A feel-good story to counteract the general gloomy feelings.
The lady involved was visiting the Scilly Isles and went into labour early. The island midwife was away on the mainland, so the coastguard helicopter was despatched with a midwife. The baby boy was delivered during the 15 minute journey to Penzance Hospital.
The pilot said it's not often we take off with seven people and land with eight.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you knew the woman I used to be married too, then you'd know I can handle verbal abuse.
I appreciate the support. Thanks.
In all honesty, it's been pretty good most of the time on this discussion, and although there might have been one or two instances of below the belt hits, it's been pretty civil.
I admire your ability to let things slide and to not hold grudges. Not like myself. Not like myself at all.
I also admire your ability to extent the hand of friendship to the other side and to not see them as enemies, even after all the abuse. Again, most unlike myself.
Casting an eye ahead, May is unlikely to survive Brexit or non-Brexit. The party will want shot of her either way. Unlike the Labour Party, they are reasonably efficient at getting rid of leaders, and frankly? I think she might well have had enough by then. I daresay she regrets being the first to chug the poison chalice now. With her gone, the Tories can attempt to contest the next election on a tabula rasa basis.
So the question has to be, who will the next Tory leader be? My bet is either Amber Rudd or Sajid Javid.
On the other foot, Corbyn will likely be frontrunning the next election, but has shown himself woefully incapable of doing...well, much of anything. Except perhaps holding a placard. He's a radical liberal reliant upon a hard leftist support group that's gradually taken control of the Labour bureaucracy (the NEC, etc).
But they're starting to get sick of him and his incompetence. The fact that they used him as the figurehead to infiltrate and collect power like they did has become a double edged sword, because now they can't remove him. And Corbyn would rather go down on his sword nobly gesticulating about things like Israel than actually produce anything of relevance to the British public. It's driving them up the wall because he controls the head office and official policy which means they can't stop him. But all he does is sit there making bad fudge all day, and they never know what's going to come out the door in the latest shipment. McCluskey is chewing rocks, McDonnell is distancing himself, etc.
In a year or two's time, we'll probably be seeing May's successor run off against Corbyn, and I'd place good money on seeing a hung parliament with both parties on about 280 seats. We may well see the Lib Dems or the SNP become the kingmakers yet.
Rudd's majority is in the low hundreds... if she became PM and then lost her seat (even if a Tory/Tory-led coalition government was returned) she'd be gone straight away. I can't see the MPs selecting that precarious a leader.
Javid is a decent shout. Boris will undoubtedly run. I suppose whether a leave/remain candidate has a stronger case depends entirely on the circumstances of how the leadership contest comes about.
You're right in that they wouldn't risk leading their primary candidate in a slim majority, but if Rudd is selected as leader, they'll just swap her into running for a safe seat.
Boris has conflicting drives, so he may or may not run. He's severely unpopular after Brexit and only just left Government. Public memory is short, but not that short. He also doesn't have much support interally right now. The odds say he should bide his time and try the following round, but he's not getting any younger, and that's an uncertain prospect. So he might run, but his odds aren't great and he'll be driven to it by circumstance rather than preference.
Both Gove and Fox fantasise about being PM, so they'll run, but I doubt they could beat Rudd or Javid. Hunt is the most hated man in the government since Osborne left, so I doubt he'd make a play or have success if he did.
No, the only third Tory with the chops and pull for leadership would be Phillip Hammond. So Rudd, Javid, and Hammond; odds are we'll see one of them against Corbyn. I suspect Rudd or Javid would be better on the campaign trail and for image reasons. Being able to field a third female PM candidate, or the first ethnic minority one would be a slap in the face against Labour running yet another old white man after all. And I think both perform better in public than Hammond. But Hammond probably has firmer internal party support than either.
Do you give any credence to the spectre of entryism raised by Amber Rudd for one?
I've seen two different figures claimed for current Conservative membership -- 70,000 and 120,000. There's a suspiciously wide variation, but either way it is a very small number which would allow a leadership election to be swayed by ex-UKIP members joining the party to vote in a Hard Brexiteer.
That said, I'm not convinced Boris Johnson has the guts to be PM. I think he's wobbly about it.
Ketara wrote: Boris has conflicting drives, so he may or may not run.
That's true, he is always after his own best interests, sniping from the sidelines for £250k just for a column a week (and I'm sure that's not his only thing he gets paid for, excepting MPs pay) he might deem better than a lower paid PM job. On the other hand PMs tend to go on and get paid lots so he may see it as a short term pain - and also whether his own ego will let him not being a leader of the country.
He's severely unpopular after Brexit and only just left Government. Public memory is short, but not that short. He also doesn't have much support interally right now.
This puts him on almost 50% more votes than his nearest rival Javid. The question is whether he can get enough MPs to support him through to the final two which is likely more problematic for him. Rudd is nowhere to be seen. What the link doesn't show is that about 25% 'stated none of the above' and the desire for someone to sweep them off their feet. However that's not likely before the next GE because they are fixed with the MPs they have. Hence to block Boris/Gove/Davis needs very careful plotting from the 'Remainer' side of things to block any of the hard Wrexit supporters, as only two of the top 7 (ignoring 'someone else') are Remain/soft Wrexit supporters.
If Boris has any sense he'll be trying to rally all the Hard Wrexiters to being supportive of one candidate. They do seem more organised than the Remainers / soft Wrexiters and when the leadership bid comes if they all rally around one candidate then it will be very difficult to stop internally for the Tory party. What will shoot hard Wrexiters in the foot is if they all start competing against each other (as in last time) leaving an (even more) incompetent Wrexiter like Andrea Leadsom. My suspicion is that the person that will win is the person Rees-Mogg supports if he continues the line of "I don't want to be PM".
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, I'm not convinced Boris Johnson has the guts to be PM. I think he's wobbly about it.
I think Boris wants the prestige of being PM without having to make any hard, historically-controversial, decisions or do any serious work. This is why he backed out of the last contest, knowing that leading the government through Brexit would be difficult and a disaster. His problem is that sort of era may not be anywhere near the horizon and he has to balance that with his own shelf life. Gove has been trying to appeal to the moderates recently so could be a contender. I can't see Hammond winning a contest at all. The man has no natural charisma, no apparent leadership qualities and is reportedly despised by the entire Eurosceptic wing of the party.
Can I get a Chris Grayling shout out?
My suspicion is that the person that will win is the person Rees-Mogg supports if he continues the line of "I don't want to be PM".
Indeed. He'll make a deal to support someone in order to get a senior cabinet spot, either Chancellor or Home Secretary. I'm tempted to think he'd support Boris more because he'd know some sort of gaffe would never be too far away and he'd then be in prime position.
There's certainly some mileage in that. If you take over from Boris you'll look like a great leader in comparison, and it'd only be a matter of time before Boris did something that would require him to resign.
Herzlos wrote: There's certainly some mileage in that. If you take over from Boris you'll look like a great leader in comparison, and it'd only be a matter of time before Boris did something that would require him to resign.
Thats like letting my 18 month old son drive my car and saying "Well, it's only a matter of time before he hits something that will stop him going any further". Yes, but what will he hit in the end and how much damage wil he do in the meantime.
Riquende wrote: The man has no natural charisma, no apparent leadership qualities...
So, a male Theresa May?
Jokes aside, that's a fair point. She is awful. But May was dropped in as a 'big-name' compromise candidate (for Remainers) and someone who could be relied upon to fail at a Brexit and so get the boot after a few years (for Leavers). She was only ever meant to be the Leavers' palate cleanser, a stop-gap patsy. There would be no point getting rid of her just to put the same sort of leader in her place.
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you give any credence to the spectre of entryism raised by Amber Rudd for one?
I've seen two different figures claimed for current Conservative membership -- 70,000 and 120,000. There's a suspiciously wide variation, but either way it is a very small number which would allow a leadership election to be swayed by ex-UKIP members joining the party to vote in a Hard Brexiteer.
The Tories are immediately protected by the fact that the MP's whittle it down to two candidates before the membership gets to decide. That stops a Corbyn scenario straight out of the bat. I also don't see this being an issue on account of the fact that whether a deal is arranged or not, I severely doubt May will leave (or get knifed) before the Brexit concern is done and dusted. Brexiteer or anti-brexiteer will scarcely matter at that stage. It'll be done on the basis of who can smack Corbyn back and lead the country to 'seize the future' or some other trite soundbite.
Kilkrazy wrote:That said, I'm not convinced Boris Johnson has the guts to be PM. I think he's wobbly about it.
Whirlwind wrote:
That's true, he is always after his own best interests, sniping from the sidelines for £250k just for a column a week (and I'm sure that's not his only thing he gets paid for, excepting MPs pay) he might deem better than a lower paid PM job. On the other hand PMs tend to go on and get paid lots so he may see it as a short term pain - and also whether his own ego will let him not being a leader of the country.
Riquende wrote:
I think Boris wants the prestige of being PM without having to make any hard, historically-controversial, decisions or do any serious work. This is why he backed out of the last contest, knowing that leading the government through Brexit would be difficult and a disaster
Boris stopped short last time because he knew he'd lose before he started/ He had no cabinet experience to speak of and had only just rejoined the HoC. He's got the foreign office experience under his belt now which gives a launchpad, but his next largest problem is that the Tory MP's are pragmatic in leaders, if nothing else. He's a toxic asset. Not only are most of them leery about his actual his actual capability beyond self-aggrandisement; he'd be in the same position as May. That is to say, a controversial holdover from the Brexit period.
As you yourself state later on, the MP's are the ones who plonk him up for membership vote, and I honestly don't think he commands anywhere near enough support to reach the top two in the next few years. The fact David Davis , a man who is too old and literally doesn't want to be leader anymore, is in there says a lot about the accuracy of that poll in actually predicting who the next one will be.
Can I get a Chris Grayling shout out?
I think he's in the same camp as Gove and Fox, but less ambitious.
Herzlos wrote: There's certainly some mileage in that. If you take over from Boris you'll look like a great leader in comparison, and it'd only be a matter of time before Boris did something that would require him to resign.
Thats like letting my 18 month old son drive my car and saying "Well, it's only a matter of time before he hits something that will stop him going any further". Yes, but what will he hit in the end and how much damage wil he do in the meantime.
Indeed it is. However if you're not bothered about the damage it'll cause*, it's a pretty sound plan.
*Because you either don't care about common people or have enough money to weather the gakstorm. 2 of JRM's finer qualities.
As you yourself state later on, the MP's are the ones who plonk him up for membership vote, and I honestly don't think he commands anywhere near enough support to reach the top two in the next few years. The fact David Davis , a man who is too old and literally doesn't want to be leader anymore, is in there says a lot about the accuracy of that poll in actually predicting who the next one will be.
Lots of Tories claim they don't want to be leader and then run for it, and you can't trust a thing Davis says.
Lots of Tories claim they don't want to be leader and then run for it, and you can't trust a thing Davis says.
He did run for leader. He lost to Cameron. He's now 70 years old. By the next election, he'll be older. He wouldn't make it, and he knows it. Christ, he didn't even have enough pull to get into Cameron's cabinet.
The age of Gladstonian political dominance passed a century ago.
As you yourself state later on, the MP's are the ones who plonk him up for membership vote, and I honestly don't think he commands anywhere near enough support to reach the top two in the next few years. The fact David Davis , a man who is too old and literally doesn't want to be leader anymore, is in there says a lot about the accuracy of that poll in actually predicting who the next one will be.
I think it is more a representation of the type of voter support that is currently within the Tory party, we don't know who will stand up in the competition, however those voters will go somewhere and likely support in the majority who that individual also wants in. Regardless of who actually ends up in the last two I would expect the Davis/Boris/RMogg group all to swing behind one candidate and the Javid/Rudd/etc group to swing behind that group at a simplistic level. If there is a general push for ex UKIPs to join the conservatives then that will only favour the hard Wrexit group the longer that May stays in control (because it gives more time for people to get over the three month hurdle).
If we assume that there are about 100 hard Brexiters and they all swing behind one candidate then it will difficult for the Tories to stop that person getting through to the final vote. There are only 316 Tory MPs that means that getting to the last two in this scenario would mean a very carefully orchestrated situation where 108ish have to split equally to push Bozo out of the way. Gove is the one to watch. If he splits the hard Wrexiters then that gives the opportunity for the Remainers/soft Wrexiters to push them both out. Gove isn't tarnished in the same way as Boris. Both his attempts for power are much more subtle but he is much more competent than the buffoonery of Bozo. He also has the advantage in that he is living in the coat tails of the plastics issue. Gove can therefore persuade less hard Wrexiters to support either himself or Bozo because of this. The thought of Gove as PM though in some ways is much more terrifying than Bozo.
My postulation would be in the current circumstances the RMogg is the king maker. He'll decide who will lead the campaign (again assuming he doesn't throw his hat into the ring). If then Boris and Gove support this (and if Davis also supports this) then the rest of the Tory party will be hard pressed to stop it.
Please, that's massively overexaggerating his competency. He's the person most like the Simpsons' depiction of Gerald Ford I've ever seen:
Spoiler:
I wouldn't count him out. After all regardless of how badly he messes things up he still seems to survive. The Tories might think he might be the perfect person for the mess that is Wrexit.
May has well documented health problems, so I agree with others saying that she'll be out in a year or two, one way or another.
As for Rudd, I'd remind people that she was damaged by Windrush, and if you read Private Eye, the Rudd family is up to their necks in questionable financial dealings. But then again, that's par for the course in British politics these days, so I doubt if people other than the likes of us, would notice or care.
Bojo or Mogg is the man the grassroots want, but that would petrify Tory top brass who control the party levers and despise those two. In the midst of the crossfire, they'd probably get shot down and thus:
Pave the way for Jeremy Bloody Hunt!!!!
I'm sorry to say this people, but Hunt is going to win!
The man is bullet-proof. Scandal slides off him like gak off a shovel. He's close to the Murdochs. He's Cameron Mk.II
He believes in nothing, so the SPADs and the think tanks can get to him. He's the mythical centre ground that Middle England loves, and business doesn't lose sleep over.
He's beige, he's dull, he won't scare the horses, he'll maintain the corrupt and cosy status quo. And the powers that be will love him for it.
he'd get the blessing of Murdoch and the Daily Mail crew.
Gove stabbed Bojo in the back, and is generally seen as the weasel type. Tory grassroots, the Brexit types, see Gove as rolling up the white flag to the Chequers deal and the EU.
It's still Hunt for me. He'll let the others knock lumps out of each other, and then ooze his way into Downing Street when the opposition is badly wounded and exhausted...
How else do you explain Hunt's survival? At any other time in recent British politics, he'd be cast out by now, and be lucky to get a gig on Celebrity Big Brother.
And yet, he here he is smoothing his way into the FO.
Hunt is the most hated member of the British government after the NHS and transport debacles. The reason he hasn't been cast out is because the Tories need someone to play axeman/public hate figure, and he got picked. It's not through any particular competency or popularity of his own.
That in turn makes him untenable as a prospective candidate though, because nobody in the public will vote for him. What the Tories think of him personally is irrelevant, because they'll be selecting the leader in line with who it is they think will be able to maintain them in power. And Hunt is not that man.
Rees-Mogg has little pull in the party on his own accord. It's why he never really had a profile pre-Brexit beyond one or two entertaining soundbites. He's archaic. The only reason he has any power now is because the government's majority is so tenuous that even the dozen votes him and his mates hold is serious. The minute you're looking at the next leader/election, that minor momentary advantage fizzles out. He's a backbencher with minor media attention due to current events, and that will pass along with those events.
Gove is clumsy. He's made a lot of enemies internally and externally with his various shennanigans. I think he'd like to be PM, and may well toss his hat in the ring. But like Fox, he's got too much dragging him down and not enough clout. I doubt he'll make the final two.
Gove stabbed Bojo in the back, and is generally seen as the weasel type. Tory grassroots, the Brexit types, see Gove as rolling up the white flag to the Chequers deal and the EU.
On the other hand he probably rescued the Tories from a Bozo being PM - if he had continued to support him then you would probably have had a run off between May and Bozo.
It's still Hunt for me. He'll let the others knock lumps out of each other, and then ooze his way into Downing Street when the opposition is badly wounded and exhausted...
I think we can confidently say that once we are to the last two, if it is in the next year or so, it will go to the hardest Wrexit leaning candidate. The question really is who gets to the last two. The hard Wrexiters appear a lot more organised and forceful in getting what they want. Whether that will continue into a leadership contest is diffiuclt to say. It really comes down to whether individuals will fall in line (so no Gove stabbing people in the back) with the group RMogg heads. Any division likely leads to 2 softers Wrexiters/remainers. I imagine that this summer is a lot of people running around doing deals.
Gove is clumsy. He's made a lot of enemies internally and externally with his various shennanigans. I think he'd like to be PM, and may well toss his hat in the ring. But like Fox, he's got too much dragging him down and not enough clout. I doubt he'll make the final two.
Just to point out though we had A Leadsom in the last two previously. If the Tories can put her into almost a position where she became PM then I don't think we should be able to discount anyone.
Usually I'd say this would count for something, but the Wrexit ideology on both sides I think throws this sort of thing into the air. You might have been thrashed previously but if an MP is dead set on a hard Wrexit they may choose to ignore previous transgressions.
For a lot of keen Leavers it is not about economic benefit, it is about English identity, which they believe to depend what is actually an illusion of sovreignty.
The blue passport is the classic example. Leaving the EU allows us to have our beloved old style blue passport back, except it doesn't because the EU allows us to have a blue passport anyway if we like. The EU requires us to adhere to the international standard laid down by the ICAA, but we will still have to follow after leaving the EU if we want our passports to work.
I have not seen a rational reason for leaving. Only stuff about sovereignty, with no explanation of what that means, complaints about how the EU is corrupt, with no evidence other than our failing to engage with elections, talk of taking our fishing grounds back (ignoring that we need a market to sell the fist to, or that it is a tiny part of our economy) and stuff about the ECHR, which we will still be subject to. Oh and something about money we are sending to the EU, which it turns out is far less than leaving will cost us.
I have not seen a single reason to leave other tha. “I don’t like the EU”.
So, the argument is along the lines of -
'I don't want a piece of the pie! I want a whole pie! 'But the pie is going to be smaller than the piece of pie we used to have?'
'Yes, but it will be our pie!'
Can I ask Remain supporters a serious question: what have you got against sovereignty?
For two years, it's been a stick to attack Leave with, and not just on Dakka, but across Remain suporting media in general.
No offence to you lot, but your attacks often come across as...well...illiberal...
The ability of the people to have a say in the make up of insutitions that affect them the most: government, courts, police etc etc
Is the most fundamental thing in our Democracy. In my book, it trumps everything else.
It's why we had a civil war, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Independent Labour Party etc etc
Is business and economy important? Of course, but it's not the be all and end all.
You forget that pre-EU, every hard won right had to be wrestled from the money men. If it were up to business, we'd all be doing 12 hour shifts down coal mines for 1p an hour.
Now this is the part where somebody comes along and say, when do I get to vote for the Queen of the Lords?
If it were up to me, they would be scrapped, but ask yourself this: what's easier?
One country changing itself, or one country wanting to change the EU, but needing 27 other nations and 500 million people to do so?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crispy78 wrote: This is one hell of a thread. Attempts to summarise the costs and benefits of EU membership.
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
But sovereignty is useless if you can't do anything with it because your economy has collapsed, for example. Voting to do good things is useless if you cannot actually make those good things happen.
Because Sovereignty is a fallacy and an illusion. You'd be willing to throw away decades of incredible hard work and gain for something that would throw us right back to the beginning and make everyone suffer for an illusion. And everyone would have to work bloody harder than that just to try and pull ourselves back into the position we threw away 5 minutes before.
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...
I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:
1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.
2. German re-unification.
West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.
As for the EU, their priority should be trade, and new trading opportunities, not foreign affairs, battle groups, messing around in Ukraine, or this bollcoks about ever closer union.
I will maintain until my dying breath that if it were purely trade, with Greece and Italy able to devaule their own currency if they ever got into trouble, we would never have heard about Brexit.
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this should be relabelled the 'Brexit thread' instead of UK politics. I wander off for three months, drop in every now and again to mention contemporary stuff, but almost a hundred pages later, the automatic default is still on it. And it's pretty....well, boring to be honest.
I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:
1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.
Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!
It's a fair point to say that many other political issues are not being fully covered, but when the fall out of Brexit is looking more and more like a total catastrophe, complaining about anything else feels like putting a works service request in for your broken air conditioning whilst the whole building is on fire.
Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?
Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?
Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?
Twenty odd years t'internet has been going for most us. I can order my dinner and christmas presents in my pants, pick up a Russian bride while streaming bad eighties cartoons, download the plans to the starship Enterprise (every version!) and set up a pukka deal with this bloke from Nigeria that is going to make me a fortune if I just send him 10k.
Two things I can't seem to get right on the net....
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can I ask Remain supporters a serious question: what have you got against sovereignty?
For two years, it's been a stick to attack Leave with, and not just on Dakka, but across Remain suporting media in general.
No offence to you lot, but your attacks often come across as...well...illiberal...
There you go missing the thrust of the point. Yet again.
I have no issue with 'sovereignty'. I have issues with the idea that somehow we are 'gaining' sovereignty.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The ability of the people to have a say in the make up of insutitions that affect them the most: government, courts, police etc etc
Is the most fundamental thing in our Democracy. In my book, it trumps everything else.
It's why we had a civil war, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Independent Labour Party etc etc
Red herring. Can you point to a time when as part of the hated eu, we lost the right to vote or have elections, or for 'the people' to have their say in the make-up of their government.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is business and economy important? Of course, but it's not the be all and end all.
'Sovereignty ain't all that, and a packet of crisps on its own either.
Try to pay your bills or fill your belly with 'sovereignty'. Go on. I'm waiting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You forget that pre-EU, every hard won right had to be wrestled from the money men. If it were up to business, we'd all be doing 12 hour shifts down coal mines for 1p an hour.
So, you are saying that on our own, it was a struggle to get even the most basic of rights that we take for granted today? Yes, you're really selling this idea of us on our own.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Now this is the part where somebody comes along and say, when do I get to vote for the Queen of the Lords?
If it were up to me, they would be scrapped, but ask yourself this: what's easier?
One country changing itself, or one country wanting to change the EU, but needing 27 other nations and 500 million people to do so?
Red herring. Both are beyond the grasp of the individual, shy of some culture shift. All it takes is one person with money at the top to say 'no' and it doesn't happen. And all brexit has done is hand the country over to those vultures who will pick its carcass clean and leave us with a shadow.
Future War Cultist wrote:@ DINLT
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
Ah yes, 'we've had enough of experts'. Let's see how well this goes, eh? I mean. we're doing that right now, and the future ain't looking too bright. I put my faith in facts, data, analysis and rational thought. Not 'feels'.
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...
I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:
1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.
2. German re-unification.
West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.
As for the EU, their priority should be trade, and new trading opportunities, not foreign affairs, battle groups, messing around in Ukraine, or this bollcoks about ever closer union.
I will maintain until my dying breath that if it were purely trade, with Greece and Italy able to devaule their own currency if they ever got into trouble, we would never have heard about Brexit.
Seriously? Germany is your problem now?
Sorry but have you any idea what is going on there?
Wait let me answer that, no you don't.
If you look at EU decisions it was mostly germany that backed up british demands in the economic crisis and other things in the EU until very recently and that is only the case in regards to immigration.
East Germany is a economic BURDEN for germany. There are far more unemployed people there. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36651/umfrage/arbeitslosenquote-in-deutschland-nach-bundeslaendern/ A solid 2% more on average, in some cases double or tripple the average if you compare the diffrent states.
In fact talk to any Wessie or Ossie and you will see that the reunification very much did not properly happen. There are less jobs in east germany, public schooling is worse, life expectancy is worse and year after year the german government pumps money in there taken from west and southern german states, which make up the bulk of the economy.
"West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean. "
No what you really meant to say that you can't deal with someone that has more influence then you respectively is bigger then you.
Writing in a hurry but I’m with you Ketara. This thread goes round and round in fething tedious circles. I kick myself every time I post in here, continuing the merry go round of gak. I don’t want to, but the GW and media related threads I’m following aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not leaving while that DCM is still outstanding. feth I regret paying that.
I don't know why I picked up a stars and stripes on that post, I'm a Brit. Maybe it's because I'm in France at the moment, on roaming data...
And no, sovereignty doesn't matter a damn to me compared to prosperity. I'd rather integrate fully with the EU and take on the euro than go through Brexit. That said, I really don't see that France, Germany etc have lost anything significant on the sovereignty front with their membership.
Britain has not been Britain forever. We used to be Wessex, Mercia and Northumberland. Before that we were individual tribes. Maybe the people of Wessex didn't want to be unified with Mercia, at this point who knows? But it's worked out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Can I ask Remain supporters a serious question: what have you got against sovereignty?
For two years, it's been a stick to attack Leave with, and not just on Dakka, but across Remain suporting media in general.
No offence to you lot, but your attacks often come across as...well...illiberal...
The ability of the people to have a say in the make up of insutitions that affect them the most: government, courts, police etc etc
We also have a say in how the EU is made up, directly through the EU elections and indirectly in our MPs and PM who make decisions on whether to approve EU regulations or not.
The issue is that you confuse the definition of sovereignty with an idealistic view that the UK parliament can make all the rules and not have to consider any wider oversight. The definition of sovereignty is (according to the Oxford dictionary):-
"The authority of a state to govern itself or another state" or "A self governing state". The EU however can be considered a "state". So the question really is whether you believe that a larger state (the EU) can implement systems and govern that make the population of that state (the EU) better off overall and hopefully for most. You can hence still support sovereignty it's just a different state supported. Your principle seems to be that a state can only be an individual country, but some here, including myself, think that a global system of democracy that distributes wealth/social equality/environmental concerns in a more equitable way would provide a better world where we can move forward as a species. Hence why the thinking that really you aren't referring to sovereignty but rather nationalism. You could easily take the argument further. I could state that I think Northamptonshire should make more rules and take them away from the UK parliament. If you opposed that view then I could just argue you are against sovereignty as it would be better for Northamptonshire to be its own state (which it is to an extent). Obviously this argument on sovereignty falls apart then because you can increasingly consider smaller elements as a state (until you get to a 'state of me'). Supporting a global state would allow wider rules to help combat such issues as climate change which at a nationalistic level are failing terribly. What your question really is, is "what have we against nationalism".
Regardless sovereignty doesn't really exist in the way you view it. We are bound by volumes worth of international law whether we are in the EU or not. The only way to avoid that would be to move the whole of the UK to somewhere in space in an isolated dome with no contact with anyone.
Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!
Well, you don't have to read or contribute. And to be fair the above items have been discussed so I'm not sure why this is being mentioned
Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?
Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?
That largely depends on how badly things get messed up. A population that is triggered can act in irrational ways. But we will have the guidance from the government shortly as what they expect. A couple of days ago we tried to work out the potential impacts on local authorities and what would happen in a no deal scenario. The general conclusion was the social care (like old age homes) would collapse first. They are already on a shoestring budget for those where a local authority pays for the care. An increase in prices, fuel etc would probably make the businesses unviable, it would become too expensive for Council's to run and then it was anyone's guess.
Back to point though the real issue is we don't really know where the trigger pressure points are (you only have to look at Graylings approach to transport). For example lets say we go hard Wrexit and customs is delayed by 60 minutes per vehicle. That generates significant delays to trucks and the government actions "Kent, the lorry park". With increasing vehicle stacking everyone starts getting stuck in traffic. The ability to transport goods becomes more limited and the extra delays mean more fuel wasted. However there are less vehicles available to transport fuel (all tied up in queues or other work). Petrol stations near Kent start running out of fuel as the lorries simply can't get to the stations quick enough. Panic buying sets in as people top up to try and ensure they can get to work in the Kent region. To combat this other lorries from elsewhere in the country get dragged in to try and provide supplies. That introduces shortages elsewhere as other vehicles get bogged down. With little fuel being transported, lorries can no longer refuel. Refrigeration units switch off, food starts to spoil, the situation escalates. Now this is just one example scenario that could feasibly happen if the trigger points aren't suitably managed. I think all our concern should be that the government isn't really listening and is producing things that it thinks will be a problem. The issue with that approach is you can miss the underground item that no one thinks about but is critical to lubricating the system.
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
I don't think anyone has ever talked about getting rid of democracy. However democracy is failing when you consistently put in place politicians that ignore facts and will just lie or exaggerate to get what they want. The experts are there to guide and advise as to the impacts of decisions and the politicians should take that information into account act in a rational and open manner. When you close your ears and eyes to the experts that are trying to advise of the impacts and plough on regardless you have the 'democracy' of populism which just then becomes a vote on who tells the populace what they want to hear the most (rather than what they *need* to hear)
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.
There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...
I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:
1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.
2. German re-unification.
West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.
So if Germany (roughly 1/5 of EU economy) is too big for Europe how do you propose the UK to fit in EFTA where the UK would be 2.5 the size of all the other members combined?
Back to your first issue, again, the EEC was about a common European project way beyond the economy from day one. Listen to the speeches and negotiations leading to the treaties of Brussels, then Paris and then Rome. The EU is like that by design, right or wrong.
That's why the UK founded EFTA, an exclusively free trade association which lost the race to attract new members and ultimately the UK themselves.
I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:
1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.
It's the event of the century in Europe, one that will be studied in history books for many more centuries to come.
Most importantly, it's still on a stage where it can be stopped dead with minimal damage. So of course people who were either against it from day one or have changed their minds will be proselytising about it.
Maybe it's just because I'm from the US and we don't have the couple thousand year history behind us, but I don't really get the Leave side in this.
I mean isn't it better to be part of an economic bloc, especially as other economic blocs and ever-growing corporations are shaking things up (generally for the worse). It seems like there's a lot more leverage that way.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because Sovereignty is a fallacy and an illusion. You'd be willing to throw away decades of incredible hard work and gain for something that would throw us right back to the beginning and make everyone suffer for an illusion. And everyone would have to work bloody harder than that just to try and pull ourselves back into the position we threw away 5 minutes before.
Over a thousand years of history would disagree with you, bro.
And if you think this is the case, then I would challenge you to build a house right on the national boundary of two nations that are not the EU. Then, we'll see what happens.
Ketara wrote: I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this should be relabelled the 'Brexit thread' instead of UK politics. I wander off for three months, drop in every now and again to mention contemporary stuff, but almost a hundred pages later, the automatic default is still on it. And it's pretty....well, boring to be honest.
I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:
1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.
Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!
I agree with you on points 1-6, but damn it, I like re-hashing Brexit arguments.
This is a reply I wanted to say to you earlier, but I forgot, so here it is:
Mogg is a rare breed, he's Conservative that actually believes in Conservative values, unlike the other non-Tories who make up the Blue Blairite Party.
Blairism and the middle ground poisoned British politics for 20 years IMO, and if Cameron was a Tory, my name is Edmund Burke. Cameron was only ever a watered down Blair.
Corbyn has the same problem: he's a socilalist in a party that despises socialism and the working classes.
A Corbyn Vs. Mogg General Election would give us a genuine ideological choice, not this middle ground bollocks, and we haven't had that choice since Thatcher Vs. Foot in 1983. My first proper General Election. God, I feel old...
But grab a violin and let me remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we had proper political debate, and MPs didn't treat the public like idiots and yes, it's true, MPs used to wander the streets and talk to ordinary voters.
Seriously, it's true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScarletRose wrote: Maybe it's just because I'm from the US and we don't have the couple thousand year history behind us, but I don't really get the Leave side in this.
I mean isn't it better to be part of an economic bloc, especially as other economic blocs and ever-growing corporations are shaking things up (generally for the worse). It seems like there's a lot more leverage that way.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
As a piece of propaganda, yeah it's easy to fool people with "them foreigners are stealing from you!". We have plenty of that rhetoric here too, but it's just that - rhetoric.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
But sovereignty is useless if you can't do anything with it because your economy has collapsed, for example. Voting to do good things is useless if you cannot actually make those good things happen.
I would say this to whirlwind as well: Yes, 'true' sovereignty, the 100% version, probably went out the window in 1945, and yes, only North Korea would fit the true sovereignty bill, and even they have to rely on China for help.
Yes, we all have to take rules from somebody in the modern world, and some make sense e.g helping to save the environment. No argument with that.
And I appreciate the irony of people who moan about EU rules, but are ready to fall in behind WTO rules without question.
But that doesn't mean we should not retain as much as we can, and always give ourselves room to manouvere and give the ordinary people as much of a say as we possibly can.
Yeah, the ironic thing is that Britain has probably more sovereignty in the EU than it would have outside of it. Outside of the EU, Britain is just a plaything for the great economic powers of the world.
I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:
1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.
2. German re-unification.
West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.
I like that idea if only because East Germany used to have some good music and an all-around very interesting, distinct culture that has unfortunately been lost now. However, I don't think you would have been able to convince many East Germans at the time of that idea. They had enough of being divided to vote (in East Germany's only free election ever) to dissolve their own country entirely. But who knows, maybe with all the Ostalgie nowadays we can convince some people to put the Berlin Wall back up?
For point 1 however, you can not have trade without politics. Politics and trade are inseparably intertwined.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Well, as soon as the word 'technocrat' gets thrown around as part of some conspiracy gak I know when it's safe to ignore posts. Thanks.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Explain how that works please, since the average person on the streets of Paris and Berlin has exactly the same amount of votes (1) as a member of the elite, and a democrat similarly has exactly the same amount of votes as a technocrat? Meanwhile, big multinationals don't get votes at all, and the EU seems at many times downright hostile to multinationals?
As a general reply, of course I don't underestimate the importance of business and economy, and I readily acknowledge that for all its faults, capitalism has lifted millions from poverty, saved lives, and gave us prosperity.
I feel that along the way, the balance between democracy and big business has been lost.
Every time there's a news story, I get sick and tired of people asking how will the markets react? What about Economic uncertainty? And all those puffed up gak bags from the CBI or other big business banging on about business business business, as though it were the be all and end all of everything.
I get sick and tired about lobbyists working behind the scenes and gaining access to politicians that ordinary people could only dream off, and often it's not always for the common good. It's not unique to the EU, Britain is up to its neck in dodgy cash and dodgier donors,
but I'm always uncormfotable with the undue influence business sometimes has on government and democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ironic thing is that Britain has probably more sovereignty in the EU than it would have outside of it. Outside of the EU, Britain is just a plaything for the great economic powers of the world.
I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:
1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.
2. German re-unification.
West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.
Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.
I like that idea if only because East Germany used to have some good music and an all-around very interesting, distinct culture that has unfortunately been lost now. However, I don't think you would have been able to convince many East Germans at the time of that idea. They had enough of being divided to vote (in East Germany's only free election ever) to dissolve their own country entirely. But who knows, maybe with all the Ostalgie nowadays we can convince some people to put the Berlin Wall back up?
For point 1 however, you can not have trade without politics. Politics and trade are inseparably intertwined.
Hang on a minute here. Who's side are you on? I thought that Russians like you wanted Brexit, so you could break up the EU and leave it ripe for the T-34s to roll back into Eastern Europe? Wasn't that Putin's plan?
And yes, I do have a strange nostalgia for East Germany as well. Everything made sense in the Cold War. You always knew where you stood.
Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?
Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?
It's actually a good point that Brexit has absorbed the energies and talents (such as they are) of the government and civil service to the detriment of many other aspects of national life such as Grenfell and Universal Credit. That's actually not surprising considering it is the deepest crisis since WW2, but the supine attitude of Corbyn must be blamed for some of this.
To return to the main theme, a leading Labour Brexiteer has warned that a referendum would be a gross offence against democracy and should not be held as it would result in serious civil disturbances.
I'm going to stockpile some food and fuel. Nothing that won't get used in the end if things are all fine. Cans and lavatory paper last for ages, after all. I like baked beans.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Same can be said for every modern country, with the same accuracy.
I've never particularly regretted my decision to leave the UK as soon as I possibly could, but the current state of affairs does make me extremely glad I did when I did. I'm largely of the belief that a populace gets the government it deserves and I'm firmly of the belief that the British populace entirely deserves everything that is happening and will happen.
This is what happens when turkeys vote for christmas, when oysters blindly follow walrus.
The schadenfreude (guilty pleasure, for Leave voters) is incredible. It's amusing beyond description to watch it all fall apart and see you fight over crumbs.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Well, as soon as the word 'technocrat' gets thrown around as part of some conspiracy gak I know when it's safe to ignore posts. Thanks.
As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".
If you think what I said is some sort of "conspiracy theory", then you have either lived in a box your entire life, have no understanding of how the world works, or both.
But feel free to ignore my posts. No skin off my back.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Explain how that works please, since the average person on the streets of Paris and Berlin has exactly the same amount of votes (1) as a member of the elite, and a democrat similarly has exactly the same amount of votes as a technocrat? Meanwhile, big multinationals don't get votes at all, and the EU seems at many times downright hostile to multinationals?
You're a Russian national, and you have to ask this question? I'm sure you remember the decade after the fall of the U.S.S.R., with the rise of the oligarchs, and former communist party members suddenly changing stripes to maintain their power and influence, and getting rich in the process? The same asshats that Putin either took down or forced to toe the line after his rise to power?
The elites are the movers and shakers. Their influence isn't limited to mere votes. That's for the little sheeple. Their power comes from money and influence. And they don't have to be career politcians, or in power over a nation-state. People like George Soros have far more (and farther reaching) influence than the majority of career politcians in individual countries. Plus, big multi-national corporations and high finance groups are in far better standing in the EU than most believe, to the point where they have influence on policies (even policies that seem to be politically or socially insane by rational standards; they are driven purely by economic motives and the bottom line).
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Same can be said for every modern country, with the same accuracy.
Sadly enough, this is all too true. But keeping the Big Money and weasels like Soros on their toes is easier in a single nation-state, with a shared history and identity, than in big,forced multi-national alliances and wannabe "super states".
In Spain, you can hold your country's politicans accountable to a point. The arrogant, elitist turds in Brussels are a whole different story.
As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".
Oh man, right-wing defense bingo time.
If a bum is on the street corner shouting "fight me!" it's not a sign of anything if I don't take them up on fighting them.
If you think what I said is some sort of "conspiracy theory", then you have either lived in a box your entire life, have no understanding of how the world works, or both.
It's not a conspiracy you just don't know THE TRUTH!
I guess I should be happy my point was proven.
But feel free to ignore my posts. No skin off my back.
As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".
Oh man, right-wing defense bingo time.
Did you see how quickly George Soros' name was reached for as well?
I would say this to whirlwind as well: Yes, 'true' sovereignty, the 100% version, probably went out the window in 1945, and yes, only North Korea would fit the true sovereignty bill, and even they have to rely on China for help.
Yes, we all have to take rules from somebody in the modern world, and some make sense e.g helping to save the environment. No argument with that.
And I appreciate the irony of people who moan about EU rules, but are ready to fall in behind WTO rules without question.
But that doesn't mean we should not retain as much as we can, and always give ourselves room to manouvere and give the ordinary people as much of a say as we possibly can.
This may have worked in the 18-1900s though when both our impact on the world was much less and people's mobility was less.
We are now in a global world and there are global issues. These cannot be resolved with local laws. If you want a populace to allow for itself where it works and lives then that requires a common rulebook that covers these areas. If you want to deal with environmental concerns that have global consequences then you need a common rulebook to ensure that everyone contributes to meeting those aims. If you have international scientific collaboriations then those with a common rulebook are more effective and efficient, not only because you can pool financial resources but also because people can choose to move easily to where the expertise is needed (without concerns that when that expertise is no longer needed they get turfed out of where they've settled). A customs union means that you can purchase an item from Italy (or return it for repair) without any unnessecary delays and knowledge that the goods you buy meet the same standards. I know someone that has had to send a personal mechnical item for repair back to the US. Just for the individual there is a mountain of paperwork that needs to be done. A common rulebook avoids all of this. The rules you are opposed to the EU making are there to provide a better standard for everyone. Yes the wealthiest still benefit massively and that is a global issue that needs to be tackled. However the EU have also invested in the poorest areas of the UK that would never have happened at a UK level both because of the lack of appetitie for improving areas that don't vote for you and that they don't have the ability to pool resources in the same way. The rules you want brought back to the UK no longer benefit the UK in the way that they would have done in the 1800-1900s.
NEWS: Foreign Secretary @Jeremy_Hunt has delivered a speech at the @USIP calling on like-minded countries to defend the international rules-based system
..perhaps some sort of, I dunno, union between neighbouring countries or something ?
Tory ministers have spent £200million fighting to stop people getting sickness and disability benefits.
We obtained our figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) through a Freedom of Information request.
They show the DWP ran up an estimated £199million in 'direct operating costs' between 2013/14 and 2017/18 dealing with the two stages of PIP and ESA appeals.
The first stage, internal reviews called Mandatory Reconsiderations, cost the DWP an estimated £50.7m for ESA and £43.4m for PIP over five years.
The second stage, external appeal tribunals, cost the DWP an estimated £58.7m for ESA and £46.2m for PIP.
The overall cost per year of dealing with both types of PIP and ESA appeals shot up from around £32m in 2015/16 to £45m in 2016/17 and £62m in 2017/18.
The true cost will be far higher, because our figures do not count the price of running the appeal hearings themselves - which are paid for by the Ministry of Justice.
In 2016/17 alone the MOJ spent £103.1m on social security and child support tribunals - four out of five of which were either for PIP or ESA.
Once those costs are included, our analysis suggests the PIP and ESA appeal system cost taxpayers more than £100million a year.
ESA Mandatory Reconsiderations
2013/14 £3,126,636
2014/15 £14,551,932
2015/16 £9,692,386
2016/17 £10,712,461
2017/18 £12,590,885
PIP Mandatory Reconsiderations
2013/14 £292,435
2014/15 £3,882,822
2015/16 £7,500,733
2016/17 £13,900,013
2017/18 £17,847,514
ESA appeal tribunals
2013/14 £27,413,965
2014/15 £7,458,654
2015/16 £5,363,552
2016/17 £6,664,243
2017/18 £11,811,576
PIP appeal tribunals
2013/14 £147,164
2014/15 £2,799,971
still at least we're not wasting money by giving it to, err. the sick and needy who are legally entitled to it but are managing to make huge and regular payments to Atos, Capita etc etc .
In Spain, you can hold your country's politicans accountable to a point. The arrogant, elitist turds in Brussels are a whole different story.
MEPs are elected, and MEPs can oust the Commission (which is the usual target people usually throw the "unelected elite" at) which is itself appointed by the national governments (which are themselves elected) and then confirmed by the (elected) parliament.
Everything in Brussels is elected either directly or indirectly, except for public servants. So, again, just like everywhere else.
DINLT, on 16 Sept 1987 the UK ratified the Montreal Protocol. This was the international agreement that banned CFCs that damage the ozone layer. It is one of the most remarkably effective international treaties. It is one of only two treaties to be ratified by every UN member state, with even North Korea a signatory. And despite some recent illicit production in China, production of CFCs has ceased worldwide. The ozone layer is slowly recovering.
One part of the treaty is a multilateral fund in which developed countries pay developing countries to help them not to use CFCs. (CFCs are still cheaper than their alternatives, hence that illicit production I mentioned.) The UK is a net contributor to the treaty's operations.
So, when Margaret Thatcher signed this multilateral treaty and bound the UK to observe new international rules and make net payments to a foreign organisation what happened to UK sovereignty?
Did UK sovereignty increase because signing the treaty was an expression and demonstration of that sovereignty?
Did it decrease because the UK became a rule taker and budget contributor to the treaty's elected executive committee?
Did it make no difference to the UK's sovereignty? Or is it not even meaningful to talk about sovereignty in these terms?
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
I get a gak load more of a say in how my country runs within the EU than an Indian citizen did in the "commonwealth".
The EU doesn't ship in governors or asset strip parts of it's Empire, or use military threat to get it's way.
The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.
If in some universe there was a sizeable amount of people who were really opposed to what Thatcher did, they could express their opposition at the voting booth, and oust her from government (or at least give them a black eye for it so to speak, like May suffered from her election), and then vote for a party who’s leader is committed to reversing it. It’s difficult but in theory it’s doable. The politician comes to their decision however they come to it, but they and their party will have to answer for it eventually.
We’re actually seeing this in action with Trump. He’s reversing the Iranian treaty and other decisions, right or wrong, because that’s what people voted him to do. He doesn’t have some organisation above him telling him no you’re not doing that because your predecessor signed an irreversible contract. I’m not expressing support for Trump, I’m just demonstrating real sovereignty in action.
The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it. Everyone is only ever one way with the EU.
I’m sure Ketara could explain this better, if the soul destroying monotony of this thread hasn’t destroyed his will to live.
Let's not fool ourselves that the UK is a land of pure transparent liberty and the EU is an iron-fisted dictatorship with velvet gloves.
We see exactly the same sort of high-handed behaviour from our own politicians and civil servants.
There's actually less chance to stop any decisions because at least in the EU things can be halted and vetoed at various different levels of government. (Ironically, this is called a fault by Brexiteers.)
Here's a non Brexit issue. Of course, as was so blithely pointed out a few pages back, any sort of Brexit is going to, at le2ast, knock a few % off our GDP, so any fix for this will now be far, far further down the line.
Brexiteers moaning about how boring Brexit is, 2 years after they voted for it, and just now one day before the no deal impact reports start to appear is .... I don't even know.
Here is another. Rotherham, Rochdale etc far more likely the recur anywhere that funding is cut away to nothing.
Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't vote to leave, the Dutch did. And now, 2 years later, with no deal still on the horizon and all parties still digging their heels in, with all our trade through Rotterdam etc threatened, Dutch dakka members who voted to leave were on here whining about how boring it all now is.
Wouldn't you be toe-curlingly embarrassed on their behalf? I would.
As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".
Oh man, right-wing defense bingo time.
Did you see how quickly George Soros' name was reached for as well?
I'm glad that Soros is getting involved with Remain, because the words Soros and Black Wednesday are worth their weight in gold to the Leave side.
George, if you're reading this, keep chucking your money at Remain.
and get Blair to be your frontman. Leave will win every referendum from now until 3000 AD.
Here's a non Brexit issue. Of course, as was so blithely pointed out a few pages back, any sort of Brexit is going to, at le2ast, knock a few % off our GDP, so any fix for this will now be far, far further down the line.
Brexiteers moaning about how boring Brexit is, 2 years after they voted for it, and just now one day before the no deal impact reports start to appear is .... I don't even know.
Here is another. Rotherham, Rochdale etc far more likely the recur anywhere that funding is cut away to nothing.
Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't vote to leave, the Dutch did. And now, 2 years later, with no deal still on the horizon and all parties still digging their heels in, with all our trade through Rotterdam etc threatened, Dutch dakka members who voted to leave were on here whining about how boring it all now is.
Wouldn't you be toe-curlingly embarrassed on their behalf? I would.
This sort of thing was happening even if we were in the EU.
As I've said to people before, what would a Remain victory look like? I'll tell you:
Vindication for that smug git Cameron. Osborne turbo charging austerity. Country going down the pan, albeit at a slower rate.
With all due respect, if anybody thinks a Remain victory would have helped us, then there's a plastic thunder hawk gunship I want to sell you.
The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.
If in some universe there was a sizeable amount of people who were really opposed to what Thatcher did, they could express their opposition at the voting booth, and oust her from government (or at least give them a black eye for it so to speak, like May suffered from her election), and then vote for a party who’s leader is committed to reversing it. It’s difficult but in theory it’s doable. The politician comes to their decision however they come to it, but they and their party will have to answer for it eventually.
We’re actually seeing this in action with Trump. He’s reversing the Iranian treaty and other decisions, right or wrong, because that’s what people voted him to do. He doesn’t have some organisation above him telling him no you’re not doing that because your predecessor signed an irreversible contract. I’m not expressing support for Trump, I’m just demonstrating real sovereignty in action.
The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it. Everyone is only ever one way with the EU.
I’m sure Ketara could explain this better, if the soul destroying monotony of this thread hasn’t destroyed his will to live.
DiNLT; what does a Leave victory look like? How are any of these issues going to get better outside of the EU?
It's hardly fair to say that uk government underfunding will still happen under the EU when even the most positive Brexit outlooks shows an economic hit that'll make it worse.
In related news, the latest returns to the Electoral Commission show that Conservative Party membership has plummetted in the last year while Labour and Lib-Dem have gone up.
Herzlos wrote: DiNLT; what does a Leave victory look like? How are any of these issues going to get better outside of the EU?
It's hardly fair to say that uk government underfunding will still happen under the EU when even the most positive Brexit outlooks shows an economic hit that'll make it worse.
IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.
Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core.
People are waking up to the Westminster bubble, how wretched and corrupt our politics is, how cosy the relationship is between MPs, big business and shills in the media who pretend to be journalists.
Brexit has sent them running for cover. No hiding place now, they will have to step up and govern, or be removed by those who can do the job.
Had we stayed in the EU, we were looking at nothing but managed decline, 0.5% growth per annum being celebrated as though it were a golden age of growth.
I have been on God's earth for 5 decades, and I can never in my lifetime, remember a time like these past 2 years when the nation was so involved in talking about trade and exports.
Do you remember that example some months ago I gave you? How our trade team went to Washington and got eaten alive, when normally highly trained lawyers and negotiators for the EU would have swooped to the rescue?
The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it.
The EU definitely works like that. The Commission is answerable to the national governments. The Commission can be sacked by a majority vote in the parliament. Furthermore, whatever the Commission puts out must be ratified by a) Parliament, b) EU Council (so, heads of state of respective countries) and in many cases also in the national parliaments themselves.
And yes, your vote can kick out the Commission. There have been Liberal, Conservative and Socialist presidents, reflecting the make up of the parliament of their time.
The much maligned CAP budget is today smaller, at constant prices, than at its peak in the late 90s (it's smaller now than in 1991, when the EU had just 12 members).
The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.
...
The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”.
Except this is demonstrably false and indeed you have commented on a situation where this happened just over a month ago and credited that the decision you agreed with was made. The EU proposed a Copyright Regulation that was proposed by the commission and was rejected by the, democratically elected, MEPs. This was on the back of a lot of grass root support and petitions to MEPs and so forth. So the idea that any decision can not be reversed by 'plebs' is false. I think perhaps a better description would be that the plebs don't get involved enough to make their voices heard.
WW1 was a shock and a correction to the class division and gross inequality of the Edwardian era, as well as helping promote female suffrage, and giving the first strong shove to the European Imperial system worldwide.
That doesn't mean we had to have a huge destructive war and kill millions to achieve that progress.
tneva82 wrote: Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...
Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.
I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.
You don't lose or gain democracy either way. We are still a democratic nation. We vote for the people to represent us at both the EU and the UK level. The EU is not some form of super dictatorship that has pulled the wool over our eyes for years. Both our PM and our own MEPs have a say in the legislation that is put forward. I'm intrigued to understand why you think that the EU is not democratic?
IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.
Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core. :soapbox
So given this statement and assuming the thinking is correct. Given that we voted very slightly to leave, exactly what tooth extraction has occurred to make things better, what major correction is ongoing that is 'going to shake up the whole damn system'?
Normally I wouldn’t respond to you, what with you being on my ignore list and all, but I accidentally clicked on your post so what the hell.
So that time the Parliament voted it down. Yippie. But what if it hadn’t? That would have came into law, and then the efforts it would have taken to undo it would have been so high, it just wouldn’t have happen. The commission, those ratbags, would fight tooth and nail to maintain it. Had the same thing happened via our own parliament, the people responsible would have to pay for it come next election.
And I don’t think it’s settled. I’m sure they’ll try coming at it from another angle. Because the EU has this habit of ignoring votes it doesn’t like and pushing it through anyway. Like the EU constitution, that was voted down, but went through anyway as the Lisbon Treaty.
tneva82 wrote: Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...
Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.
I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.
By being out of the EU, you don't get to vote MEP's and what not, at it's most basic, that's a loss of democracy.
Why are you taking away my ability to vote?
It's a sham parliament packed with misfits, place men, has beens, and UKIP members knocking lumps out of each other.
I doubt if Remain dakka members will lose sleep over Farage not being able to turn up at Brussels.
And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.
It is already impoverishing people and it hasn't happened yet.
There's no such thing as a "good" Brexit and no politician wants to say it because they're so cowardly.
Our politicians are up to their necks in EU money: Kinnocks, Mandelson, Clegg
They're hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: WW1 was a shock and a correction to the class division and gross inequality of the Edwardian era, as well as helping promote female suffrage, and giving the first strong shove to the European Imperial system worldwide.
That doesn't mean we had to have a huge destructive war and kill millions to achieve that progress.
Of course not. WW1 was a terrible catastrophe for Britain and Europe.
That being said, I think we need to look at the Longue Duree, the Annales school of thought when looking at Britain.
Since WW2, we lost an Empire, struggled to cope, stumbled into the EEC, wiped out manufacturing with Thatcher, let the spivs take over in the 1980s, witnessed our socialist Labour party lose their purpose when the Berlin Wall came down, and have spent 7 decades hanging onto America's coat-tails and spouting this special relationship bollocks.
We lost our way, but now we will have to roll up our sleeves and get stuck in. No ifs or buts.
I will concede this to Remain supporters: if we had taken Europe seriously at the begining, went all in, and moulded it with British values instead of being late to the party, history could well have been different.
Instead, we had a toxic combination of right-wing rags, hanging onto America's coat-tails, 40 years of Euro-Scepticism, and a political class that blamed Europe for their own incompetence and used it as a handy scapegoat.
The damage was done years ago, and that is one reason why I wanted out. We would never make it work.
Future War Cultist wrote: So that time the Parliament voted it down. Yippie. But what if it hadn’t? That would have came into law, and then the efforts it would have taken to undo it would have been so high, it just wouldn’t have happen. The commission, those ratbags, would fight tooth and nail to maintain it. Had the same thing happened via our own parliament, the people responsible would have to pay for it come next election.
It's flawed to think the commissioners decided on the legislation. The legislative priorities are set by the national leaders and the commissioners are the ones to then implement these priorities. If you don't like a piece of EU legislation then you are entitled to talk to your MP so they can talk to the PM about changing it. The European Parliament appoints and scrutinises what the commission are doing (such as are they working on the priorities the national governments are setting). The Council of Ministers and the Parliament then review that legislation and determine whether it is fit for purpose. If it's not it goes back to the commission. However they still have a responsibility to action the priorities of the national leaders. Simply because a legislation is voted against doesn't change the national priorities that have been set. In some ways they are like head civil servants in our country. They are appointed by the government of the day to implement their priorities which is then taken to the UK Parliament for consideration. I'm not sure why that makes any of them 'ratbags'?
And I don’t think it’s settled. I’m sure they’ll try coming at it from another angle. Because the EU has this habit of ignoring votes it doesn’t like and pushing it through anyway. Like the EU constitution, that was voted down, but went through anyway as the Lisbon Treaty.
That's because the national governments wanted it and set it as a priority. You can't blame the commissioners for implementing this.
It's a sham parliament packed with misfits, place men, has beens, and UKIP members knocking lumps out of each other.
I doubt if Remain dakka members will lose sleep over Farage not being able to turn up at Brussels.
And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.
That's not quite correct though, we only can vote against the MP that represents us. I can't vote to get rid of an SNPMP because I live in the midlands. There's hence no difference in why I or you shouldn't be allowed to get rid of a German or Danish MEP. They are not there to represent you, they are there to represent their constituents. Why should you be able to kick out an MEP or MP that is not there to represent you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Since WW2, we lost an Empire, struggled to cope, stumbled into the EEC, wiped out manufacturing with Thatcher, let the spivs take over in the 1980s, witnessed our socialist Labour party lose their purpose when the Berlin Wall came down, and have spent 7 decades hanging onto America's coat-tails and spouting this special relationship bollocks.
We lost our way, but now we will have to roll up our sleeves and get stuck in. No ifs or buts.
Your still not explaining what this means? Roll up our sleeves and get stuck into what? A tar pit? You keep on stating that it will 'bring changes' but where is the evidence for this. We have had two years now since the vote; have we swept away the old and brought in the new that's providing us some 'enlightened' future. If not now when are these mystical polticians going to arrive; are they silently hiding as MPs waiting to take over. These comments sound very familiar to the "Drain the Swamp" that Trump used and look how that turned out. You don't like Blair, Clegg, Cameron, old Labour, New Labour, UKIP, Tories, Greens, LDs, Rudd, Mogg, Bozo, May and so forth. The only thing you seem to say is that we should only have hard left and hard right politicians as anything otherwise just is the 'same' whereas its simply not as black and white as this and that shades of grey do matter.
I will concede this to Remain supporters: if we had taken Europe seriously at the begining, went all in, and moulded it with British values instead of being late to the party, history could well have been different.
Barring things like the ECHR of course, which the UK pretty much wrote and the EU accepted pretty much fully.
I suppose it’s really Juncker who I’m calling the ratbag. The guy who worked so hard to get his native Luxembourg sweet tax arrangements with big multinationals who now has the cheek, the audacity, to go around telling other countries they have to end theirs. Right or wrong, it’s rank hypocrisy. And that’s the least of my problems with that drunk.
I think it's another situation which can be addressed by staying in the EU and using our power and influence to set things to rights, or by leaving and hoping that the rest of the EU will deal with it.
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Explain how that works please, since the average person on the streets of Paris and Berlin has exactly the same amount of votes (1) as a member of the elite, and a democrat similarly has exactly the same amount of votes as a technocrat? Meanwhile, big multinationals don't get votes at all, and the EU seems at many times downright hostile to multinationals?
You're a Russian national, and you have to ask this question? I'm sure you remember the decade after the fall of the U.S.S.R., with the rise of the oligarchs, and former communist party members suddenly changing stripes to maintain their power and influence, and getting rich in the process? The same asshats that Putin either took down or forced to toe the line after his rise to power?
The elites are the movers and shakers. Their influence isn't limited to mere votes. That's for the little sheeple. Their power comes from money and influence. And they don't have to be career politcians, or in power over a nation-state. People like George Soros have far more (and farther reaching) influence than the majority of career politcians in individual countries. Plus, big multi-national corporations and high finance groups are in far better standing in the EU than most believe, to the point where they have influence on policies (even policies that seem to be politically or socially insane by rational standards; they are driven purely by economic motives and the bottom line).
Are you suggesting that the EU is like the Russian Federation? It is not. Yes, elites have influence, but that is the same in the UK as in the EU, and leaving the EU won't change anything. In fact, the British elite are the main ones who will profit from Brexit, while the common people will suffer, as usual. Also, their influence is a lot more limited than you might think. Unlike in Russia, in the EU you can't use money to directly influence anything. You can't just bribe someone. The only way for elites and business to influence things in the EU is through lobbying, which is of dubious usefulness since it depends entirely on how charismatic and how good the arguments your lobbyists can come up with are. The other way is of course the media. Most people are stupid enough to believe whatever their favourite media tells them, which means that if you own that media, you can control what people will vote for.
But again, this is true for all countries in the world, and the EU, being controlled by the countries that it consists of, isn't more susceptible to it than its individual members are.
Also, I guess some citation is needed for that last part. What kind of insane policies do you mean?
Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...
Can you see where I'm going with this?
No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.
No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.
Same can be said for every modern country, with the same accuracy.
Sadly enough, this is all too true. But keeping the Big Money and weasels like Soros on their toes is easier in a single nation-state, with a shared history and identity, than in big,forced multi-national alliances and wannabe "super states".
In Spain, you can hold your country's politicans accountable to a point. The arrogant, elitist turds in Brussels are a whole different story.
I thought it was the elites and multinationals that were the problem? Now it is the politicians? And for what it is worth, the politicians in the EU are every bit as accountable as those in Spain and the UK. If you don't like a European politician or party then don't vote for them. It works exactly the same way as with national politicians. Politicians in Brussels, I've met a few, aren't any more arrogant or elitist than politicians you find in EU member states (in fact they usually are the exact same people, since most EU politicians are relegated national politicians), and they are quite a bit less arrogant and elitist than the politicians you find in Westminster, which to me as a continental European are the very dictionary definition of arrogant and elitist. The only thing that is different is that people are simply too lazy and disinterested to even bother learning how the EU works and which parties and politicians there are and what they stand for. And then they blame "the EU" for things they are actually responsible for themselves. Now that is arrogance.
And no, keeping big money out is easier to do in a multinational organisation, since big money is multinational as well, meaning that a multinational organisation like the EU has more tools and resources to keep big businesses in check.
To your credit, you guys do make me question my decision every day. I don’t like admitting that, and I’ll probably regret admitting that. So, well done I guess.
@ whirlwind. It was a long winded way of saying we need to stand on our own two feet and not hide behind the EU's coat tails.
I'm selling more stuff abroad, so I'm doing my bit to help Britain's balance of payments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: To your credit, you guys do make me question my decision every day. I don’t like admitting that, and I’ll probably regret admitting that. So, well done I guess.
IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.
Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core.
On the contrary; one of the main reasons I voted remain was exactly because it provides a series of checks against bad MPs. They can only do so much damage whilst answering to the ecj and echr.
What shakeup do you actually see happening by handing more power to the corrupt and taking more money from the poor?
I think it’s more of a worry about crashing out. I don’t believe in cutting off our nose to spite our face. But backing down on that means letting the eu win, again, and that’s hard to stomach.
I would have went with efta has a start, and worked from there, because the EU is so deep into us now. Surgical removal rather than ripping it out and pissing out blood. But we had May in charge...
And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.
How do I, a voter in a Glasgow seat, remove Jacob Reese Moggs?
And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.
How do I, a voter in a Glasgow seat, remove Jacob Reese Moggs?
Having reread the last few pages (as bored out of my skull on hols), and inspired by FWCs absolute determination to get VFM from his DCM, I have resubbed too, in the hope Yakface will be able to complete his plans for world domination and save us all having to argue about who should be in charge.
Future War Cultist wrote: I suppose it’s really Juncker who I’m calling the ratbag. The guy who worked so hard to get his native Luxembourg sweet tax arrangements with big multinationals who now has the cheek, the audacity, to go around telling other countries they have to end theirs. Right or wrong, it’s rank hypocrisy. And that’s the least of my problems with that drunk.
Opposition to one person surely though shouldn't mean opposition to the EU. The EU was around before Juncker and will be around after he has gone (at most I'd say 5 years) because that would take him to his 70's. The principles of the EU stand apart from any individual. We don't condemn the whole of the UK because of Cameron or Blair do we?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @ whirlwind. It was a long winded way of saying we need to stand on our own two feet and not hide behind the EU's coat tails
But why?
What's wrong with outsourcing negotiations to a team of negotiators that are better than us and we can direct?
That means we can focus on something else. Just like I pay someone to do the stuff I don't have time to master.
And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.
How do I, a voter in a Glasgow seat, remove Jacob Reese Moggs?
By backing the campaign for Scottish indy
How would that work, then?
I'm all for Scottish Independence as a route back into the EU, but Mogg will still be there screwing everyone over.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @ whirlwind. It was a long winded way of saying we need to stand on our own two feet and not hide behind the EU's coat tails.
What does that mean though? Before we entered the EU we were one of poorest of the EU nations, the sick person of Europe. Yet by being in Europe we have now moved to being what 5/6th largest economy in the world. That sounds to me that we found a niche and exploited an area in the EU that benefited us. What coat tails were we riding? It's easy to produce soundbites, but what does it actually mean?
I'm selling more stuff abroad, so I'm doing my bit to help Britain's balance of payments.
IIRC you have said you sell second hand miniatures. So then I ask you this. If people outside the UK are benefiting from the low exchange rate, those people can now afford to snap up bargains that your own country can't afford to pay? What is the difference in Brown selling gold or when ARM was sold off? Is this not also asset stripping the country as we never get those items back, you aren't manufacturing anything, simply selling it to the highest bidder who is now foreign and simply gets the benefit of the weak exchange rate. The country is poorer because it no longer has that asset and you've sold it abroad for short term personal gain? How does this then achieve your aim of making the UK stand on its own two feet, once all the assets are sold then what do we do? Are you not in your own small way just being the same type of person that you generally dislike. Where is the difference?
We’re being dragged out by a bunch of fringe lunatics based on lies and misdirection.
How many people that voted Leave did so for this mess? Because I’m not referring to them as the fringe lunatics, but those that were, and continue to be, the driving forces behind the debacle.
Future War Cultist wrote: I suppose it’s really Juncker who I’m calling the ratbag. The guy who worked so hard to get his native Luxembourg sweet tax arrangements with big multinationals who now has the cheek, the audacity, to go around telling other countries they have to end theirs. Right or wrong, it’s rank hypocrisy.
It would only be hypocrisy if he did not do the same with his native Luxembourg and it's just not the case.
Juncker has led the charge against his own country at the same time as every other. He's something of a tainted figure in financial circles on his own country because of that. He was the Lux PM who lifted the long standing tradition of bank secrecy, not anyone else.
There's plenty to dislike from Juncker, but credit where credit's due.
It will depend on how badly Brexit goes. The scale of damage from Brexit ranges from bad to utterly disastrous.
Assuming the best result, it will be years before there are any benefits. Alternatively things could be so disastrous that within 5 years we are begging to be let back in, even some of the keen Leavers.
Personally I think things will be roughly in the middle. I think we will have10 very bad years, leaving the bulk of the population worse off than they are now, which is worse off than they were in 2008.
Then things will start to improve, but it will probably be another 10 to 20 years for us to get back to where we could have been now without Tory austerity. I think most of us are going to have to wait as long as Rees-Mogg's 50 years to see the benefits. (If there are any. There's no reason to suppose they will ever arrive.) I will be dead by then, so I'm not going to be healing any wounds.
We already know there is a big difference of opinion between the oldies like my parents (mostly anti-EU) and youngsters like my daughter (mostly pro-EU.) My daughter isn't going to bother blaming her grandparents 20 years after their death, but she surely isn't going to feel grateful to them either, or especially to young Brexiteers.
Another point is that a bad Brexit is almost certain to lead to Scottish independence and Irish re-unification within 10 to 20 years. That's great news for some people.
Perhaps this could all turn out to be bollocks. Maybe the UK could achieve the wonderful Brexit dream of a massively boosted economy which makes us all rich. It's just that there aren't any indicators at all of this happening, and loads of indicators to the opposite.
I’m sure Ketara could explain this better, if the soul destroying monotony of this thread hasn’t destroyed his will to live.
I've more or less accepted now that this is me:-
When we've left the EU and the immediate disruption has died down in a few years, I'll take another crack at discussing other stuff. Till then, I'll stop pissing in everyone's tea and leave them to enjoy themselves. After all, if there's one thing an Englishman hates; it's somebody trying to take away his favourite gripe.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.
By being out of the EU, you don't get to vote MEP's and what not, at it's most basic, that's a loss of democracy. Why are you taking away my ability to vote?
Or to put it another way - the UK is so close to the EU that many EU regulations will remain and many new ones will be adopted just to be able to continue dealing with the EU. The only difference (if Brexit happens) is that UK voters can no longer vote in their own MEPs to influence those EU regulations.
tneva82 wrote: Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...
Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.
I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.
You value democracy by being super anti-democracy? Lol. Anybody valuing democracy would have no problem with second vote about brexit now that truth is out. Only those that hate democracy would be against that.
You have shown your true colours long time ago so why not stop pretending?
When we've left the EU and the immediate disruption has died down in a few years,
So that’s the best pro leave argument you have “it will be painful for a few years then everyone will move on”? I thought the argument for leaving the EU was clear. Leave supporters not standing by it and unable to defend leaving the EU just makes it clear that it is wrong to leave. There is three main Leave posters and 6 or 7 remain posters with a selection of people who come in and snipe from the sides on either side. There is not some huge mass of bullying remain posters making it impossible for anyone leave to get their point in. The problem is that leave are unable to make a rational argument to leave and defend the wave after wave of bad news and KKs brexi bonuses so are choosing not to debade. Even DINLT has gone back to an EEA leave for subjective reasons.
No leave poster has shown objectively how things will be better if we leave the EU. Where is all of this economic benefit and money that we were promised? Or even clearly how we will be politically so much better off. Economically it’s clear. Politically it’s minor tit for tat over little gripes and imagined boggy men at best.
I think the "everyone will move on " part is wishful thinking on the brexiteers part; that once they drag us out and rough the storm of complaints, that everyone will just move on and let us stay on the outside.
I thought I did explain what the benefits could be. Move back to EFTA to avoid immediate shock, staying in the single market but with greater control over immigration whilst stepping out of the customs union to make foreign trade more accessible, and then go from there because it’s a long process. There are issues with the Irish boarder but that’s what the negotiations over the past two years should have been about. Incompetent politicians and civil servants have completely bungled what could, no, should, have been a relatively straight forward process.
Future War Cultist wrote: I thought I did explain what the benefits could be. Move back to EFTA to avoid immediate shock, staying in the single market but with greater control over immigration whilst stepping out of the customs union to make foreign trade more accessible, and then go from there because it’s a long process. There are issues with the Irish boarder but that’s what the negotiations over the past two years should have been about. Incompetent politicians and civil servants have completely bungled what could, no, should, have been a relatively straight forward process.
To me the main promised benefit is that outside the EU the UK will be able to rapidly forge much better trade deals than it would have accessed by remaining within the EU.
This doesn't seem to make sense, though. There's no way the UK acting alone will swing the clout against India, the USA and China, that the EU does when combined.
Future War Cultist wrote: I thought I did explain what the benefits could be. Move back to EFTA to avoid immediate shock, staying in the single market but with greater control over immigration
Appart from the fact that EFTA membership still requires us to uphold the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons, and will give us even less control as a requirment of moving to that will almost certainly be becoming part of the Schengen area.
whilst stepping out of the customs union to make foreign trade more accessible, and then go from there because it’s a long process.
Will it, given that every single major cournty has said that the UK will be back of the queue, a queue the EU is already in?
There are issues with the Irish boarder but that’s what the negotiations over the past two years should have been about. Incompetent politicians and civil servants have completely bungled what could, no, should, have been a relatively straight forward process.
No, it's because it was unworkable and the Good Friday Agreement was basicly founded on the basis that both sides could feel they had what they wanted with no visable boarders. The govenment have not been the best negotiators, but the Irish boarder was never going to be simple. That statement completly ignores how complicated getting peace in NI was and how complex the situation was. If it is so simple what is the solution? What agreement should we be be seeing? What form of boarder, between two countries without a free movement agreement, would satisfy both the nationalists and unionists?
Given that the first and third are demonstrably untrue and the second is very debatable, can you show me how either I am wrong about the above, or provide some other benefits? Or other countries that have done better, or as good, trade deals with any of the 50 larges countries by GDP significantly faster than the EU?
JRM it seems has been temporarily possessed by someone reasonable. No probs, I'm sure his family will know a good exorcist or two.
Ket, whilst we're all waiting a few years for your decision to bear fruit (though you're now too bored of the whole thing to explain how) the poorer people of this country are going to suffer disproportionately. I honestly don't understand how you can be so blithe about that.
Of course, if we had voted Remain, I'm sure Britain's poor would be entering the dawn of a golden age with a triumphant Cameron and Osborne at the wheel.
A Remain victory would have been a God send for Cameron. The Tory Euro-Sceptics would have been swept away. His approval ratings would have shot through the roof, and the man who 'saved' Britain and kept it in the EU, would have been master of all he surveyed.
So when Cameron stood up and said we need more austerity, more universal credit, who would have stopped him?
Absolutely fething nobody.
That's what a Remain victory looked like. The cosy concensus drifts on: the corrupt politics, shills pretending to be journalists, the Westminster bubble, the managed decline of Britain, 0.5% growth being celebrated like we had won world war 2.
Brexit has awoken the British people and revealed to them how useless our political class is. The political landscape is shifting. We will have to sink or swim now.
As an old and mature democracy, change is slow on this unique island. But every 100-200 years or so, something big happens:
The peasents revolt, the reformation, the civil war, the industrial revolution, the great reform acts, the suffragettes, and so on...
Brexit is a much needed and welcome national democratic correction that we get in Britain every so often...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: He values the democracy that produced the answer he wants. It's a pretty common trait of the right.
How much of a division is there though? There seems to be this media bubble, and then the real world.
Not having a go at you, and I say this to everybody, but
I still talk to Remain supporting friends. When I was in England on holiday some weeks back, everything seemed as it normally did. Buses ran, shops were open, the sun rose, the sun set...
If you read the Guardian, you'd be forgiven for thinking we were in a state of civil war with armoured divisions battling to control the Thames Valley or something.
Granted, this is my limited experience and it's all anecdotal, but IMO, talk of deep division is way over the top.
We're a very old and mature democracy. We know how to handle victory or defeat.
Really? Is that your argument? If we had not voted for Brexit it would still not have been perfect?
Nothing of the type would have happened. After a week the vote would have been forgotten and we would have gone back to where we were. Some anti EU back benchers would have been shut up for a while and then found something else. A remain vote would have changed nothing, and would have changed nothing about the likelihood of austerity or other government spending cuts. Those are still going on, except where the government have been forced to admit they have to stop, where people are dieing. The leave vote has nothing at all to do with that. If anything it has emboldened the hard right. The same people that are for reductions in the welfare state are the strongest anti EU. Gove, BoJo & Rees-Mogg.
So that’s the best pro leave argument you have “it will be painful for a few years then everyone will move on”?
Errr...no? It was me saying I'd come back to talk politics when events have moved on and people will discuss other things for more than a brief five posts between Brexit? I get that you're desperate for someone to argue with now mostly everyone bar DINLT has buggered off and stopped engaging, but come on guv.
If you really want to see my views on the whole thing, you're welcome to hit the 'Filter Posts' button, and go back six months to read them.
Ket, whilst we're all waiting a few years for your decision to bear fruit (though you're now too bored of the whole thing to explain how) the poorer people of this country are going to suffer disproportionately. I honestly don't understand how you can be so blithe about that.
Probably the effect of having actually lived through the 97-02 collapse of the Zimbabwean economy. I've done hyperinflation, petrol queues, bare shelves, civil unrest and the works. So I've seen economic collapse to the extent that nobody not living in Venezuela right now has. I've also been unemployed here in the recession a few years after the crash of 08. It's not so much about being 'blithe' as it is understanding that economies go up and down all the time, and that people are permanently suffering somewhere all the time, no matter how good or bad the economy is doing.
Before anyone jumps down my throat (I'm looking at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not saying that this means that economics are not tremendously important or that I don't understand how the money moves around (although 'trickle-down economics' - that was a laugh, right?) I'm not referring to Brexit specifically there, I'm making a general observation.
Namely that there's a real obsession in the West these days of judging national priorities completely according to GDP and how easy you can make it for businesses to make a profit. And anything that goes against that is hit with a storm of criticism, and disapproval from the media, government, and big business. See for example, the reaction to Corbyn's proposal to renationalise the railways. You'd think that we were all going to be left in a Battle Royale style dystopian future by the reactions. Cameron's WW3 comment about Brexit was in the same vein.
Again (still staring at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not making reference specifically to Brexit above (because I am bored of discussing that one ad infinitum), but a more general observation about national priorities and presumptions with regards to economics in this country.
When I did place my vote to leave, I did it for other reasons fully in the knowledge that we would take a minor economic hit on several levels, and that we'd have a year or two of adjustment untangling things when we left. I still voted the way I did, many things have unfolded the way I expected them to, and my opinion remains unchanged. That's about really all I have left to say on Brexit until things change materially.
So when Cameron stood up and said we need more austerity, more universal credit, who would have stopped him?
And once we're out, and May stands up and says we need more austerity (because Brexit shrunk our economy by 10-20%), who would stop her? Who'd prevent the Tories doing even more things that violate the ECHR?
You're using the same soundbite and somehow implying that because something is bad now, it's perfectly reasonable to make it worse in the hopes that somehow by handing power to the people causing the problems and sacking our economy, somehow things will get better.
Brexit has awoken the British people and revealed to them how useless our political class is. The political landscape is shifting. We will have to sink or swim now.
Except absolutely nothing will have changed. Corrupt politicians will still use fearmongering to retain power and give good deals to their mates. Only now they don't need to adhere to the ECHR or ECJ.
I don't see any signs of any correction, or any politics actually changing. In fact it's gotten worse because everything is dominated to Brexit.
Sure, we can see how bent and incompetent the Tories are, but we knew that before, too.
I'm not on the right.
Are you sure? You spend a lot of time ranting about the country going to the dogs, need to be stronger on crime, pushing for a right wing government to have unlimited power, championing a nationalist agenda, etc.
Though I should add I didn't mean to say you were on the right. My bad.
How much of a division is there though? There seems to be this media bubble, and then the real world.
You're sort of right here; people are getting on with things, some people have fallen out with friends/family but the world still continues as is for most.
However, the brexit spectrum seems to be quite polarized and pretty aggressive, there's clearly a lot of tension/resentment out there, no one is changing their mind. Hate crime has almost been validated and enjoyed a significant spike.
I don't expect any real fall-out until things start actually going wrong. Kids who now can't afford to go to university, parent's who can no longer afford to feed themselves and their kids, people who see family members lose access to medical treatments, people who are losing jobs, and so on, are all going to breed resentment.
How do you think the thousands of staff will react when Nissan closes it's UK factories?
So that’s the best pro leave argument you have “it will be painful for a few years then everyone will move on”?
Errr...no? It was me saying I'd come back to talk politics when events have moved on and people will discuss other things for more than a brief five posts between Brexit? I get that you're desperate for someone to argue with now mostly everyone bar DINLT has buggered off and stopped engaging, but come on guv.
Ok. Sorry, I misunderstood, so it.s a case of not wanting to debate or accept responsibility for this gak storm? I'm not desperate to argue with anyone. I'm quite happy to discuss how monumentally stupid the thing is on its own merits, but if leavers are going to come on and peddle the same old lies of course I, and many others, will question that and will provide facts to disprove it, not just sit idly by just in case we upset you.
If you really want to see my views on the whole thing, you're welcome to hit the 'Filter Posts' button, and go back six months to read them.
And the increasingly dire news we are seeing has done nothing to change that view? You are just happy to carry on digging us deeper? Fine, as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences, good or bad.
Ket, whilst we're all waiting a few years for your decision to bear fruit (though you're now too bored of the whole thing to explain how) the poorer people of this country are going to suffer disproportionately. I honestly don't understand how you can be so blithe about that.
Probably the effect of having actually lived through the 97-02 collapse of the Zimbabwean economy. I've done hyperinflation, petrol queues, bare shelves, civil unrest and the works. So I've seen economic collapse to the extent that nobody not living in Venezuela right now has. I've also been unemployed here in the recession a few years after the crash of 08. It's not so much about being 'blithe' as it is understanding that economies go up and down all the time, and that people are permanently suffering somewhere all the time, no matter how good or bad the economy is doing.
Before anyone jumps down my throat (I'm looking at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not saying that this means that economics are not tremendously important or that I don't understand how the money moves around (although 'trickle-down economics' - that was a laugh, right?) I'm not referring to Brexit specifically there, I'm making a general observation.
Namely that there's a real obsession in the West these days of judging national priorities completely according to GDP and how easy you can make it for businesses to make a profit. And anything that goes against that is hit with a storm of criticism, and disapproval from the media, government, and big business. See for example, the reaction to Corbyn's proposal to renationalise the railways. You'd think that we were all going to be left in a Battle Royale style dystopian future by the reactions. Cameron's WW3 comment about Brexit was in the same vein.
Again (still staring at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not making reference specifically to Brexit above (because I am bored of discussing that one ad infinitum), but a more general observation about national priorities and presumptions with regards to economics in this country. When I did place my vote to leave, I did it for other reasons fully in the knowledge that we would take a minor economic hit on several levels, and that we'd have a year or two of adjustment untangling things when we left. I still voted the way I did, many things have unfolded the way I expected them to, and my opinion remains unchanged. That's about really all I have left to say on Brexit until things change materially.
Fine, so how is any of that the fault of the EU? How is any of those problems made worse by being in the EU or better by being out of it? You have listed things that worry you about the politics and priorities in this country, then said this has nothing to do with brexit, then said that this is the reason you voted to leave the EU.
Your not saying anything, just trying to stop debate, and regurgitate the same old Leave lies and twisted words. Like the "Cameron's WW3 comment", where what he actually said was the EU brings stability and leaving makes war in Europe more of a risk. Boris Johnson twisted that to something about leaving the EU meaning the start of world war 3. This twisting of words, arguing in bad faith and then refusing to justify comments in the face of facts is what frustrated me, and many other remain voters, so much.
Fine, so how is any of that the fault of the EU? How is any of those problems made worse by being in the EU or better by being out of it? You have listed things that worry you about the politics and priorities in this country, then said this has nothing to do with brexit, then said that this is the reason you voted to leave the EU.
Okay. Given I literally said:
Again (still staring at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not making reference specifically to Brexit above
I'm really not sure how much more particular I can be here. I was primarily referring in my post to a comment by another user about my apparent 'blitheness' to economic troubles.
When I did place my vote to leave, I did it for other reasons
There is my very literal note that it was not my reason for Brexit as you later assert. Given that you seem utterly compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit to the point of absurdity though(despite two literal disclaimers aimed directly at you), I don't see much point in replying further.
There is my very literal note that it was not my reason for Brexit as you later assert. Given that you seem utterly compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit to the point of absurdity though(despite two literal disclaimers aimed directly at you), I don't see much point in replying further.
If that is what you wish to do, then so be it. But if you are going to reply to peoples comments on Brexit and it's impact, how can it be taken in any other way but to be about Brexit. Your "disclaimers" just come across as a rather high handed way to avoid criticism. If you don't want to discuss it then don't. That's up to you. I am only "compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit" when you are replying to peoples comments about Brexit.
How do you think the thousands of staff will react when Nissan closes it's UK factories?
Obviously going to be singieg national anthem and stating their suffering is good price for SOVERNITY!!! We live for the country, we die for the country and all that eh?
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
Do you really have to be so brazen about that?
Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.
Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
Do you really have to be so brazen about that?
Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.
Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots.
If it comes to a ratification process this leads to a vote (atleast in switzerland) and in my case this will be a solid NO, since this would even worsen our relationship with the EU more. Infact the UK is diplomatically now regarded as highly unreliable and not interested in a fair / equal partnership with any institution/ group.
"Extra bureaucracy won't just for expensive goods. Confirmation that Value Consignment Relief will not be extended to goods being brought from EU. I.e. all parcels brought into the UK from the EU under the value of £135 would be subject to VAT. Will be passed on to consumers."
" ..It's clear from these documents that there is no real idea about how no deal could function for Northern Ireland. Each section ends with this proverbial shrug of the shoulders. Essentially- 'let's hope it doesn't happen.'"
must admit I had no idea we were importing 3000 sperm samples from Denmark.
....
" Recognition that Britain would have establish and have in operation lots of new regulatory bodies ready to go on Brexit day- e.g. this on pediatric medicines Seems a tall order considering we have just over 200 days to go."
"warnings over lag times: e.g. organic farmers would lose their access to EU markets on Brexit day as they wouldn't be certified as organic traders. They'd have to wait a minimum of 9 months to apply for a new certificate which would allow them to resume trading."
" Raab announces that UK will waive checks on imports of medicines from EU if there’s a No Deal, but can’t guarantee EU will reciprocate... second biggest U.K. drug maker Astra Zeneca has already spent £30m duplicating its Manchester facility in Sweden for purposes of EU export"
"Big concession from Raab today: UK still needs the EU to cooperate under no deal scenario on crucial areas of data sharing, banking and between ports. Without that, no deal would undoubtedly mean short to mid term disaster."
awesome .. so no deal only actually works..err... if we manage to make a deal.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
Do you really have to be so brazen about that?
Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.
Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.
What I meant was that after the dust settled, we could possibly work with the other efta countries for a better collective deal. I know Norway isn’t entirely happy with the current set up, so maybe we could put our heads together and see what could be done.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
I think you're on the right track, but that the time for such things has passed.
There was a point just after we'd voted and before we'd issued our notice that there was another path. Namely; dialling up Switzerland, Norway, and all the other "one foot iner's" to work out some sort of united position for renegotiating everything with the EU. Seeking to set up, in effect, the two tier Europe bandied about for so long. Judging by the noises which came out of Brussels post-vote, the shock of losing the referendum would likely have been enough to jolt things moving in that direction.
It would have been an opportunity to make it not about 'us', per se; but a way of progressing forward in harmony with a number of European neighbours, harnessing a lot of the discontent which exists over the current EU setup. It would also have cut out a lot of the ill-feeling, and soothed many of the worries that those who voted Remain had (and still have), because there could have been a fair bit of give and take over what 'associate' membership looked like. Certainly, it would have been the most democratic way of taking all views into account after the referendum.
But now? No, after mulling it over, I think not. We've gone too far into negotiations to suddenly involve other parties (leaving aside the question of why on earth they'd be interested). I lay that blame at the door of the Tory party; and more specifically, May's desire to hold an election. Her weakening of her majority gave the dozen odd hard Brexiteers sufficient clout to nudge us away from such things.
Now we've little choice but to either abdicate the previous vote and fall back into line, or carry on to the (quite possibly bitter) conclusion. The third way is shut.*
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.
Thus we got Article 50 laid down in law, we got the Red Lines, and these have led to a futile impossible negotiation against a ridiculous self-imposed deadline.
All that is the past, though. If the current negotiations come to anything I think they will be a bodge job which won't satify anyone at all. But chaotic Hard Brexit will be much, much worse.
The only way to retrieve the situation is to rescind Article 50, remain in the EU on the current terms, and prepare for the possibility of a very long term campaign to reform the EU frmo within or else apply to join EFTA.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.
Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote. But so many voted to remain that the country was clearly split down the middle, and a bare bones numerical majority wasn't really sufficient justification for going whole hog in the way we have done. 60% perhaps, but 51.5%? Errr, not quite. By the same measure though, something needed to be done. 51.5% is sufficiently big after all, that we couldn't possibly remain on existing terms and still call ourselves democratic.
No, it is clear that the status quo was no longer cutting it. A change had to be made. That's something which I think a lot of the talk over just holding another referendum in the hope of swinging us back by 2% ignores. After all, we can't go on having referendums every five minutes depending on public feelings from latest headlines. We can't do it a third time 6 months later because that 2% floated back the other way, and then again 2 years later, etc etc.
The sensible thing to have done would have been to proceed as I described above, spend a year working out the kinks and lobbying/negotiating, before then hold a second and final referendum between retaining the new 'associate status' or full-on Brexit. I said it at the time (if you look back in this thread), and I maintain it now. Diplomacy and institution of a general outer-tier membership was the best chance we had at getting everything we wanted.
Now? Now we get the other undemocratic extreme. May might have had sufficient strength to take the third road if she hadn't held the election, and there were rumblings in that direction from the other 'one foot iners' just beforehand. Once her majority got slashed and she was beholden to the dozen hard Brexiteers though, it ceased to be an option.
EDIT:- ...and godammit, I got sucked back in again.
Minister says that 300 new border force staff for #brexit no deal will be in place. Great, spread over 364 days, say 20 hour per day, cover Heathrow (all terminals), Dover, Gatwick, Hollyhead, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hull, Portsmouth, Manchester, etc. Cover import and export too
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.
Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote. But so many voted to remain that the country was clearly split down the middle, and a bare bones numerical majority wasn't really sufficient justification for going whole hog in the way we have done. 60% perhaps, but 51.5%? Errr, not quite. By the same measure though, something needed to be done. 51.5% is sufficiently big after all, that we couldn't possibly remain on existing terms and still call ourselves democratic.
No, it is clear that the status quo was no longer cutting it. A change had to be made. That's something which I think a lot of the talk over just holding another referendum in the hope of swinging us back by 2% ignores. After all, we can't go on having referendums every five minutes depending on public feelings from latest headlines. We can't do it a third time 6 months later because that 2% floated back the other way, and then again 2 years later, etc etc.
The sensible thing to have done would have been to proceed as I described above, spend a year working out the kinks and lobbying/negotiating, before then hold a second and final referendum between retaining the new 'associate status' or full-on Brexit. I said it at the time (if you look back in this thread), and I maintain it now. Diplomacy and institution of a general outer-tier membership was the best chance we had at getting everything we wanted.
Now? Now we get the other undemocratic extreme. May might have had sufficient strength to take the third road if she hadn't held the election, and there were rumblings in that direction from the other 'one foot iners' just beforehand. Once her majority got slashed and she was beholden to the dozen hard Brexiteers though, it ceased to be an option.
EDIT:- ...and godammit, I got sucked back in again.
Good post and pretty much in agreement - I would add that Cameron was a self serving coward who left immediately instead of seeing it through as he promised which did not help....
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.
Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote.
You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.
Britain has been effectively negotiating with themselves the whole time.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
Do you really have to be so brazen about that?
Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.
Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.
Yeah I'm sure Norway etc would be happy to take country that left in less than good terms only for them to leave 2nd time again. Yeah. Makes sense...
You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.
That sounds nice in theory (assuming you're saying we could get the EU to agree to renegotiate different things on different outcomes; I might be misreading you); but the reality is that it ends up with the same result back in country on the ground. Say the EU agrees to whatever and I put on the ballot card:
1. Stay in the EU.
2. Renegotiate EU membership.
3. Try and form second tier membership group and negotiate.
4. Full Brexit
It looks clear. But looking more closely, neither 2 or 3 actually give us any real detail. It's in effect, voting for a blank cheque. Which means that then even if we get 2 or 3, then we need to run another referendum on the basis of whether or not what actually comes out of it matches what people thought would come out of it, or a fifth outcome altogether (which wasn't on the original voting card). Then you have the issue of splitting a vote four ways. If there's no dominant voice, and we end up with 25% in each category, what next? How do you proceed?
As you say, Brexit means different things to different people. There really was no coherent way of determining it in a single Yes/No referendum, be it with a binary choice or ten.
You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.
That sounds nice in theory (assuming you're saying we could get the EU to agree to renegotiate different things on different outcomes; I might be misreading you); but the reality is that it ends up with the same result back in country on the ground. Say the EU agrees to whatever and I put on the ballot card:
Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.
The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.
A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.
The whole we want all of the good stuff but none of the downsides (clearly meant for the British public) has soured the other negotiating partner much more than the actual vote result.
Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.
The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.
A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.
Beyond the cut and paste convenience, why on earth would you ever adopt a trade agreement negotiated by a country with less than clout than yourself, with a completely different economy and internal priorities? We could have adopted the bizare hodgepodge Switzerland has with the EU right now, or the Turkish model instead, but why would you want to?
Yeah, I get it gives position/direction/target, but that's like saying you should determine to buy the first set of clothes you see when you walk in a store no matter how ill-fitting.
Your four choices also fail to take into account alternative options; like that I've mentioned since the start regarding aiming for a multiple tier Europe. And on top of that, as said (and ignored) above, your proposal runs smack bang into the problem that you may well end up with people voting multiple ways. If you get 25% voting for each option, where does your position/direction/target end up then? You end up with even more of a mess than the binary vote (and that takes some doing).
There was no clear way of doing this. That much is certain.
I wanted Article 50 activated on June 24th, and I make no apologies for that.
But in many respects, we abandoned our own constitution, because referendums have never been our way.
In the normal course of things, a party would have ran a GE on a Brexit ticket, secured the majority, and then passed the necessary acts of parliament to take us out.
That was our way for 300 years.
But alas, the referendum revealed a glaring fault line in our politics: that the people and the MPs are miles apart.
If 52% of the public wanted out of the EU, does it not stand to reason that a similar amount of MPs would hold that view?
Feth no. Instead, what we got was 70% of MPs pro-EU, a pro-EU house of lords, and every apparatus of government pro-EU.
Never has the gap being those who govern and those who are governed, been so huge...
It's a damning indictment of the state of our politics.
It's one reason why I wanted A50 activated so damn quickly, because I knew that lot would try and weasel out of it, and I was proven right: court room battles at every turn, people's referendum bollocks, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, etc etc
Alternatively, 70% of the countries representatives are pro-EU because it is their job to look at the details and determine what is best for their constituents and the country as a whole.
But please, continue banging your populist drum about how parliament must reflect the wishes of 50% of the country on this one issue whilst ignoring the no-doubt countless other issues in which there is a disagreement.
I have a feeling if there was a referendum about bringing the death penalty back there would be a reasonable percentage in support of it. Does that mean we should also make sure there is an equal percentage of MPs in support of the death penalty.
And those who wanted out of the EU had a party they could vote for to get that representation in Parliament. They chose not to. You chose to vote for the SNP despite their position on EU membership, DINLT. Why didn't you vote for an anti-EU party if you wanted parliament to reflect the position of the country on Brexit? It's almost like political representatives are not chosen for their stances on single issues, like brexit.
Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.
The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.
A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.
Beyond the cut and paste convenience, why on earth would you ever adopt a trade agreement negotiated by a country with less than clout than yourself, with a completely different economy and internal priorities? We could have adopted the bizare hodgepodge Switzerland has with the EU right now, or the Turkish model instead, but why would you want to?
Yeah, I get it gives position/direction/target, but that's like saying you should determine to buy the first set of clothes you see when you walk in a store no matter how ill-fitting.
Your four choices also fail to take into account alternative options; like that I've mentioned since the start regarding aiming for a multiple tier Europe. And on top of that, as said (and ignored) above, your proposal runs smack bang into the problem that you may well end up with people voting multiple ways. If you get 25% voting for each option, where does your position/direction/target end up then? You end up with even more of a mess than the binary vote (and that takes some doing).
You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.
The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.
Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.
There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.
You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.
The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.
Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.
There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.
So...your solution is to;
a) plonk on a few extra options you like the sound of in an imprecisely worded fashion to be 'ironed out' (which can mean almost anything) later,
b) exclude any solutions without a precedent or involving third parties ( in whichthere are a number of plausible alternative courses of action), and
c) then cross your fingers, hope you get a clear result, and if not, keep going back to the polls?
I'm sorry, but this sounds to me like a way of keeping every single one of the complaints people had about the binary choice, with a massive added dollop of confusion and over-complication.
In an ideal world, myself, Future War, Ketara, Shadow Captain and any other Leave supporters, would bring our miniatures, and settle this on the table top against a Kilkrazy/reds8n/Malus/Jouso/Herzlos + others, tournament team.
To paraphrase Sean Connery in The Untouchables: they bring a dreadnought, you bring a predator. They bring a titan, you bring an orbital bombardment. That's the dakka way!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Alternatively, 70% of the countries representatives are pro-EU because it is their job to look at the details and determine what is best for their constituents and the country as a whole.
But please, continue banging your populist drum about how parliament must reflect the wishes of 50% of the country on this one issue whilst ignoring the no-doubt countless other issues in which there is a disagreement.
I have a feeling if there was a referendum about bringing the death penalty back there would be a reasonable percentage in support of it. Does that mean we should also make sure there is an equal percentage of MPs in support of the death penalty.
And those who wanted out of the EU had a party they could vote for to get that representation in Parliament. They chose not to. You chose to vote for the SNP despite their position on EU membership, DINLT. Why didn't you vote for an anti-EU party if you wanted parliament to reflect the position of the country on Brexit? It's almost like political representatives are not chosen for their stances on single issues, like brexit.
I support the SNP becuase obvously I want Scotand to make the decisions. The EU referendum was a case in point. Naturally, I'm glad of the result, but had I been a die-hard EU supporter, it would have made little difference, because ultimately, the EU referendum was deicded in England...
It's ironic that I, as a leaver live in a pro-Remain area, and pro-Remain dakka members live in Leave areas. Anybody for a house swop?
You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.
The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.
Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.
There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.
So...your solution is to;
a) plonk on a few extra options you like the sound of in an imprecisely worded fashion to be 'ironed out' (which can mean almost anything) later,
b) exclude any solutions without a precedent or involving third parties ( in whichthere are a number of plausible alternative courses of action), and
c) then cross your fingers, hope you get a clear result, and if not, keep going back to the polls?
I'm sorry, but this sounds to me like a way of keeping every single one of the complaints people had about the binary choice, with a massive added dollop of confusion and over-complication.
It is a way to avoid bundling all the "we don't like the way things are" into a single option with exactly zero detail on what exactly meant. The results of doing which are painfully visible now.
Everyone (leave and remain) spoke about Canada, Norway, etc. as shorthand for different levels of access and integration during the campaign, it's not like it's a novel concept.
The benefits from picking a deal negotiated with a country with "less clout than us" is:
1. We don't actually have that much clout - that's painfully clear now.
2. We want to conclude a deal within the 2 year A50 Window. We could petition for our own bespoke deal, but what'd we do in the 8 years between the transition running out and the new deal being ratified?
I always assumed the plan was to pick a deal closest to what we want, settle on that within the 2 years, and then go onto negotiate our ++++ parts. It's the most logical approach and the only one the EU is giving us. The only problem seems to be that we can't decide on one.
Truth is, since the situation is quite exceptionnal, we won't know the real consequences on long term before they actually happen. And when they did, there are chances one side will throw all the blame on the other.
Some are optimistic, others are pessimistic.
TBH, so far, the only thing sure is the clock is ticking and the people we thought are competent enough to be in charge show they are not much better than us to deal with crisis situations in the end. Translation : they're the same humans than us. There is no "savior" or no "super individual" in this whole mess here. Wishing there will be one to magically appear is the true delusion, IMHO.
When we've left the EU and the immediate disruption has died down in a few years, I'll take another crack at discussing other stuff. Till then, I'll stop pissing in everyone's tea and leave them to enjoy themselves. After all, if there's one thing an Englishman hates; it's somebody trying to take away his favourite gripe.
I've added captions as I assume this was what you were trying to say....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In an ideal world, myself, Future War, Ketara, Shadow Captain and any other Leave supporters, would bring our miniatures, and settle this on the table top against a Kilkrazy/reds8n/Malus/Jouso/Herzlos + others, tournament team.
Of course to be really reflective of the Wrexit vote, the leave side would have to:-
Cheat by bringing more points to the table whilst trying to tell everyone they are within the rules
Lie about the game they were going to play
Make sure a player switches sides at the last minute by offering them overall command
Hurl abuse at any players that haven't painted their models in a pale flesh tone
Promise that they'll hand out 350 million models for free if they win, even though they've not got any to hand out
Anything else I missed? [To point out I'm not suggesting any mentioned players are like this, just what would have to happen to fairly reflect the Wrexit vote]
Warhammer Fantasy existed for a really long time and had a generally loyal player base who put up with decisions tinkering around the edge, but was still recognisably the same game.
Then it was destroyed by shortsighted fools looking to make a quick buck out of a new game version which kept some, but not all, of the parts of WFB and hoped that the players would just go along with it.
It took ages to get back into something approximating a reasonable system, after annoying a huge number of people, and a lot of the old timers still think bringing it back would be a really good idea.
....oh.
And all those people who complained for years and years that the plot of Warhammer never moved on, that there had to be change, that things needed to be modernised? Who cheered on The End Times and told everyone that the outcome was going to be just spiffing?
Clearly this is just political shenanigans, but it is definitely good news, definitely isn't Brexit related, and has a lovely picture (not the one of John Bolton ).
I had a tyre blow out on me today. Luckily it wasn’t on the motorway, but changing it was a huge pain. Literally. I hurt myself trying to undo those rusty bolts. Might not be able to paint for a few days. But the reason why I’m telling you all this is because to make matters worse, a cyclist came to within an inch of mowing me down whilst I was working. Even though he had no reason to, because there was a 15 foot gap behind me to go through, no one else around to get in the way, and it was a huge 400 foot long stretch of straight road so it’s not like he couldn’t see me long before he reached me. Just barked ‘watch!’ and zoomed on by, in his terrible lycra and stupid helmet.
I guess what I’m getting at is, I hate cyclists, completely and utterly, and I look forward to the day when they’re forced to have licence plates and pay road tax like the rest of us. Almost every day on that stretch of road they’re causing problems. See, there’s a massive dedicated cycle lane for them there, two lanes wide too. And yet they completely and deliberately ignore it and instead cycle out on the road itself. And not on the edge of the curb with space to allow people to pass them, oh no I’m talking about cycling out in the fething middle of the road along the central lines, forcing a big line of traffic to form behind them whilst they smirk along. No, they actually do smirk when doing this, and it enrages me.
They talked about this on the radio recently, and there was an idea floated around to make it illegal to cycle on a road if a cycle lane is present. I could definitely get behind that. This particular road is a perfect test bed for it.
A) punctures suck, bad luck FWC. I actually think that car manufacturers ought to abandon putting spare tyres etc in cars, because most people don’t have them maintained correctly (right tyre pressures etc), can’t easily get them on and off and put themselves at considerable danger standing in the road trying to sort it out. And often failing and just calling for recovery anyway.
B) I’m on the fence on the cyclist thing; I don’t think road tax is justified, as that’s to pay for maintenance/wear caused and bikes don’t really have any impact on road conditions. However I agree about compulsory cycle lane use; my route to work includes a busy dual carriageway with a large, decent parallel cycle path, and yet you still regularly have to dodge round idiot mamils at 50mph, because they’re too hardcore to use the bloody path. It’s dangerous for everyone.
Because close passes by cars literally never happen to cyclists? Oh, no, that’s right, it happens all the time. I get about two a day, and have reported several to the police.
Cycle lanes are a mess, almost always unusable, encourage cars to make dangerous passes and are just a line of paint. Cyclists have every right to be “cycling out in the middle of the fething road”. It’s called taking the lane. It’s to stop idiots from squeezing past, and only overtaking when it is safe. The point in cycle lanes is not to get cyclists out of the road, but to give them safety if they think they need it. If you can't pass a cyclist in the middle of the road you can't pass them at the edge. There is not enough room and you should not be overtaking in to oncomming traffic.
The danger that cars cause, and the thousands of deaths and serious injuries caused by drivers every year needs addressing long before some complaints about cyclists not using a bit of glass and debris strewn paint. If you want to address cycling issues how about some proper quality segregated cycle lanes? Cycle lanes that cyclists want to use. I’ll accpet manadtory cycle lanes when cars are forced to use the motorway if at all possible.
On the road tax and licence, same old stupid thing, I pay exactly the same tax as an equivalent polluting car. And that’s the same argument trotted out time and again.
Edit to add, just cycled 14 miles in to Oxford to work. This moring is both school holidays and a friday, so quite. This morning I had 4 hail mary "Must pass cyclist" passes, two causing cars comming the other way to break and two close passes, well within 1.5 meters (the recomended passing distance) and one well within 50cm at 40mph. When I drive I get nothing like that.
I'd be curious about why the cycle lane isn't used; cyclists aren't on the road to be gaks.
Is it too badly worn? Covered in glass/poop? Too inconvenient to get on/off?
I'd be all for having some kind of visible ID and mandatory insurance but there's no need for them to pay road tax. We want more cyclists, not less.
Jadenim wrote: A) punctures suck, bad luck FWC. I actually think that car manufacturers ought to abandon putting spare tyres etc in cars, because most people don’t have them maintained correctly (right tyre pressures etc), can’t easily get them on and off and put themselves at considerable danger standing in the road trying to sort it out. And often failing and just calling for recovery anyway.
Many are.
My last two cars didn't even have one of those small doughnut-type temporary spares. Just and anti-puncture kit which luckily never have been forced to use because I'm sure I'd end up calling road assistance anyway.
FWC story reminds me of the first time I had a puncture. I had just bought an old Renault 5 from my father's aunt for the equivalent of 360 euro because she wouldn't drive anymore so the car spent extended periods of time just sitting in the farm without moving.
So me, a healthy male in is early 20s who at the time played rugby couldn't for the life of me unscrew a single bolt by myself. A passing bus driver saw my plight and offered to help and proceeded savagely kick the lug until all bolts bar one were loose. When that one refused to move at all he went back to the cabin and brought a length of metal tube he had specificly for that (and maybe against unruly passengers, too) and started to repeatedly hit at the lug until it finally turned.
As a driver and a cyclist I see both sides of the issue from personal experience.
But if you really hate cyclists don't come to Oxford. I think there are something like 40,000 trips a day by bike around here.
As a cyclist I am growing to hate pedestrians. They wander all around the bike lanes looking at mobile phones while listening to music so they can't hear my ding-dong bell.
It doesn't help that the city council has allowed the signage and road markings on some major bike lanes to decay to complete uselessness.
The reason cars don't come with proper spares is to save weight for the MPG tests. I had one previous car that came with a crappy space saver wheel even though the well was big enough for a proper wheel - there was a plastic spacer in there to make up the space. I picked up a cheap wheel from a local garage. The foam is no use - if it does plug the gap, it ruins the tyre, and if you've got a bigger puncture or a puncture in the sidewall, it's useless.
As for not being able to shift the wheel, that's for a couple of reasons - mechanics over-tightening the nuts with power tools, and alloy wheels welding themselves to the hub. I've been reduced on occasion to kicking the wrench to loosen them, to the point I was worried the car would come off the jack.
But back on topic - one cyclist is an idiot, and that's somehow relevant to all cyclists? I got cut up on the motorway this morning by an artic driver pulling out in front of me with no warning, but that doesn't make me suggest all HGV drivers should be punished - just that one.
Legally, I don't think you can restrict bicycles from roads - all roads except motorways and other "special roads" are public highways - there's nothing stopping me cycling, walking or riding a horse down just about every road in the country without legislation to the contrary. But even if you did so, cycle path use should only be compulsory once all cycle paths are made fit for purpose - that means not making them give way to every side street or entrance from the main route, properly enforcing parking restrictions, making sure they're properly maintained (trimming trees and shrubbery, filling potholes, etc. (in fact, I'd suggest that potholes in cycle paths should be prioritised over potholes in roads), making sure they don't end abruptly for no reason, and making sure they go to places cyclists actually want to go. A lot of cycle routes are handy for recreational cyclists (except for the idiot pedestrians who don't look where they're going, stretch dog leads across the width of the path, etc) but no use for people trying to cycle into town for work, or that sort of thing. Or they end up with huge detours, underpasses or bridges to get round the roads. I'd say if a new development including roads and cycle paths is being designed, the cycle route should be the direct, flat route, with the roads made to detour around it - it's easier for cars to deal with ascents and descents than cyclists.
I read an article about Milton Keynes, which was designed from the outset with excellent cycle paths. In the end people were still more likely to drive because basically people are lazy. The conclusion was that for a city to be truly bike friendly, it has to be fairly car unfriendly.
This is the situation in Oxford. The city centre is restricted access and very restricted parking. There is an outer ring road several miles out, with a series of cheap park and ride car parks. There is an inner ring road with more expensive car parking for the main shopping centre.
It actually works fairly well, but partly because the city is the right size. You can cycle anywhere to anywhere in 30 minutes max. It wouldn't work in a big place like London.
I think electric aassisted bikes will make cycling more popular as they get better and cheaper, providing the roads are made safer for cyclists. This should involve restoring the cycles paths along a lot of A roads, which have been allowed to fall into disrepair.
The Oxford city council aims to go car free in the central area by 2030 or something.
jouso wrote: So me, a healthy male in is early 20s who at the time played rugby couldn't for the life of me unscrew a single bolt by myself. A passing bus driver saw my plight and offered to help and proceeded savagely kick the lug until all bolts bar one were loose. When that one refused to move at all he went back to the cabin and brought a length of metal tube he had specificly for that (and maybe against unruly passengers, too) and started to repeatedly hit at the lug until it finally turned.
OT but makes me wonder why I haven't had such a trouble here. Could it be because here we are used to changing tyres minimum of 2 times a year(winter and summer tyres so even without punctures or replacing with new ones you change 2 times a year minimum) so they don't get stuck due to being non-opened for years?
Could be. Also, if you're swapping wheels for summer/winter tyres, do you do that yourself, or get a garage to do it? For most people here, the only time the wheels will be off is during the car's service (annually, potentially once every two years) or its MOT (annually, once the car's 3 years old). That will be done by a garage with a pneumatic tool, so they're often over-tightened. I've even heard of some bolts shearing rather than coming off properly.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Could be. Also, if you're swapping wheels for summer/winter tyres, do you do that yourself, or get a garage to do it? For most people here, the only time the wheels will be off is during the car's service (annually, potentially once every two years) or its MOT (annually, once the car's 3 years old). That will be done by a garage with a pneumatic tool, so they're often over-tightened. I've even heard of some bolts shearing rather than coming off properly.
Hmm that's very good point since me or my dad does it so certainly that issue shouldn't exist. If you have it done by professionals in store who use specific tools for that certainly could affect. Dad's professional in terms of fixing cars but he doesn't have pneumatic tool for that in home. We do it the old fashioned way
Kilkrazy wrote: I read an article about Milton Keynes, which was designed from the outset with excellent cycle paths. In the end people were still more likely to drive because basically people are lazy. The conclusion was that for a city to be truly bike friendly, it has to be fairly car unfriendly.
This is the situation in Oxford. The city centre is restricted access and very restricted parking. There is an outer ring road several miles out, with a series of cheap park and ride car parks. There is an inner ring road with more expensive car parking for the main shopping centre.
It actually works fairly well, but partly because the city is the right size. You can cycle anywhere to anywhere in 30 minutes max. It wouldn't work in a big place like London.
I think electric aassisted bikes will make cycling more popular as they get better and cheaper, providing the roads are made safer for cyclists. This should involve restoring the cycles paths along a lot of A roads, which have been allowed to fall into disrepair.
The Oxford city council aims to go car free in the central area by 2030 or something.
Unfortunatly the city and county coucil are completly incapable of designing cycle friendly infrastructure, with totaly stupid designs. E.G:
Frideswide square: Cycling provision is either using the roundabouts that encorage drivers to not go round them, and pass cyclists or cycling across a shaired space, which you can access from the south, but it dumps you inbetween two junctions where cars are not looking, if you want to go up Hythe Bridge Street. If you want to go up Park End Street, no luck. Coming from the North, you can't even access this space.
Woodstock road: The cycle lane going north is regularly interupted by huge beech trees and bus stops.
A40/Cutteslowe roundbout: It was all changed a few years ago at massive cost to "Improve cycling provision". Now to get from Cutteslowe to Summertown you have to go from the bus lane on to the pavement cycle lane, cross two padestiran crossings, walk 50 meters to Davenant road then cross Banbury road to get back to the bus lane, if you follow the councils "improved access", or just follow the bus lane, as was always the case, which brings you in to conflict with cars comming off the roundabout on to Banbury road.
The council don't seem to have a clue how to build good road infrastructure for anyone.
