Brexit (Old)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Kind of the point I was making. I worked out of an office in Dublin regularly for a while (in financial services, naturally) it was an absolute flaming nightmare, every single time.

My other half didn't like it, she absolutely hated Frankfurt to, she came back from there and they offered her an absolute fortune to stay as well.

Originally Posted by Chris

Kind of the point I was making. I worked out of an office in Dublin regularly for a while (in financial services, naturally) it was an absolute flaming nightmare, every single time.

I've had to work there a number of times and if there was ever a conference or big sporting/entertainment event the hotels where all booked. Had to stay in a hostel one time as a result.

One of the better airports in terms of layout and stress though.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Makes you wonder who does run this Country at times.

I don’t think it’s ever been in any doubt who runs the country. Not “the people”.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

My other half didn't like it, she absolutely hated Frankfurt to, she came back from there and they offered her an absolute fortune to stay as well.

I think stuff to do, quality of the city and so on are important. For all the arguments about infrastructure, time zones, costings e.t.c that must go into these decisions they must also consider where the bosses actually want to be based.

Paris would be a bigger threat to London IMO if their political situation was more stable. It has the capacity, the infrastructure, the things to do and so on.

London and Paris are Europe's 'big' cities. Sitting alongside New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong. I don't think Frankfurt, Dublin or even Rome and Berlin come close.

Originally Posted by Damien

I've had to work there a number of times and if there was ever a conference or big sporting/entertainment event the hotels where all booked. Had to stay in a hostel one time as a result.

One of the better airports in terms of layout and stress though.

Must have changed... when I was at it, you avoided going airside as long as possible because there was bog-all to do once you were through security.

You’re right though, it’s not exactly stressful, but then an empty building rarely is.

---------- Post added at 08:51 ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I think stuff to do, quality of the city and so on are important. For all the arguments about infrastructure, time zones, costings e.t.c that must go into these decisions they must also consider where the bosses actually want to be based.

Paris would be a bigger threat to London IMO if their political situation was more stable. It has the capacity, the infrastructure, the things to do and so on.

London and Paris are Europe's 'big' cities. Sitting alongside New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong. I don't think Frankfurt, Dublin or even Rome and Berlin come close.

Nipping into town on your lunch break in Dublin is like nipping in to Liverpool. Great in itself, but if you’re used to London and its lifestyle, not so much.

Originally Posted by Chris

Must have changed... when I was at it, you avoided going airside as long as possible because there was bog-all to do once you were through security.

You’re right though, it’s not exactly stressful, but then an empty building rarely is.

Last time I went was just under two years ago. Big Duty Free shop, the Chocolate Cafe chain whose name escapes me and places to drink. Drinking counts as something to do.

I found that once you got to the airport there was nothing to do unless you went airside. There are two terminals though so maybe we're talking about different ones.

Question. Why wasn't there any cross party discussion/invites right from the start. Why were all the 'negotiations' undertaken by only conservative appointees? Surely it was within TM's abilities to have gotten such input?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Ditto the UK, hence why British business was last night asking the Government to rule out a no-deal.

As is that imbecile Corbyn, you can't rule out "no deal" as that is still our strongest negotiating hand

Originally Posted by Damien

Last time I went was just under two years ago. Big Duty Free shop, the Chocolate Cafe chain whose name escapes me and places to drink. Drinking counts as something to do.

I found that once you got to the airport there was nothing to do unless you went airside. There are two terminals though so maybe we're talking about different ones.

No, it’ll be the same place, it’s 10 years since my last trip - plenty of time to build a terminal, even in Dublin.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think stuff to do, quality of the city and so on are important. For all the arguments about infrastructure, time zones, costings e.t.c that must go into these decisions they must also consider where the bosses actually want to be based.

Paris would be a bigger threat to London IMO if their political situation was more stable. It has the capacity, the infrastructure, the things to do and so on.

London and Paris are Europe's 'big' cities. Sitting alongside New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong. I don't think Frankfurt, Dublin or even Rome and Berlin come close.

Often it's down to the critical mass of businesses in a region. If there is enough local knowledge of an industry, the companies are more likely to invest as they don't need to ship talent in. In my field, pharmaceuticals, Ireland has been hugely proactive at attracting big pharma to Ireland and part of that is education of local people. The Irish government set up the National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training to train Irish students and give them the skills companies need. Ireland is now in a place in the pharmaceutical industry where growth is huge due to the depth of the talent pool amongst other things.

IDA Ireland (https://www.idaireland.com/) the development agency for Ireland is very proactive in trying to attract foreign direct investment in Ireland

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Question. Why wasn't there any cross party discussion/invites right from the start. Why were all the 'negotiations' undertaken by only conservative appointees? Surely it was within TM's abilities to have gotten such input?

Exactly. Seems to be May way or the Highway. The vote over the deal could easily have taken place before Christmas, so what is she playing at?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Question. Why wasn't there any cross party discussion/invites right from the start. Why were all the 'negotiations' undertaken by only conservative appointees? Surely it was within TM's abilities to have gotten such input?

Unfortunately it's partly because her own party wouldn't accept it. Still don't now. Norman Lamont was on PM last night warning against any deal that included Labour support to get it through parliament.

So even though I'm not defending her as she hasn't tried till now, you can hardly build cross party discussion and agreement when you can't be confident your own side are on board with that strategy!

The frustrating thing is pretty much no party seems willing to set aside any political advantage and do the right thing for the UK, rather than one that looks good for them

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Unfortunately it's partly because her own party wouldn't accept it. Still don't now. Norman Lamont was on PM last night warning against any deal that included Labour support to get it through parliament.

So even though she hasn't tried till now, you hardly build cross party discussion and agreement when you can't be confident your own side are on board with that strategy!

The frustrating thing is pretty much no party seems willing to set aside any political advantage and do the right thing for the UK, rather than one that looks good for them

There's are a hardcore of right wing nutters that she needs to jetison to UKIP, where thanks to our voting system they'll become an irrelevance. A new referendum is the way to go, but it might take a little while to get there, when she's demonstrated nothing can be agreed in parliament.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think it’s ever been in any doubt who runs the country. Not “the people”.

A valid reason for No "Peoples vote".

BREAKING: Meaningful vote round 2 on Jan 29th. Source: BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg