original post by paul514)
In education they are spending 50% more than than what inflation would have been since the year 2000.

It’s gone down 5% in real terms since 2010.

All this crisis stuff is balls it’s because they have employed loads of classroom assistants etc.

In my day we didn’t have those and it was fine it’s all politics on that issue.
You have bought the governments line. I am now a teacher. And the cuts are very real. Back in the day, schools didn't have TAs because kids with special needs were taught in special schools. Those schools were largely shut down and kids moved to mainstream with support (a good thing). However, the cuts have been so far reaching that TAs don't really exist in many schools now and as a result, as a teacher you can have a class of 30 or so pupils, some of whom will get 9s at GCSE, some will scrape a 2 and on top of that you have a kid with visual impairment, a kid with ADHD and two kids with dyslexia. And you are expected to cater for all without any support!

It is indeed true that the amount of spending has gone up, but so too has the school population. In Manchester, there are currently 80,000 children in primary schools and 50,000 places at secondary school. In the next 3 years or so an additional 30,000 secondary places will be required. Now then, where is that going to be funded from?

And the funding is very unfair. I work in an inner city school and it is literally sloshing with cash. If I need something I get it. By comparison, my son's primary school had to do fund raising so that we could paint the windows which were badly flaking in paint. They are also looking at further reducing their staffing for the next year which means less support, bigger class sizes and poorer education in general.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 11 months ago
#47
(Original post by ByEeek)
You have bought the governments line. I am now a teacher. And the cuts are very real. Back in the day, schools didn't have TAs because kids with special needs were taught in special schools. Those schools were largely shut down and kids moved to mainstream with support (a good thing). However, the cuts have been so far reaching that TAs don't really exist in many schools now and as a result, as a teacher you can have a class of 30 or so pupils, some of whom will get 9s at GCSE, some will scrape a 2 and on top of that you have a kid with visual impairment, a kid with ADHD and two kids with dyslexia. And you are expected to cater for all without any support!

It is indeed true that the amount of spending has gone up, but so too has the school population. In Manchester, there are currently 80,000 children in primary schools and 50,000 places at secondary school. In the next 3 years or so an additional 30,000 secondary places will be required. Now then, where is that going to be funded from?

And the funding is very unfair. I work in an inner city school and it is literally sloshing with cash. If I need something I get it. By comparison, my son's primary school had to do fund raising so that we could paint the windows which were badly flaking in paint. They are also looking at further reducing their staffing for the next year which means less support, bigger class sizes and poorer education in general.
Ok.

Is there REALLY 50% extra children in schools now across the uk than there were in the year 2000?

I highly doubt it without looking it up
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 11 months ago
#48
(Original post by paul514)
Ok.

Is there REALLY 50% extra children in schools now across the uk than there were in the year 2000?

I highly doubt it without looking it up
Not quite 50%, but there are half a million more students in school across England and Wales now compared to 2006. The majority of that growth is currently in the primary sector.
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Main_Text.pdf

Add to the fact that teaching is a very different proposition to 12 years ago. 12 years ago many teachers didn't mark work. There was little concept of data and teachers weren't really accountable. I heard of one history teacher who taught the wrong syllabus and all his students failed. Just pah for the course back then. Wouldn't happen now - at least not in any half worthy school.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 11 months ago
#49
(Original post by ByEeek)
Not quite 50%, but there are half a million more students in school across England and Wales now compared to 2006.
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Main_Text.pdf

Add to the fact that teaching is a very different proposition to 12 years ago. 12 years ago many teachers didn't mark work. There was little concept of data and teachers weren't really accountable. I heard of one history teacher who taught the wrong syllabus and all his students failed. Just pah for the course back then. Wouldn't happen now - at least not in any half worthy school.
Half a million more out of how many?

Surely there are far more than a couple of million children in the school system....

I accept that if all special schools have been closed (I don’t know if they have) then they would obviously cost more per pupil to look after than a regular student but then again I don’t believe they have all been closed and it probably just moving the lower end of special needs out of special schools.

I just don’t think it’s a defendable position that when I left school things were awful because they weren’t and that 50% extra funding on top of inflation in that time is the minimum extra that has been needed in the interim period to now.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 11 months ago
#50
(Original post by paul514)
Half a million more out of how many?

Surely there are far more than a couple of million children in the school system....
Out of around 8,231,055 in 2006, 8,735,098 in 2018. In primary schools, it is the equivalent of around 47 pupils per school which is more than one class of intake a year. Given that most primary schools have either one or two class intakes per year, that is a huge amount. It is also the case that this increase is not across the board. There are currently 80,000 students on role in primary across Manchester but 50,000 in secondary. That 80,000 bubble is going to hit the secondary sector in the next year or so.

The SEN situation is complex, but many schools are having to make massive savings to make ends meet. The first things to go once savings are depleted are pastoral and SEN provision.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 11 months ago
#51
Well without working out the exact percentage increase....8.2 to 8.7 isnt even 10% as an increase.

My position I orginally said to you still stands unless you can come back to me with all the different individual figures which shows how a 50% increase on top of inflation is the bare minimum that was needed to run the education system to the level it is right now and we have people complaining that it is too little and schools sending parents begging letters for more funding.

From what I can see as an outsider it is a huge increase in support staff like TA's
0
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#52
Report 11 months ago
#52
May's deal is a total travesty and totally traitorous.

This government, infested as it is with EU stooges, has spent 2 years delaying and delaying and working out ways to subvert the democratic decision to Leave the EU.

May's deal pure and simply does NOT see us properly leaving the EU.

It leaves us still under EU control for an indefinite period and thus is utterly unacceptable.

Aside from that as poster Paul514 rightly says, the deal contains a "DEADLY LOCK IN" clause that means we can not get out of that deal once we sign up to it, without the EU's consent.

Such nonsense is an absolute travesty and a complete subversion of justice.

May should be sacked immediately and replaced with a politician who :

1) Is not bought, owned and controlled by the EU
2) Who WILL honour the result of the referendum
3) Who WILL go ahead with "No Deal" if the EU continue to play silly buggers.


Right now I see no useful way forward other than to GTFO with NO DEAL..

I totally support NO DEAL at this point because until it happens the country is going to remain in uncertainty and our fraudulent politicians will continue this pathetic avoidance sideshow that has been going on for 2 years.

We need to start putting politicians on trial. They are subverting democracy and THAT is a bigger issue than BrExit itself. If the government is permitted to subvert a democratic decision then we are in a dire state of affairs and all our long standing rights and freedoms are at risk.

That's a really serious issue of a level that WILL herald national civil unrest and widespread chaos if democracy is abandoned. The rioting and looting and arson we saw in London in 2010/11 will be nothing compared to what will happen if these EU stooge politicians refuse to properly take us out of the EU and its control. There will imho be rioting and looting and arson in all major cities right across the UK simultaneously. The UK police serves can in no way deal with that. They had to draft police in from all over the country just to deal with those London riots.

It is time to clean up UK politics and rid it of the corruption and EU control. We must restore the British Constitution that has been run roughshod over and bring to justice all those who have been involved in selling the UK out to a foreign power.

The truth here is that the EU is utterly desperate for the UK to stay because they need our money and because the EU is imho collapsing.
This is why they are currently engaged in massive social media campaigns trying to change people's minds about leaving and why they just keep creating ever new threads on forums like this suggesting 2nd referendums and "staying is better" and "No Deal will be a catastrophe".

The biased BBC is spreading the "No Deal" Project Hysteria far and wide, these people really are desperate.

We must not allow this anti-democratic behaviour to stand. We MUST LEAVE and as we have no politicians willing to fight for a proper deal the only way is NO DEAL.

NO DEAL ALL THE WAY NOW. LET'S GET IT DONE !