In the good old days British people did a lot more of their own car maintenance. I remember helping my father to adjust the tappets on his car engine in the late1960s. We also did wheel balancing, adjusting the little weight around the rim.
However you can't do nearly as much with modern cars, because you need the diagnostic computer and all that. So we've become de-skilled, and tend to leave everything to the mechanics.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Could be. Also, if you're swapping wheels for summer/winter tyres, do you do that yourself, or get a garage to do it? For most people here, the only time the wheels will be off is during the car's service (annually, potentially once every two years) or its MOT (annually, once the car's 3 years old). That will be done by a garage with a pneumatic tool, so they're often over-tightened. I've even heard of some bolts shearing rather than coming off properly.
Nothing comes off at the MOT, and wheels will only come off at a service if it needs anything doing with the brakes or wheels. That could be once every 4 years, or longer, when brake fluid is changed or the car needs new pads. Alloy wheels are also a lot more common in the UK than other countries, so we get more issues with galvanic corrosion.
With regard to cycling I would like to see a cycling licence enforced so that those using bikes on the roads do have to have at least some formal training in how to use the roadways. Sadly such a system would probably just wind up then doing the theory test card drivers do which, whilst not totally useless, is somewhat a case of remembering stock answers to very specifically worded multiple choice questions (some of which isn't that useful - eg remembering braking distances as a number doesn't really work for most people who don't work a lot with longer distance measuring - knowing a car stops in x number of meters is pointless if they can't easily visualise that distance - most people don't know the distances they go by feel and experience in the car itself)
Jadenim wrote: A) punctures suck, bad luck FWC. I actually think that car manufacturers ought to abandon putting spare tyres etc in cars, because most people don’t have them maintained correctly (right tyre pressures etc), can’t easily get them on and off and put themselves at considerable danger standing in the road trying to sort it out. And often failing and just calling for recovery anyway.
Most people don't know how to change a tyre and the little jacks in most car repair kits are near useless unless you are a perfectly flat surface. However having a spare means when the AA/Greenflag/whatever gets there to change the tyre there is one in the car to change it onto. Otherwise you've got an even longer wait or might even have to be towed or just leave the car and return agian later with a spare tyre. So it speeds up the recovery period a lot.
I'd also say that changing a tyre is technically not that hard but ends up being hard because most people only do it when they have a flat. So each stage is harder because you've never done it much before - few people can do something once every year or less and remember how to do it perfectly.
One easy way to mess up is the order of putting the bolts back on - its terribly easy to go in a circle instead of opposites. Which cna run the risk that the wheel feels like its locked on, but in fact is at a tiny angle which then wobbles and before you know it all the bolts unwind and the wheel falls straight off the car! It's a really tiny detail but one that can fail and cause instant disaster for the car users and those around,
I can see that those in a country where you have to change to winter tyres every single year can at least build up more general awareness; plus chances are there's more commercials, info and general reminder stuff put out about it each year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In the good old days British people did a lot more of their own car maintenance. I remember helping my father to adjust the tappets on his car engine in the late1960s. We also did wheel balancing, adjusting the little weight around the rim.
However you can't do nearly as much with modern cars, because you need the diagnostic computer and all that. So we've become de-skilled, and tend to leave everything to the mechanics.
Even a lot of mechanics have trouble today if they are not the dealer for the vehicle brand. Cars being designed on computer means a lot of efficent space saving designs, but also means a lot of designs that are not accessible for repair. A lot of parts are very hard to repair to the point where many have to be replaced as a whole unit rather than just fixing the small bit that is broken - because it would take hours and nearly be impossible to get back into.
The computer part is also a nightmare and mostly done to try and keep you going back to the main dealer (who can often have vastly inflated prices). A lot of smaller mechanics know a few tricks but in general it makes their job a lot lot harder and many dislike the modern car design.
jouso wrote: So me, a healthy male in is early 20s who at the time played rugby couldn't for the life of me unscrew a single bolt by myself. A passing bus driver saw my plight and offered to help and proceeded savagely kick the lug until all bolts bar one were loose. When that one refused to move at all he went back to the cabin and brought a length of metal tube he had specificly for that (and maybe against unruly passengers, too) and started to repeatedly hit at the lug until it finally turned.
OT but makes me wonder why I haven't had such a trouble here. Could it be because here we are used to changing tyres minimum of 2 times a year(winter and summer tyres so even without punctures or replacing with new ones you change 2 times a year minimum) so they don't get stuck due to being non-opened for years?
I'm sure that's exactly the reason. My grand aunt probably hadn't changed tyres in 6-7 years at he very least.
I assume it will be even worse in Britain with a much wetter climate.
As for not being able to shift the wheel, that's for a couple of reasons - mechanics over-tightening the nuts with power tools, and alloy wheels welding themselves to the hub. I've been reduced on occasion to kicking the wrench to loosen them, to the point I was worried the car would come off the jack.
Technically you're meant to free the nuts up before jacking it up. It makes it a bit easier to do and means there's no risk of pushing it off the jack.
Basing duty on emissions discriminates against the poor. The rich can afford to buy brand new cars with eco hybrid electric engines etc. that have little to zero road tax whilst poor people who have to buy older cars second hand cars pay more in tax because they’re dirtier. I know we need to encourage cleaner cars but this method does irk me a little.
"There is no such thing as road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty is charged in proportion to the emission levels of the vehicle"
So lets slap Vehicle Excise Duty on Bicycles to placate the anti-cycling mob.
I cycle, but I also own, and pay excise duty on, 2 cars and 2 motorbikes. In fact most people who cycle also own taxable road vehicles, unless you want to start taxing kids on their paper rounds.
"There is no such thing as road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty is charged in proportion to the emission levels of the vehicle"
So lets slap Vehicle Excise Duty on Bicycles to placate the anti-cycling mob.
I cycle, but I also own, and pay excise duty on, 2 cars and 2 motorbikes. In fact most people who cycle also own taxable road vehicles, unless you want to start taxing kids on their paper rounds.
Why, thats an excellent idea. Why should kids be exempt from paying tax on their vehicle emissions?
Future War Cultist wrote: Basing duty on emissions discriminates against the poor. The rich can afford to buy brand new cars with eco hybrid electric engines etc. that have little to zero road tax whilst poor people who have to buy older cars second hand cars pay more in tax because they’re dirtier. I know we need to encourage cleaner cars but this method does irk me a little.
Almost all tax schemes discriminate against the poor.
I'd really like to have seen VED added to fuel as it covers all kinds of emissions: inefficient cars, badly maintained cars, speeding cars.
Being part of fuel also makes it impossible to avoid (beyond red diesel). I doubt it's worth doing now due to electric cars.
I just bought a new car (to me) with £30 a year tax, that's just not sustainable.
"There is no such thing as road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty is charged in proportion to the emission levels of the vehicle"
So lets slap Vehicle Excise Duty on Bicycles to placate the anti-cycling mob.
I cycle, but I also own, and pay excise duty on, 2 cars and 2 motorbikes. In fact most people who cycle also own taxable road vehicles, unless you want to start taxing kids on their paper rounds.
Why, thats an excellent idea. Why should kids be exempt from paying tax on their vehicle emissions?
Because the emissions of their "vehicles" (actually the rider) are so low compared to any car that they would be free anyway even if they were included in the VED. Also, if you're taxing people for their emissions when cycling on the road then you should also be taxing joggers for their emissions, everyone in the gym for their emissions etc.
And also taxing people in their cars who get worked up about cyclists as that will raise their heartrate and so they will breathe more heavily and so raise their emissions.
Have man-portable carbon capture devices been invented yet? They should be mandatory for all cyclists. Could even build it into the seats. And then we could collect and recycle the gasses (don't humans emit methane?) as bio-fuel.
Future War Cultist wrote: Basing duty on emissions discriminates against the poor. The rich can afford to buy brand new cars with eco hybrid electric engines etc. that have little to zero road tax whilst poor people who have to buy older cars second hand cars pay more in tax because they’re dirtier. I know we need to encourage cleaner cars but this method does irk me a little.
Tax rates are based on how polluting the car was compared to cars at the time of sale. Newer cars might be less polluting, but the limits go down all the time but cars retain the banding they had when new. Cars getting older makes little difference to the tax they are charged other than small increases to keep up with inflation.
As for not being able to shift the wheel, that's for a couple of reasons - mechanics over-tightening the nuts with power tools, and alloy wheels welding themselves to the hub. I've been reduced on occasion to kicking the wrench to loosen them, to the point I was worried the car would come off the jack.
Technically you're meant to free the nuts up before jacking it up. It makes it a bit easier to do and means there's no risk of pushing it off the jack.
What he said, also as soon as you have the wheel off lie the wheel on its side and place it under the body of the car near the jacking point. That way if the jack fails or the car rolls off the jack somehow it wont end up on the deck, damaging the car and more importantly crushing any part of you that happens to be under it at the time.
I don't think there's any doubt about that. In fact Remainers where I work are sure that Scotland will be independent within 10 years even after a soft Brexit.
However for a Europeaner to say it merely reinforces Brexiteer determination to get away from their baleful influence.
That's the wrong way round given how brutal the grand national can be. I would suggest it should be that Irish horses will be safe from the grand national!
And on the Ireland border issue. Here is RMogg suggesting that at the border we should bring back individual inspections...
That's the wrong way round given how brutal the grand national can be. I would suggest it should be that Irish horses will be safe from the grand national!
And on the Ireland border issue. Here is RMogg suggesting that at the border we should bring back individual inspections...
That's the wrong way round given how brutal the grand national can be. I would suggest it should be that Irish horses will be safe from the grand national!
And on the Ireland border issue. Here is RMogg suggesting that at the border we should bring back individual inspections...
On the Irish border issue, aren't the EU obligated to put up a hard border on their side as per their own regulations?
Asking the UK for a solution to the border issue whilst their own rules lay down what happens when an EU member state borders a non EU member?
Yes, unless the UK is part of the customs union as a part of a deal.
But this is why the UK's position has been so ridiculous. Despite it being written clearly in black and white from the beginning, they have still attempted to "negotiate" this point as they put themselves in the corner by announcing that the UK would be leaving the customs union.
Every month around 177,000 lorries, 208,000 vans, and 1,850,000 cars cross the border.[citation needed] Around 30,000 people cross the border daily to travel to work.[18]
Brexit won't lead to piles of human excrement being strewn liberally around the M20 and the port of Calais as long as we spend a fortune on provision of portable lavatories whichthen won't be available for festivals and fairs.
I went ahead and fitted four new tyres to the car by the way. A mere £160. Hopefully that should do it for a couple of years. Meanwhile I’ll still pay the tax of £27 a month...and the £40 a week in petrol it takes to run it around....and the £101 a month insurance too.
You know, I’m suddenly getting the feeling that this car is very expensive to run.
Prime Minister May has used her trip to Southern Africa to get agreement to make trade deals with four nations to replace the ones we've already got and will lose next March.
Sorry, there is no scope for African exporters to benefit from Brexit. Tariffs are already zero for majority of African countries and almost all others get them vastly reduced. Standards for agriculture imports will also not change. The minister is either ignorant or lying.
ignorant or a liar.. take your pick.
that moment when you cannot negotiate the "easiest deal in history".
Prime Minister May has used her trip to Southern Africa to get agreement to make trade deals with four nations to replace the ones we've already got and will lose next March.
Four down, 89 to go!
Oh but there is a sting and a threat int he tail. We'll only give them aid money where there benefits the UK...
I am unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK.
Now my understanding of aid is to help countries there are with dire levels of poverty in an unprejudiced way. As soon as you start offering it is a bribe or threat, then this is just going back to the old days of colonialism where we are trying to control countries through money and power. She is just a foul smelling rat that would withhold money from aid that should support bringing people away from starvation or desperate poverty simply because it didn't benefit the UK.
However she is reassuring everyone that Wrexit "wouldn’t be the end of the world". So she is obviously setting the bar really high with that one. Never mind the arrogance that in some way Wrexit could in any way mean the end of the world.
However the language might suggest that we are heading for a hard Wrexit. Which might be on the back of Macron coming out and saying he won't agree anything that lets the EU unravel which basically scuppers a large part of May's other unspecified 'customs union'.
Liam Fox sounds like he is trying to excuse himself for handing in late school work. "But miss the dog ate it; I was sick; the questions were too hard" etc
Future War Cultist wrote: I went ahead and fitted four new tyres to the car by the way. A mere £160. Hopefully that should do it for a couple of years. Meanwhile I’ll still pay the tax of £27 a month...and the £40 a week in petrol it takes to run it around....and the £101 a month insurance too.
You know, I’m suddenly getting the feeling that this car is very expensive to run.
Cars are expensive to run... I really want a car as well, so I looked into cheap second-hand cars and was delighted to find out those were very affordable even for me. But then I looked further and found out that the initial purchase cost is only a tiny fraction of the actual price of a car... Anyways, rest assured that cars aren't much cheaper here on the mainland.
Prime Minister May has used her trip to Southern Africa to get agreement to make trade deals with four nations to replace the ones we've already got and will lose next March.
Four down, 89 to go!
Oh but there is a sting and a threat int he tail. We'll only give them aid money where there benefits the UK...
I am unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK.
Now my understanding of aid is to help countries there are with dire levels of poverty in an unprejudiced way. As soon as you start offering it is a bribe or threat, then this is just going back to the old days of colonialism where we are trying to control countries through money and power. She is just a foul smelling rat that would withhold money from aid that should support bringing people away from starvation or desperate poverty simply because it didn't benefit the UK.
Wait... So Britain is now so desperate to get trade deals they are threatening poor third world countries to withhold aid programs unless they agree to the UK's new trade deal? That is pretty disgusting behaviour. I am sad now. I did not think Britain could sink this low... At least not in the 21st century anymore.
Wait... So Britain is now so desperate to get trade deals they are threatening poor third world countries to withhold aid programs unless they agree to the UK's new trade deal? That is pretty disgusting behaviour. I am sad now. I did not think Britain could sink this low... At least not in the 21st century anymore.
Yep, just like the school yard bully that all teachers know will amount to nothing when they grow old. Unfortunately too many people on the comments sections in the papers either agree or thing we shouldn't be handing out any money at all.
Yeah this car was cheap to buy (£650 for a then 12 year old four door 2 litre with only 60,000 miles on the clock) but it has had £500 worth of work carried out on it over the past 3 years. And the running costs are pretty high. It is fast though. Very fast.
Going back to politics, here in Northern Ireland we now have 589 days without a government under our belts. We won’t be making the record books ahead of Belgium however, and that’s because we are only a devolved government and so we don’t count. The MLAs still get their wages though. Must be so nice.
You can get some cracking deals on older larger engined cars these days, if you can stomach the running costs. Everyone runs away from gas guzzlers but if you don't do huge mileage the low fuel economy doesn't matter.
My last 3 cars have done 20mpg, 25mpg and 33mpg, but I didn't do that many miles until recently
French fishermen have been accused of throwing insults, rocks and smoke bombs at their British rivals in the English Channel in a vicious scrap over scallops.
Appeals for calm were issued by Britain's National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which said some boats had been filmed manoeuvring dangerously.
Personally, I would have added a pause before, and some quotes around, the word ... "dangerously"
.
To be fair it does look like the French have a point. They are restricted from gathering scallops to 6 months by the French government, but uk fisherman can catch the, all year round. That both makes the uk fleets cheaper (catch more per boat) and potentially diminishes stocks before they get there. The irony in this is that some people as part of Wrexit want to control our own waters but now we are arguing we should be able to plunder others as well.
They don’t. That’s down to the French government. If they want to go beyond the EU rules that’s up to them. If they want to implement those rules for everyone on the basis of conservation or anything else they need to do it the right way. There is no irony at all, unless those fishermen involved are pro Brexit.
It’s a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. The French are one of the strongest pro EU countries, and one of the loudest voices in the EU fisheries, along with Spain, and access to fishing waters is part of that. Don’t like it? Lobby the EU to change the law. Don’t try to enforce your own version of the law.
But didn’t the chairman of the European Fisheries Alliance, Gerard van Balsfoot, not claim that fishermen will just carry on fishing anyway, even if it’s illegal?
Future War Cultist wrote: But didn’t the chairman of the European Fisheries Alliance, Gerard van Balsfoot, not claim that fishermen will just carry on fishing anyway, even if it’s illegal?
If people from France or the UK go and fish illegally in each other's waters, something will be done when it becomes a significant problem. It isn't hard for either navy to put some fast patrol boats out to catch cowboy fishers.
But it won't help British fishermen to fish illegally in Normandy anyway, because they will have to bring their catch back to the UK to sell it, where they will run into the customs problem.
Brexit will put tariffs and customs delays on the species the UK exports to the EU, which are some of the more valuable varieties because our European cousins are keen seafood fans.
To some extent this might be alleviated by UK consumers buying more of the good stuff, but we're not a strong nation of fish eaters (ironically for an island nation) and we're not going to pay premium prices for it.
The fisherman also won't be getting any more EU funding for infrastructure like the Grimbsy Fish Market, nor will they be able to access EU regional development grants for industries other than fishing to replace the fishing money that is going to go away.
Thus Brexit on the whole will negatively impact UK fishermen's incomes in several ways. Which is the exact opposite of what Farage promised them.
Steve steveson wrote: They don’t. That’s down to the French government. If they want to go beyond the EU rules that’s up to them. If they want to implement those rules for everyone on the basis of conservation or anything else they need to do it the right way. There is no irony at all, unless those fishermen involved are pro Brexit.
It’s a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. The French are one of the strongest pro EU countries, and one of the loudest voices in the EU fisheries, along with Spain, and access to fishing waters is part of that. Don’t like it? Lobby the EU to change the law. Don’t try to enforce your own version of the law.
Typical France in the EU - they only obey the laws that suit them.
If it had been the other way around - the British would be nationlist, racist etc....
The French are obeying their own law that they made to govern their own fishermen. The French fishermen want the British to obey it too, which we are not obliged to.
However the French government wasn't obliged to make that law in the first place.
Steve steveson wrote: They don’t. That’s down to the French government. If they want to go beyond the EU rules that’s up to them. If they want to implement those rules for everyone on the basis of conservation or anything else they need to do it the right way. There is no irony at all, unless those fishermen involved are pro Brexit.
It’s a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. The French are one of the strongest pro EU countries, and one of the loudest voices in the EU fisheries, along with Spain, and access to fishing waters is part of that. Don’t like it? Lobby the EU to change the law. Don’t try to enforce your own version of the law.
Typical France in the EU - they only obey the laws that suit them.
If it had been the other way around - the British would be nationlist, racist etc....
In many ways they are our opposites; loudly proclaiming their enthusiasm for the EU whilst ignoring any rules that don’t suit them. Compare Britain, loudly proclaiming our hate for the EU whilst following all the rules to the letter. Like mugs.
The French are obeying their own law that they made to govern their own fishermen. The French fishermen want the British to obey it too, which we are not obliged to.
However the French government wasn't obliged to make that law in the first place.
The British Fishermen are obeying EU laws? The French are attacking them without any intereference from the French authorities as usual.
Its the same as when their farmers attack foreigners vehicles or carry out blockades.
Steve steveson wrote: They don’t. That’s down to the French government. If they want to go beyond the EU rules that’s up to them. If they want to implement those rules for everyone on the basis of conservation or anything else they need to do it the right way. There is no irony at all, unless those fishermen involved are pro Brexit.
I think you are missing where the irony is. Plenty of people argue that the UK fisheries gets shafted by the EU quota system and that our own fishing companies are being forced out because of the "EU fishing our waters" etc. Yet here is an example where we definitely benefit from being in the EU. As you have rightly said we benefit because we are not under any such restrictions (although that France has to take its own actions to try and stop 'overfishing' is concerning about the sustainability of extracting scallops over a full year). So people are both complaining about how our fisheries are exploited whilst ignoring that we do this ourselves elsewhere. This might be a case of shooting ourselves in the foot (again) once we leave the EU.
Steve steveson wrote: They don’t. That’s down to the French government. If they want to go beyond the EU rules that’s up to them. If they want to implement those rules for everyone on the basis of conservation or anything else they need to do it the right way. There is no irony at all, unless those fishermen involved are pro Brexit.
I think you are missing where the irony is. Plenty of people argue that the UK fisheries gets shafted by the EU quota system and that our own fishing companies are being forced out because of the "EU fishing our waters" etc. Yet here is an example where we definitely benefit from being in the EU. As you have rightly said we benefit because we are not under any such restrictions (although that France has to take its own actions to try and stop 'overfishing' is concerning about the sustainability of extracting scallops over a full year). So people are both complaining about how our fisheries are exploited whilst ignoring that we do this ourselves elsewhere. This might be a case of shooting ourselves in the foot (again) once we leave the EU.
In turn you are missing a larger point - The EU is often cited as not protecting local fisheries but rather allowing foreign fleets to devestate fishing grounds where local fishermen have to sit idle.
This French violence is a sympton of the problems of the EU fisheries policy - again if it had been British boats ramming and attacking other nations - the demonisation of them would have ben huge, as its France -people leap to their defence.
Agreed, the French are not respecting the EU laws by attacking them - what exactly are their coastguard or whatever doing?
If it is was the other way around - the "Brutal violent British" would be demonised but everyone just shrugs when the French do it.
There's never any excuse for violence, but then I'm cynical that we are only seeing the issue from a biased perspective and as with anything there are two sides to any story. I am unsure how maritime rules work. However I am assuming you can just sit a vessel where you want (excluding major shipping lanes). If the French fishermen deliberately arrayed their vessels making it difficult to pass (effectively an unofficial blockade of the scallop fishing areas) and then the UK vessels tried to force their way through then it could be seen as the UK fleet instigating the aggression.
Agreed, the French are not respecting the EU laws by attacking them - what exactly are their coastguard or whatever doing?
If it is was the other way around - the "Brutal violent British" would be demonised but everyone just shrugs when the French do it.
There's never any excuse for violence, but then I'm cynical that we are only seeing the issue from a biased perspective and as with anything there are two sides to any story. I am unsure how maritime rules work. However I am assuming you can just sit a vessel where you want (excluding major shipping lanes). If the French fishermen deliberately arrayed their vessels making it difficult to pass (effectively an unofficial blockade of the scallop fishing areas) and then the UK vessels tried to force their way through then it could be seen as the UK fleet instigating the aggression.
