Who's Happy with Brexit Now ?

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,861
Location
edzell
It seems to me that companies won't take on apprentices lest they leave after being trained. Perhaps the employers should tie their trainees in to say a 5 year commitment post training or else make a charge for early exit. This would give them some security against the investment made. Certainly the airline industry does this for newly trained pilots and it would also help the medical profession retaining doctors after vast expense in their training.
If all companies took on a similar % of apprentices or trainees.
And treated them well, they would have no fear of loosing them.
Just now, every single company winging about lack of staff should first have to state what % of staff they have employed as trainees each year for the last 10 years and what they have done to ensure staff retention.
I have no interest in the winging of some of these companies that have treated staff as dispensable for years, now complaining because no one wants to work for them.
 
Last edited:

Grassy_Knollington

Well-known member
Messages
4,030
Reaction score
2,187
Its why the process should have been a cross party think tank with the sole purpose of managing brexit. It should have been non-political.

Could have been, but that was never going to happen while the significant numbers of MPs from all parties determined to frustrate the vote, the SNP and Lib Dem’s actively campaigned against respecting the vote, Kier Starmer called for another one and May decided the best way to leave would be to stay in without benefits.

The ground for this situation and (most critically) the lack of civil service contingency planning was laid by the way Cameron called the referendum and then took a side.

We’re out now and close on zero chance of rejoining. Look to the future and maybe learn some lessons:

1. MPs are there to represent the will of the people

2. Politicians must never assume everyone agrees with their view

3. Don’t play party politics with constitutional matters

4. Planning for different outcomes isn’t an admission of failure

And all the others . .
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
3,004
Location
Cheshire
Could have been, but that was never going to happen while the significant numbers of MPs from all parties determined to frustrate the vote, the SNP and Lib Dem’s actively campaigned against respecting the vote, Kier Starmer called for another one and May decided the best way to leave would be to stay in without benefits.

The ground for this situation and (most critically) the lack of civil service contingency planning was laid by the way Cameron called the referendum and then took a side.

We’re out now and close on zero chance of rejoining. Look to the future and maybe learn some lessons:

1. MPs are there to represent the will of the people

2. Politicians must never assume everyone agrees with their view

3. Don’t play party politics with constitutional matters

4. Planning for different outcomes isn’t an admission of failure

And all the others . .
I agree. We're out, get on with it.
There were members from all parties wanted out and members from all parties wanted in, hence my reasoning that it should have been cross party. A very difficult question to answer given brexit meant brexit.
Same for covid. Cross party. No points scoring from messing with a life and death situation.
 

peterchilton

Well-known member
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
1,180
Location
Mid Wales
fish.jpg
 
Top