Last edited by PilgrimOfTruth; 11 months ago
1
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 11 months ago
#53
(Original post by ByEeek)
To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone knew what they were voting for. The question was vague and open to infinite numbers of interpretation. I seem to remember some leave campaigners telling us the NHS would be £350 million a week better off. That turned out to be a lie yet you are now telling me that leavers are not getting what they voted for. Just exactly what were they promised that wasn't a lie or mistruth? No one actually knows.
What lie Conservative said they will spend £400million a week more for the NHS and then the BBC did not say that this will come from the money that we will not have to send to the EU, the BBC said 'higher taxes' where did they even get that from? Who even mentioned the word tax in the statement? Is this not enough proof to say that BBC is bias against Conservative and that they support Labour in every little thing. This is the real reason why everyone is making a fuss, because BBC is making it look so bad when they haven't even said what the deal has even got in it.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 11 months ago
#54
(Original post by Shravan177)
What lie Conservative said they will spend £400million a week more for the NHS and then the BBC did not say that this will come from the money that we will not have to send to the EU, the BBC said 'higher taxes' where did they even get that from? Who even mentioned the word tax in the statement? Is this not enough proof to say that BBC is bias against Conservative and that they support Labour in every little thing. This is the real reason why everyone is making a fuss, because BBC is making it look so bad when they haven't even said what the deal has even got in it.
Then please explain why Theresa May wanted the BBC to host a Brexit debate this weekend and Corbyn wanted ITV to do so?
0
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 11 months ago
#55
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Then please explain why Theresa May wanted the BBC to host a Brexit debate this weekend and Corbyn wanted ITV to do so?
Because the BBC is supposed to be objective so she thinks they will not be bias, but she does not know how bias the questions will be on the BBC. And Corbyn might get like a few hundreds of thousands of pounds for coming on to the ITV.
0
reply
modifiedgenes
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#56
Report 11 months ago
#56
(Original post by HANNAHBENLOLO)
So I cannot quite understand why isn't the public opinion happy with what Theresa May has managed to negotiate - I mean really, what exactly did they expect? What kind of a deal if not this one? Please explain.

To my understanding it's a total win for the UK (it could not have been better):

- Ends free movement of people as this was apparently the biggest (if not the only reason) for Brexit
- Guarantees right to remain for those who lived for 5 years or more in Britain and for British in continental Europe
- Leaves customs union and the single market
- Ends common agricultural/fisheries and other common policies
- Ends ECJ jurisdiction
- Ends directives and regulations of the EU
- Enables a very close access to the single market post-Brexit

Really - what else did the public expect? Please enlighten me. It's literally the best possible deal.

Also, this is a separate point but do the 52% of people consider that 48% did want to remain altogether?

This is a hard brexit deal in my opinion anyway, like what else would you want? Shut down of La Manche?
What May, nor many other MPs don't understand is that the public voted OUT.

We do not want to hear what would be bad, problematic for business or trade.

We voted OUT.

The government and MPs and any other player involved now need to follow that democratic outcome, to the letter, and exit the EU.

It is as simple as that.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 11 months ago
#57
(Original post by Shravan177)
What lie Conservative said they will spend £400million a week more for the NHS and then the BBC did not say that this will come from the money that we will not have to send to the EU, the BBC said 'higher taxes' where did they even get that from? Who even mentioned the word tax in the statement? Is this not enough proof to say that BBC is bias against Conservative and that they support Labour in every little thing. This is the real reason why everyone is making a fuss, because BBC is making it look so bad when they haven't even said what the deal has even got in it.
Have you actually read what you wrote? It makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to be harping about some sort of conspiracy that the BBC is against the Conservatives. Could you please provide some genuinely biased new pieces from the BBC? There must surely be hundreds to choose from.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 11 months ago
#58
(Original post by Shravan177)
Because the BBC is supposed to be objective so she thinks they will not be bias, but she does not know how bias the questions will be on the BBC. And Corbyn might get like a few hundreds of thousands of pounds for coming on to the ITV.
She wanted it on the BBC as they agreed to have a panel to ask questions for part of the debate, as she knows business want the deal as it’s akin to staying if trade talks don’t go as planned.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 11 months ago
#59
(Original post by paul514)
She wanted it on the BBC as they agreed to have a panel to ask questions for part of the debate, as she knows business want the deal as it’s akin to staying if trade talks don’t go as planned.
I thought it was simple demographics. There used to be a website that categorised areas by proportion of people who watch ITV. I imagine labour voters are more like to watch ITV.
0
reply
robertsd12
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#60
Report 11 months ago
#60
What are you guys thinking is going to happen post-Brexit in terms of the UK economy? Anyone else think we could see market turmoil and then a quick scramble for a second vote within a matter of days in which the current deal will subsequently pass?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (65)
32.02%
Spring (37)
18.23%
Autumn/Fall (52)
25.62%
Winter (38)
18.72%
I love them all equally (11)
5.42%

Watched Threads

View All