Ah now this is what i meant - you are looking for ways to make it the fault of the British fishermen....The French must somehow be blameless and in fact the victims....
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Also as i said - this is part of the problem with the EU fisheries policy and its impact on local fisheries foreign fleets are often allowed to do what locals are not.
In turn you are missing a larger point - The EU is often cited as not protecting local fisheries but rather allowing foreign fleets to devestate fishing grounds where local fishermen have to sit idle.
This French violence is a sympton of the problems of the EU fisheries policy - again if it had been British boats ramming and attacking other nations - the demonisation of them would have ben huge, as its France -people leap to their defence.
I think it may be more symptomatic that the French think there are longer sustainable issues that cannot be resolved at the EU level (lets say the UK have blocked these restrictions as an example). Foreign fisheries do devastate fishing stocks. Each country is given an allocation of fish/scallops based off an overall scientific assessment as to what is considered sustainable. Under the EU rules you can catch these scallops throughout the year up to your allocation. Now France will have out in the time restriction for reason (I would suspect it is to do with the breeding season). Under the French rules scallop fishing can start in October. Now breeding seasons will be relatively arbitrary but likely cautious. It would be easy to surmise that just poor to October a large glut of scallops would be sitting waiting on the sea bed in August / September. If other fleets then devastate this by saving up your catch until this period, then not only is it working against the principles of sustainability but it can also have long term effects on the population (each you catch lots of juveniles etc). From french fishermen perspective if the stockpiles have been trounced before they can even get there and that ruins the fishing for the rest of the season then I have some understanding of their concerns. I am also sympathetic when it comes to environmental issues. As both a species and a country we do our best to get round environmental concerns, but that can last only so long until things like the scallop industry collapse and then everyone wonders how it ever happened. After all how many people object to greenpeace trying to stop whaling ships etc. Yes scallops are not as glamorous but they are likely more fundamental to the food chain and ecosystems.
In turn you are missing a larger point - The EU is often cited as not protecting local fisheries but rather allowing foreign fleets to devestate fishing grounds where local fishermen have to sit idle.
This French violence is a sympton of the problems of the EU fisheries policy - again if it had been British boats ramming and attacking other nations - the demonisation of them would have ben huge, as its France -people leap to their defence.
I think it may be more symptomatic that the French think there are longer sustainable issues that cannot be resolved at the EU level (lets say the UK have blocked these restrictions as an example). Foreign fisheries do devastate fishing stocks. Each country is given an allocation of fish/scallops based off an overall scientific assessment as to what is considered sustainable. Under the EU rules you can catch these scallops throughout the year up to your allocation. Now France will have out in the time restriction for reason (I would suspect it is to do with the breeding season). Under the French rules scallop fishing can start in October. Now breeding seasons will be relatively arbitrary but likely cautious. It would be easy to surmise that just poor to October a large glut of scallops would be sitting waiting on the sea bed in August / September. If other fleets then devastate this by saving up your catch until this period, then not only is it working against the principles of sustainability but it can also have long term effects on the population (each you catch lots of juveniles etc). From french fishermen perspective if the stockpiles have been trounced before they can even get there and that ruins the fishing for the rest of the season then I have some understanding of their concerns. I am also sympathetic when it comes to environmental issues. As both a species and a country we do our best to get round environmental concerns, but that can last only so long until things like the scallop industry collapse and then everyone wonders how it ever happened. After all how many people object to greenpeace trying to stop whaling ships etc. Yes scallops are not as glamorous but they are likely more fundamental to the food chain and ecosystems.
Again this is just trying desperatly to find a way to portray the French as eternal victims in the EU depsite being one of the two most powerful nations in the EU and much of it constructed to suit them.
Do you actually know if Briatin has blocked restricitons in this area?
Sustainability - the exact same thing is raised when we have Fench or Spanish fleets fishing in our waters but again if we attacked them _ well I can well imagine the reaction - the problem that the Eu allows and in fact encourages fleets to plunder other nations fishing grounds.
It does not matter who destroys the fish stocks if they are destroyed.
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five.
Yet that is Sky, owned by a generally unsympathetic ear to other european countries. I'm sure that there are french media reports that are cursing us. The likelihood is that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. A british vessel is not likely to take videos of itself ramming a vessel, but would be more than happy to do it the other way round. Rather than backing the the french fishermen its more that I would prefer to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate that can be seen as supporting the other side, but its more devils advocate in that it may not all be what it seems. For example why didn't the Uk vessels simply turn around and find somewhere else to fish rather than provoke the confrontation (and subsequently put in a complaint through the correct channels)
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Possibly but the French navy are not the police, they are military organisation. They likely had no remit to intervene just in the same way the RAF didn't.
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five.
Yet that is Sky, owned by a generally unsympathetic ear to other european countries. I'm sure that there are french media reports that are cursing us. The likelihood is that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. A british vessel is not likely to take videos of itself ramming a vessel, but would be more than happy to do it the other way round. Rather than backing the the french fishermen its more that I would prefer to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate that can be seen as supporting the other side, but its more devils advocate in that it may not all be what it seems. For example why didn't the Uk vessels simply turn around and find somewhere else to fish rather than provoke the confrontation (and subsequently put in a complaint through the correct channels)
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Possibly but the French navy are not the police, they are military organisation. They likely had no remit to intervene just in the same way the RAF didn't.
Is I news anti-EU?
40 ships vs 5 and the French are the ones being attacked?
From the various news feeds including Fench ones it appears that the small group of British ships retreated as soon as they were able to do so.
Again this is just trying desperatly to find a way to portray the French as eternal victims in the EU depsite being one of the two most powerful nations in the EU and much of it constructed to suit them.
I could just as well argue that you are trying to portray anyone that doesn't support the UK view as not being nationalistic enough and should do so unquestioningly accept any sketchy evidence of an event with no questions asked. But neither argument gets us anywhere.
Do you actually know if Briatin has blocked restricitons in this area?
I believe Scotland does, but don't think there is anything specific in the rest of the UK.
Sustainability - the exact same thing is raised when we have Fench or Spanish fleets fishing in our waters but again if we attacked them _ well I can well imagine the reaction - the problem that the Eu allows and in fact encourages fleets to plunder other nations fishing grounds.
No it doesn't - I've already stated how it works. Every type of fish, every area is considered in terms of how much fishing can be landed and not make it unsustainable. That allocation is then split fairly as agreed by the EU. What I think you are confusing things with is that the majority of the UK fishing fleet is owned by foreign companies (greater than 80% IIRC). Hence these companies can use foreign vessels if they wish and land them in the UK. That is however an issue of out own government and how it hands out quotas with the majority going to a few large organisations. The UK itself however gets a very good deal out of the quotas overall. You can't blame the EU for how we then distribute it.
Sketchy reports? Currently there seems to be very consistant reporting across the networks - British, European, Global.
The French gathered a small fleet (35-40 ships) and in trying to prevent the lawful actions of the small number of (5) British vessels they threw missiles, ramnmed ships (foolishly apparently as the british ships are bigger) until they drove them away.
40 ships vs 5 and the French are the ones being attacked?
From the various news feeds including Fench ones it appears that the small group of British ships retreated as soon as they were able to do so.
Unlikely as collisions occurred. It's not like these vessels couldn't just turn around in time and move away. Their speed is relatively mild. I don't think there is any excuse for either side to be ramming each other as at sea its especially dangerous. However I still think we aren't seeing the whole story and that only a flashpoint is being represented. The article linked to itself refers to a ongoing long term dispute.
Agreed, the French are not respecting the EU laws by attacking them - what exactly are their coastguard or whatever doing?
If it is was the other way around - the "Brutal violent British" would be demonised but everyone just shrugs when the French do it.
There's never any excuse for violence, but then I'm cynical that we are only seeing the issue from a biased perspective and as with anything there are two sides to any story. I am unsure how maritime rules work. However I am assuming you can just sit a vessel where you want (excluding major shipping lanes). If the French fishermen deliberately arrayed their vessels making it difficult to pass (effectively an unofficial blockade of the scallop fishing areas) and then the UK vessels tried to force their way through then it could be seen as the UK fleet instigating the aggression.
Ah now this is what i meant - you are looking for ways to make it the fault of the British fishermen....The French must somehow be blameless and in fact the victims....
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Also as i said - this is part of the problem with the EU fisheries policy and its impact on local fisheries foreign fleets are often allowed to do what locals are not.
FOR THE THIRD TIME, IT IS NOT EU POLICY, IT IS FRENCH GOVERNMENT POLICY!
Do you have any sort of source to back that assertion up or is this going to be like that thing about the EU forcing people to vote the way they want on the Lisbon treaty again?
However I am assuming you can just sit a vessel where you want (excluding major shipping lanes).
You can’t. Maritime law has clear rules on rights of way and who gives way to who and how to stop boats coming in to conflict. And it has clear rules on not preventing lawful navigation.
If the French fishermen deliberately arrayed their vessels making it difficult to pass (effectively an unofficial blockade of the scallop fishing areas) and then the UK vessels tried to force their way through then it could be seen as the UK fleet instigating the aggression.
Agreed, the French are not respecting the EU laws by attacking them - what exactly are their coastguard or whatever doing?
If it is was the other way around - the "Brutal violent British" would be demonised but everyone just shrugs when the French do it.
There's never any excuse for violence, but then I'm cynical that we are only seeing the issue from a biased perspective and as with anything there are two sides to any story. I am unsure how maritime rules work. However I am assuming you can just sit a vessel where you want (excluding major shipping lanes). If the French fishermen deliberately arrayed their vessels making it difficult to pass (effectively an unofficial blockade of the scallop fishing areas) and then the UK vessels tried to force their way through then it could be seen as the UK fleet instigating the aggression.
Ah now this is what i meant - you are looking for ways to make it the fault of the British fishermen....The French must somehow be blameless and in fact the victims....
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Also as i said - this is part of the problem with the EU fisheries policy and its impact on local fisheries foreign fleets are often allowed to do what locals are not.
FOR THE THIRD TIME, IT IS NOT EU POLICY, IT IS FRENCH GOVERNMENT POLICY!
For the Third Time and without needlessly shouting as you did - I know - my point was they were breaking International Law. I was saying there was other problems with the fisheries policy.
Whilst I was not there and media images are never the whole story - those I have seen thus far do seem to show the French attacking - we are also receiving reports of a large fleet of French vessels compared to a smaller number of british vessels. Sky is reporting "Around 40 French boats are claimed to have chased five British vessels." I news says 35 to five.
Yet that is Sky, owned by a generally unsympathetic ear to other european countries. I'm sure that there are french media reports that are cursing us. The likelihood is that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. A british vessel is not likely to take videos of itself ramming a vessel, but would be more than happy to do it the other way round. Rather than backing the the french fishermen its more that I would prefer to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate that can be seen as supporting the other side, but its more devils advocate in that it may not all be what it seems. For example why didn't the Uk vessels simply turn around and find somewhere else to fish rather than provoke the confrontation (and subsequently put in a complaint through the correct channels)
Its seems unlikely that the French authorities were not aware of what was happening -there are reports of the French navy being present and not inervening.
Possibly but the French navy are not the police, they are military organisation. They likely had no remit to intervene just in the same way the RAF didn't.
They do. Part of most Navy’s remit is law enforcement of a countries waters. The Royal Navy even has a specific squadron just for fishery’s work, Fishery Protection Squadron, which has 4, soon to be 5, ships.
Mr Morden wrote: Sketchy reports? Currently there seems to be very consistant reporting across the networks - British, European, Global.
The French gathered a small fleet (35-40 ships) and in trying to prevent the lawful actions of the small number of (5) British vessels they threw missiles, ramnmed ships (foolishly apparently as the british ships are bigger) until they drove them away.
So this is a video of one of the incidents.
Two smaller french ships at the front, a larger Uk ship at the rear. None of them are in contact at the start. So which ship is responsible for the collision. Given that they were all travelling forward which is the ship that decided to turn left despite knowing vessels were there? Which ship made the turn to the left to cause the collision. Why did it not throttle back first to give itself the room to undertake such a manoeuvre?
Mr Morden wrote: Sketchy reports? Currently there seems to be very consistant reporting across the networks - British, European, Global.
The French gathered a small fleet (35-40 ships) and in trying to prevent the lawful actions of the small number of (5) British vessels they threw missiles, ramnmed ships (foolishly apparently as the british ships are bigger) until they drove them away.
So this is a video of one of the incidents.
Two smaller french ships at the front, a larger Uk ship at the rear. None of them are in contact at the start. So which ship is responsible for the collision. Given that they were all travelling forward which is the ship that decided to turn left despite knowing vessels were there? Which ship made the turn to the left to cause the collision. Why did it not throttle back first to give itself the room to undertake such a manoeuvre?
Now who is taking a snippet of the incident and determing what happened?
Two smaller french ships at the front, a larger Uk ship at the rear. None of them are in contact at the start. So which ship is responsible for the collision. Given that they were all travelling forward which is the ship that decided to turn left despite knowing vessels were there? Which ship made the turn to the left to cause the collision. Why did it not throttle back first to give itself the room to undertake such a manoeuvre?
Now who is taking a snippet of the inceicnet and determing what happened?
Precisely, thank you for just validating my arguments...
Two smaller french ships at the front, a larger Uk ship at the rear. None of them are in contact at the start. So which ship is responsible for the collision. Given that they were all travelling forward which is the ship that decided to turn left despite knowing vessels were there? Which ship made the turn to the left to cause the collision. Why did it not throttle back first to give itself the room to undertake such a manoeuvre?
Now who is taking a snippet of the inceicnet and determing what happened?
Precisely, thank you for just validating my arguments...
Right - so looking at the entire icident and the various reports from different media is the same as looking at one video - well done.
I trust you read the bits that others had posted in international waters etc.....
Precisely, thank you for just validating my arguments...
Right - so looking at the entire icident and the various reports from different media is the same as looking at one video - well done.
Did the UK vessel ram, or not the french vessels in the video? You earlier stated that it was uk vessels were rammed from your evidence you gathered yet the video shows at least one case where the UK vessels were involved. that would suggest potential biased data collection and that not both sides of the story were being well represented (at least in the british media). I had only had to find one video to invalidate that it was all the french actions You are right in saying that it is only one piece of evidence but it also shows something you argued against (that the uk fisher people were angels and that I was simply defending the french).
I trust you read the bits that others had posted in international waters etc.....
What does where it happened make any difference as to which if not both parties are responsible?
It helps to read the French version of the events too.
Basically that French put up additional restrictions to help scallops size properly, so that they command higher prices. Up until this year British fishermen agreed to abide by French restrictions on the area closer to the French coast where the generally smaller French vessels traditionally operate.
This year and probably because of Brexit the British ship owners withdrew from the table and decided to go on their own.
So something they could do, but a rather ungentlemanly move.
I trust you read the bits that others had posted in international waters etc.....
What does where it happened make any difference as to which if not both parties are responsible?
Technically it matters a lot as the CFP can be restricted in territorial waters. I'd also like to point out that the EU EEZ is not the same as international waters for the matter of fishing, but the CFP is clear on access to the EU EEZ.
So I heard the French have once again sparked warfare by maliciously attacking the British unprovoked. I am no expert on EU politics so perhaps someone can fill me in on just how much of the French's fault this is?
I trust you read the bits that others had posted in international waters etc.....
What does where it happened make any difference as to which if not both parties are responsible?
Technically it matters a lot as the CFP can be restricted in territorial waters. I'd also like to point out that the EU EEZ is not the same as international waters for the matter of fishing, but the CFP is clear on access to the EU EEZ.
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to that in any incident such as this it doesn't matter where it occurs. Regardless of the location it still means communications have broken down and that to some extent both parties are at fault. There are no reasons for deliberate collisions. Just shutting off the engine would help de-esclate matters. Once either party starts driving their ships into the other then it doesn't matter where it happens and is just going to infuriate both sides even more.
I trust you read the bits that others had posted in international waters etc.....
What does where it happened make any difference as to which if not both parties are responsible?
Technically it matters a lot as the CFP can be restricted in territorial waters. I'd also like to point out that the EU EEZ is not the same as international waters for the matter of fishing, but the CFP is clear on access to the EU EEZ.
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to that in any incident such as this it doesn't matter where it occurs. Regardless of the location it still means communications have broken down and that to some extent both parties are at fault. There are no reasons for deliberate collisions. Just shutting off the engine would help de-esclate matters. Once either party starts driving their ships into the other then it doesn't matter where it happens and is just going to infuriate both sides even more.
It does though, because where it happens means where legal jurisdiction lies and who might be at fault for being there in the first place, although the CFP means its the ECJ.
To some extent both parties are at fault, but COLREG is clear that in the event of a collision the overtaking vessel is at first repsonsible but both vessels have a duty to avoid. Of course practically speaking the ones provoking it share the blame, technically COLREG also states that its the duty of a ship to avoid a vessel engaged in activities such as fishing. But COLREG doesn't take these kinds of actions into account, this is the assumption of incompetence or accidents. Legally speaking this is a difficult subject, but (again) technically you could apply the UNCLOS piracy article to some extent on the French, but if this ever would end up in court its going to end up at the ECJ.
Realistically this shouldn't be to hard a case to make, but neither the UK or France have the time or need to get bogged down by this because its expensive and will result in little considering the outcome of the day itself (perhaps a 'little' financial compensation). Plus getting into a dispute over this might just mean that France uses the CFP 12 nautical mile exemption, meaning the UK screws over all the UK vessels for the sake of a one off incident. I'm not sure what the financial clout of this particular group of fishermen is though, but it seems unlikely that the UK government would go to bat for them in the current political situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Maybe if you guys piss of the French enough, they will invade Britain again. That way you can still stay in the EU!
They better start pissing of the Dutch and Danish too, spread your bets people
Panasonic will move its European headquarters from the UK to Amsterdam in October as Brexit approaches.
The aim is to avoid potential tax issues linked to the UK's decision to leave the EU, said Panasonic Europe's chief executive Laurent Abadie.
In the run-up to March 2019, a number of multinational firms have said they plan to move jobs out of the UK.
Several Japanese financial companies have said they intend to move their main EU bases away from London.
Panasonic's decision was driven by a fear that Japan could start considering the UK a tax haven if it cuts corporate tax rates to attract business, Mr Abadie told the Nikkei Asian Review newspaper.
If Panasonic ends up paying less tax in the UK, that could render it liable for a bigger tax bill in Japan.
Mr Abadie told the Nikkei Asian Review that Panasonic had been considering the move for 15 months, because of Brexit-related concerns such as access to free flow of goods and people.
The newspaper said employees dealing with auditing and financial operations would move, but those dealing with investor relations would stay in the UK.
Up to 20 people could be affected out of a staff of 30.
A spokesperson confirmed to the BBC that the registration of Panasonic's European headquarters would move in October.
However, the spokesperson said the firm could not comment on the numbers of people who would have to move to Amsterdam.
In 2016, the UK government pledged to cut corporation tax to encourage businesses to continue investing in the UK after the Brexit referendum.
Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, but with less than a year to go, the UK and the EU are struggling to reach consensus on the terms of the exit.
Japan is a major investor in the UK, where more than 800 Japanese companies employ more than 100,000 people.
However, financial firms including Nomura, Sumitomo Mitsui and Daiwa have already said they will no longer maintain their EU headquarters in London.
Brexit: MoD fears need for new port in Cyprus to serve RAF Akrotiri
Britain would have to spend tens of millions of pounds building a port to service its military base in Cyprus after a no-deal Brexit, officials have concluded.
Plans for the facility at RAF Akrotiri are already being drawn up as part of preparations to limit the impact of Britain leaving the EU without a trade agreement.
Equipment and other goods headed for the base travel through Cypriot commercial ports. Officials said that customs and other inspections imposed by the EU after a no-deal Brexit would seriously threaten operations.
Future War Cultist wrote: If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?
I think you're on the right track, but that the time for such things has passed.
There was a point just after we'd voted and before we'd issued our notice that there was another path. Namely; dialling up Switzerland, Norway, and all the other "one foot iner's" to work out some sort of united position for renegotiating everything with the EU. Seeking to set up, in effect, the two tier Europe bandied about for so long. Judging by the noises which came out of Brussels post-vote, the shock of losing the referendum would likely have been enough to jolt things moving in that direction.
It would have been an opportunity to make it not about 'us', per se; but a way of progressing forward in harmony with a number of European neighbours, harnessing a lot of the discontent which exists over the current EU setup. It would also have cut out a lot of the ill-feeling, and soothed many of the worries that those who voted Remain had (and still have), because there could have been a fair bit of give and take over what 'associate' membership looked like. Certainly, it would have been the most democratic way of taking all views into account after the referendum.
But now? No, after mulling it over, I think not. We've gone too far into negotiations to suddenly involve other parties (leaving aside the question of why on earth they'd be interested). I lay that blame at the door of the Tory party; and more specifically, May's desire to hold an election. Her weakening of her majority gave the dozen odd hard Brexiteers sufficient clout to nudge us away from such things.
Now we've little choice but to either abdicate the previous vote and fall back into line, or carry on to the (quite possibly bitter) conclusion. The third way is shut.*
*And yes, that was an LOTR reference.
I never got a chance to respond to this. You’re right, sadly. That opportunity, that momentum, was squandered almost instantly. It’s not so much the vote but poor bad governance and complete political ineptitude that’s put us here now.
Out of the two options we have left, what would you go with? A crash out could be...would be...damaging and bitter, but I fear that if the process was called off the establishment would double down to make sure the option is never offered again.
The EU is on the run. The German car makers have came through for us
I always knew that at the first sight of British cold steel, the Europeans would roll up the white flag.
Barnier said, and I quote:
We are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country.
From the Guardian's live feed:
France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, is preparing to push other EU leaders to agree a Brexit deal with Britain, according to a report in the Times.
Macron is hoping to persuade fellow leaders that a close relationship with Britain after Brexit will promote a united Europe.
He will use a summit in Austria next month to outline a new structure for European alliances, the Time said, quoting unnamed diplomatic sources. The idea is based on “concentric circles” with the EU and the euro at the core and Britain in a second ring.
If this is the case, it will be a major boost to Theresa May, who has been hoping to strengthen her hand in negotiations by persuading individual leaders that a decent Brexit deal for Britain will be good for the EU.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a significant development.
In my humble opinion, I think this will be the final offer from the EU. Naturally of course, the devil will be in the detail, but from my reading, the EU are in no mood to prolong this any further. They have enough problems of their own to sort, and another 2 years of Brexit is the last thing they need.
I'm sorry to say this to Remainers, but I think you're going to get cut loose. Too much water under the bridge now.
Barnier wouldn't have said what he said without first getting the nod from EU top brass, and if it's a half-decent deal, say EEA++, then there are enough moderates in the country to boot the hard core Remainers and Brexiteers into touch.
I've been saying for weeks now that EEA/EFTA is my preferred option. If this comes close to replicating that, I'll take it.
I would say to moderate Remain supporters as well, that this could be a reasonable deal for your side, which respects the referendum vote, but gives us a smooth exit with minimum disruption.
Well you will have to play by EU rules to get access to single market and financial passport. So free movement for people etc. So in short you will be following our rules but with no saying on them.
France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, is preparing to push other EU leaders to agree a Brexit deal with Britain...
The idea is based on “concentric circles” with the EU and the euro at the core and Britain in a second ring.
So we are going to be on the "level down" from full membership, like EEA/EFTA membership. We have no idea what the strings are, but I bet the four freedoms will remain one of them. It would not suprise me if this comes after the EEA idea not being completely shot down by the hard brexit lot. Hardly a shock. The only question that remains is if schengen area rules will apply. I would bet that this ends up being the same as being in in all but name and influence. It will be interesting to see what the final offer is...
May has tied herself to guaranteeing an end to free movement. She’s just said it again this morning in Kenya in no uncertain terms. The EU have it as a key principle. Someone’s going to have to budge and lose a lot of face to avoid ‘no deal’. If May does she’s finished.
The EU is on the run. The German car makers have came through for us
I always knew that at the first sight of British cold steel, the Europeans would roll up the white flag.
Are we reading the same news? Barnier made it very clear that the deal won't interfere with the EU's integrity - so no Freedom of goods without people.
It's showing the EU is still willing to negotiate (as they always have been), but that it's bottom line is still clear. I think they might be pushing to try and make some progress.
The only shifting point I can see is that they're willing to negotiate something bespoke, rather than making us take an off the shelf option. That's great news, if we can decide what the gak we want to do.
I've seen nothing about German car makers on any white flags.
Concentric rings makes me thing it'll be something outside the EEA, possibly more like Turkey. This might even be acceptable to the hardcore Leavers, but I've no idea where it will leave things like the economy or the Irish border.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah white flag as if. Well DINLT doesn't live on this reality anyway but on his fantasy realm he only peeks out to try to get UK wrecked anyway.
I’ve had enough of your spam and personal attacks so you’re reported.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.
The language is pretty significant, though.
I think Ketara posted an excellent point the other day. 2 years ago, if we had pushed the EEA/EFTA route in cooperation with say, sympathetic countries like Denmark, made it clear that this wasn't personal, that we still wanted to deal with the EU, whilst retaining more sovereignty, but that we had serious concerns about freedom of movement and further integration, we could have had the 2 speed Europe.
The EU, numb from Brexit, but willing to talk, might have signed up for such a scenario. Regardless of your views on immigration, it's a major issue now in Europe. We could have thrashed out a deal that kept everybody happy whilst retaining the core of the EU's 4 freedoms.
The UK + EFTA, could have been 'orbiting' the EU, close ties could have been maintained on say, the environment (which I have never been against) and Brexit could have been smooth and orderly.
Instead, we got Conservative party feuds played out on the international stage, and a pre-referendum EU that thought we were bluffing. Alarm bells should have been ringing in Brussels when Cameron turned up.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.
The language is pretty significant, though.
I think Ketara posted an excellent point the other day. 2 years ago, if we had pushed the EEA/EFTA route in cooperation with say, sympathetic countries like Denmark, made it clear that this wasn't personal, that we still wanted to deal with the EU, whilst retaining more sovereignty, but that we had serious concerns about freedom of movement and further integration, we could have had the 2 speed Europe.
The EU has been extremely clear from day one that the four pillars will stay. Even the traditional British allies like Denmark and the Netherlands are on record saying there's no pick and choose, and no fundamental change unless from within.
The EU will not fundamentally change just for one member, much less one on the way out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.
The language is pretty significant, though.
I think Ketara posted an excellent point the other day. 2 years ago, if we had pushed the EEA/EFTA route in cooperation with say, sympathetic countries like Denmark, made it clear that this wasn't personal, that we still wanted to deal with the EU, whilst retaining more sovereignty, but that we had serious concerns about freedom of movement and further integration, we could have had the 2 speed Europe.
The EU, numb from Brexit, but willing to talk, might have signed up for such a scenario. Regardless of your views on immigration, it's a major issue now in Europe. We could have thrashed out a deal that kept everybody happy whilst retaining the core of the EU's 4 freedoms.
The UK + EFTA, could have been 'orbiting' the EU, close ties could have been maintained on say, the environment (which I have never been against) and Brexit could have been smooth and orderly.
Instead, we got Conservative party feuds played out on the international stage, and a pre-referendum EU that thought we were bluffing. Alarm bells should have been ringing in Brussels when Cameron turned up.
We could, but there is no way the major players in leave (BoJo, Reese Mogg, Farage et al.) would have accepted it at that stage. The only reason the main players in the Tory party are quiet now is they don't care if we stay or leave, all they care about is getting as much power as they can.
Barnier wouldn't have said what he said without first getting the nod from EU top brass, and if it's a half-decent deal, say EEA++, then there are enough moderates in the country to boot the hard core Remainers and Brexiteers into touch.
And it's not EEA++, it would be something less than current EEA because, again, the red lines prevent anything else. A Canada+ if you wish.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.
The language is pretty significant, though.
I think Ketara posted an excellent point the other day. 2 years ago, if we had pushed the EEA/EFTA route in cooperation with say, sympathetic countries like Denmark, made it clear that this wasn't personal, that we still wanted to deal with the EU, whilst retaining more sovereignty, but that we had serious concerns about freedom of movement and further integration, we could have had the 2 speed Europe.
Actually there is nothing really new here looking at the details to resolving any of the fundamental issues currently being talked over. In fact your sudden support for this would in fact just leave the UK as part of the EU but just not a first tier member which seems relatively pointless. I think it's slightly grasping at straws to think that in any way we think we are gaining ground here.
Barnier has previously stated in 2017 that he was aiming for the most ambitious future partnership and free trade agreement
which is no different to saying that "we are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country"
Macron's comments are also nothing new. The reports are that he wants to see concentric circles of membership of the EU. Basically the rule givers and the rule takers. We would be in the latter section. This is no different to what his vision for the EU has been for sometime. Macron is indeed just using Wrexit as a way of forwarding his vision of the EU. To persuade the UK to be part of the second tier EU then they are suggesting some compromises on security (e.g. easier access to Galilieo, still not full access and retaining the European Arrest Warrant which would be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well).
What I find amusing is the anti-EU press and others seem to be running with the bone that in some way the EU is capitulating - which is so far from what is happening it is laughable. In effect they are offering something less than what we already have and wanted to continue with whilst still playing to all the EU rules. Even a full FTA means that in effect we would have to be compliant with EU rules. There is nothing here that means that they are going to compromise on the customs union; a comprehensive FTA is very poor compared to this as you still have all the delays and paperwork, the only difference is there is no tax, but you still have evidence compliance. Its offering a few areas as breadcrumbs to make us think we are 'winning' whilst in the end really getting exactly what they want.
However it will also have blindsided those in the UK saying it would be the EU's fault with no deal. They have hit that ball well and truly back into the UK's side of the court. As ever our negotiating team is being very weak. But please go ahead and think they are losing if it makes people sleep better.
A Canada+ with some unique features would qualify as a unique deal without necessarily sacrificing any of the four freedoms.
I still don't see how the NI border is going to work, but maybe the EU offering will be X on the basis that the UK has to find a way to make X work in terms of Ireland.
Kilkrazy wrote: A Canada+ with some unique features would qualify as a unique deal without necessarily sacrificing any of the four freedoms.
I still don't see how the NI border is going to work, but maybe the EU offering will be X on the basis that the UK has to find a way to make X work in terms of Ireland.
Place controls around all of English/Scottish ports but outside them. No border between NI/Eire and DUP can't complain because the borders are between two areas of England / Wales / Scotland not on the Irish sea between NI and the rest of the UK.
"But Barnier last uttered these words on 2 August during a press conference in Brussels in which he forensically tore apart the prime minister’s white paper, warning that its ideas on a new customs arrangement and trade in goods represented a threat to the integrity of the EU."
Yeah. Right. And certain person here keeps deluding himself EU will wreck itself by changing core 4 principles. Those aren't budging. So maybe Brits can get discount for fees on new improved deal but if they want to be single market they will play by the EU rules.
"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"
Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.
That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.
That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.
I suppose it is worth debating whether this is the case. So to start lets just accept that the comments are crass in terms of applying a view to a group of people. Assuming we are referencing the 'irony' with regards zionists comment and I've not missed something else whilst travelling. However my understanding is that zionism is a movement where the jewish people should have their own state. However you don't need to be jewish to hold zionist views (there have been public christian and muslim zionists, post zionism is meant to represent a state for all its peoples etc). Indeed its only since 1991 that the UN stopped considering zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. In comparison having a negative view on the jewish as a people would be anti-semitism. From my understanding the meeting was with a palestinian representative who also want their own state for their people to live how they want. There would be an irony if an organisation associated with zionism wanted to resist that principle as that would be what they also stand for (its the same thing once you consider a neutral perspective that its a group of people). The error was to call out all 'zionists' as that implies they are resistant to such an idea and as ever it puts a group of people into the same category - in reality he should have called out individuals or specific groups. However as zionist doesn't necessarily mean the person is jewish is it possible to consider it an anti-semetic comment?
"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"
Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.
That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.
So where’s the media outrage at the overt racism, homophobia and general bile in the Tory ranks?
It’s almost as if this whole thing is just a shoddy smear campaign....
Come on now Doc, we know you're a Corbanite, you've said so yourself. But you have to admit that even if he isn't anti-Semite, he's destroyed any credibility of being a possible leader. This whole fiasco was a golden chance for him to show strong leadership and nip this whole problem in the bud right from the start. But he's let it drag on, floundering around like a beached cod with his fingers stuck in his ears and basically destroyed what little credibility he had left.
"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"
And definitely not to do with the vote of no confidence against him in his local party after he voted with the Tory party on Wrexit?
Birkenhead voted for Brexit, so that's not it. Momentum have tried to deselect him before, so the 'no confidence' is just another ploy in trying to get rid of another non-Corbynista. In that I guess they have succeeded, and he's decided to go out making a statement. funny in a way as he is a bit like JC in that he is a permanent rebel - unhappy with being in a top post and getting more reward from campaigning against his own party from the wings.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Come on now Doc, we know you're a Corbanite, you've said so yourself. But you have to admit that even if he isn't anti-Semite, he's destroyed any credibility of being a possible leader. This whole fiasco was a golden chance for him to show strong leadership and nip this whole problem in the bud right from the start. But he's let it drag on, floundering around like a beached cod with his fingers stuck in his ears and basically destroyed what little credibility he had left.
It remains a shoddy smear campaign. All the while BoJo is courting the far right, and Little is said (indeed, gutter press support was given)
There’s something rotten in our political system, and it’s not Jeremy Corbyn. It’s the cosy little right wing cartel, all lying and supporting each other.
As I think I've said before, for all the campaign of smear, Corbyn could defuse it by taking decisive action on the anti-semitism front, and yet hasn't. His failure to do so allows the smear campaign to continue.
This is a failure of leadership.
The Labour Party has friends in the press, e.g. the Mirror and Guardian. They know that Tory Islamophobia is harder to attack if you have dirty hands yourself.
"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"
Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.
That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.
So where’s the media outrage at the overt racism, homophobia and general bile in the Tory ranks?
It’s almost as if this whole thing is just a shoddy smear campaign....
No,no, no. Sorry, you don't get to excuse racism in American police by pointing at homophobes elsewhere. Racism does not work on a basis of whataboutism. Corbyn literally came out with an anti-semitic statement. From the mouths of babes. He can blather on all he likes about how he's just referring to zionists, but the statement literally does not make sense if there is no ethnic connotation.
“They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'
Zionism is, after all, a political position, and that's what makes it free for criticism. But you wouldn't say the above statement about somebody who was a fan of reducing income tax by 5%, or giving Cornwall independence.
If I said, 'Vote Tory', you looked at me and responded, 'I hate the Tories', to which I replied, 'Ah, despite having lived in this country for a long time, maybe even your whole life, you don't understand English irony'; you'd say 'You bloody what mate?' Because it doesn't fit without the ethnic connotation. It doesn't make sense. As a strapping Englishman, why would I be questioning how long you've lived here? Why would I assume I have a better handle on specifically 'English' (note the ethnic qualifier, it's not just basic) irony than you?
Flip it on its head and change the scenario. Imagine Mr Farage was standing there at his conference, and said the below about a group of predominantly muslim, brown skinned protestors (who were all born and raised in Birmingham) that just heckled him over anti-EU policies:-
“They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'
Would you believe him when he turned around afterwards, mumbled something about how he was only attacking their political position and them being muslims or brown had nothing to do with it? Course you wouldn't. Because as said, the comment literally makes no sense without the ethnic element.
Mr Corbyn very clearly delineated and joked about the English Jews who were protesting against him on a political point as the 'ethnic other'. He used that to discount them. That is anti-semitism. Light anti-semitism, nothing hardcore. He's not up for burning the Jews in the streets, I think. But he's no better than all those slightly racist mongs bitching about burkas; just in another direction. And that makes me genuinely sad. I think that Labour party supporters (one of which I'd like to be) deserve better than that for a leader. I actually believed him when he said he just shared a platform with anti-semites instead of being one, after all.
So stop complaining about smear campaigns. His own words condemned him, not anything from the Tories.
It still beggars belief that a man with such miserable history is seen as a new dawn for his party.
Locally, Labour activists who were extolling the fresh new approach Corbyn would bring to politics are distancing themselves from their leadership. He is an issue for the wider party.
Thing is, I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt from the start. If you'd followed my comments in this thread, you'd see my view of him gradually progressed:-
'What a nice well-meaning principled fellow!'
*cue four months of Labour infighting and statements dancing around the IRA*
'What a well-meaning and principled, if ineffectual fellow!
*cue a general election and complete absence of policies*
'What a well meaning principled fellow, even if ineffectual and devoid of actual political/economic knowledge!'
*cue several months of images of Corbyn standing next to really racist bastards and subverting the Labour party structure*
'What a well meaning fellow!'
*cue three months of Corbyn trying to redefine anti-semitism to best suit him and Jews fleeing the Labour party, culminating in recordings of him making mildly anti-semitic remarks*
What a...fellow?
I've got nothing good left to say about him by this stage.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I think I've said before, for all the campaign of smear, Corbyn could defuse it by taking decisive action on the anti-semitism front, and yet hasn't. His failure to do so allows the smear campaign to continue.
This is a failure of leadership.
Exactly. He's absolutely not anti-Semitic, but he's also absolutely not fit for leading a political party or government. I can understand him not wanting to play these games, but in his position he really has to be seen to be doing something about anything.
It's being fast-tracked so it might well be in force before the scheduled next change in october.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I understand daylight saving (slightly) favours the industry and the big energy spenders, but there are also (small) savings to be had domestically and there's always some discomfort with the hour chance, especially for children.
It made sense when daylight was important to everyone, as they all worked in fields. For those that work in fields, they can always just get up at 4 instead of 5 - it makes no difference to them.
For everyone else it just seems to cause confusion and body clock issues. I honestly doubt many people would actually notice or care that it got darker an hour earlier or not - we're generally not awake to see the dawn anyway.
As someone who has regular meetings across most time zones, daylight savings is an absolute pain in the gakker. Meetings shift arbitrarily based on the timezone of the creator, and thus conflicts can appear, or times change. It's made worse since as far as I can tell, the US changes clocks a few weeks out, and Asia doesn't do it at all.
Ketara wrote: Thing is, I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt from the start. If you'd followed my comments in this thread, you'd see my view of him gradually progressed:-
'What a nice well-meaning principled fellow!'
*cue four months of Labour infighting and statements dancing around the IRA*
'What a well-meaning and principled, if ineffectual fellow!
*cue a general election and complete absence of policies*
'What a well meaning principled fellow, even if ineffectual and devoid of actual political/economic knowledge!'
*cue several months of images of Corbyn standing next to really racist bastards and subverting the Labour party structure*
'What a well meaning fellow!'
*cue three months of Corbyn trying to redefine anti-semitism to best suit him and Jews fleeing the Labour party, culminating in recordings of him making mildly anti-semitic remarks*
What a...fellow?
I've got nothing good left to say about him by this stage.
I think he is still well-meaning though. His comment was only very, very, very, very, very slightly anti-Semitic if you interpret it in a specific way. It is Corbyn's struggling with the criticism and general failure to tackle anti-Semitism that is doing him more harm than the comment itself. "Ineffectual" is probably one of the best qualifiers there is for Corbyn. Your great political rivals mess up the country this badly, everyone hates them, and your party still manages to be struggling? That is like the definition of ineffectual. Labour should be booming right now, capitalising on the failures of the Tories. But they can't. Probably that is not all Corbyn's fault, but he certainly isn't fixing it either.
As for daylight savings, back when I had a newspaper round and had to get up really early every day, I absolutely hated it. That sudden single hour difference would throw my entire biological rhythm in confusion and make me feel sick for days. Just for that reason I would be happy to see it abolished, even though nowadays I usually can get up late since I have only one class a day and don't really notice the effect anymore.
No,no, no. Sorry, you don't get to excuse racism in American police by pointing at homophobes elsewhere. Racism does not work on a basis of whataboutism. Corbyn literally came out with an anti-semitic statement. From the mouths of babes. He can blather on all he likes about how he's just referring to zionists, but the statement literally does not make sense if there is no ethnic connotation.
The problem here is that you are picking a single sentence out of the full transcript and then inferring that Corbyn is anti-semetic because of that single sentence. The full transcript is as follows:-
The other evening we had a meeting in Parliament in which Manuel made an incredibly powerful and passionate and effective speech about the history of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people. This was dutifully recorded by the – the thankfully silent Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said. They clearly have two problems: one is they don’t want to study history and secondly having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either. Manuel does understand English irony and he uses it very very effectively.
When looked at completely Corbyn does have a point in that the sentence being quoted is being taken out of context. The sentence is repeated in the media as "They" meaning zionists. In context 'they' is actually referring to the zionists that 'berated' Manuel afterwards and hence at most Corbyn can be accused of casting aspersions on all zionists in the audience as we don't know whether every zionist berated Manuel. What he definitely didn't say was against *all* zionists in the UK as that was never previously referenced. Now if this was a legal document you would have been more specific rather than use 'they', however spoken english language rarely follows such lines. What we don't have is a transcript of how Manuel was berated however if we suppose that this was to do with the resistance of the creation of a palestinian state for these people then he may be correct in that the people berating him have failed to recognise that there was long, hard fought battle for the state of israel to be created to ensure peoples safety from persecution historically and it would be ironic if those that support this concept then don't recognise that another group want the same form of freedom.
If I said, 'Vote Tory', you looked at me and responded, 'I hate the Tories', to which I replied, 'Ah, despite having lived in this country for a long time, maybe even your whole life, you don't understand English irony'; you'd say 'You bloody what mate?' Because it doesn't fit without the ethnic connotation. It doesn't make sense. As a strapping Englishman, why would I be questioning how long you've lived here? Why would I assume I have a better handle on specifically 'English' (note the ethnic qualifier, it's not just basic) irony than you?
Except that is not really a sensible or useful comparison. It would be more along the lines of:- Tory supporter "When the Labour were in power in the 70's they prevented me buying a house where I wanted to live and I fought and fought and fought for this right. Eventually we got rid of Labour and my work paid off and I was able to make a place that I call home" Labour supporter - "The Tories are preventing me today from buying a house where I want to live" Same Tory supporter "That is how it should be, I and my party should be able to tell you where to live, you shouldn't have that right"
Mr Corbyn very clearly delineated and joked about the English Jews who were protesting against him on a political point as the 'ethnic other'.
No he didn't because *they* wasn't in relation to 'English Jews' nor did he ever reference in the statement about 'English Jews' protesting against him on a political point. In reference to the above speech this is just at best very superficial link and at worst is just made up. Never mind that you don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. You have even stated the zionism is a political view yet your inference is that criticism of that political view must hence be anti-semitic.
So stop complaining about smear campaigns. His own words condemned him, not anything from the Tories.
Except in this case it is smear campaign. Now it is a shame that rather than just state Manuel was berated that it would have been preferable that what was said to him was explicitly stated and his use of the english language could have been clearer, for example using These people in the audience, rather than 'they' but then I am sure we are all guilty of this sloppiness in using the english language.
This is misconception though. You don't get an extra hour in bed at all. If you spend 10 hours in bed, whether the clocks change or not you've still spent 10 hours in bed. If you consistently get up at a certain time then you still don't get an extra hour as you lose that hour 6/7 months later. The only argument for changing hours is safety in the winter (kids not walking to school in the darkness) but really that comes down to the way we constrain our lives around the 9-5 of working life (which is becoming increasingly outdated). The better solution globally would be to go to heliocentric julian date.
Whirlwind wrote: This is misconception though. You don't get an extra hour in bed at all. If you spend 10 hours in bed, whether the clocks change or not you've still spent 10 hours in bed. If you consistently get up at a certain time then you still don't get an extra hour as you lose that hour 6/7 months later. The only argument for changing hours is safety in the winter (kids not walking to school in the darkness) but really that comes down to the way we constrain our lives around the 9-5 of working life (which is becoming increasingly outdated). The better solution globally would be to go to heliocentric julian date.
In theory yes, in practice I doubt many will go hour earlier/later to sleep to compensate for the time change. So at one point you actually sleep less hours, later hour more.
In theory yes, in practice I doubt many will go hour earlier/later to sleep to compensate for the time change. So at one point you actually sleep less hours, later hour more.
Hence over the year you don't get that extra hour in bed, yes? Generally I find that on the day it applies I just get up one hour later/earlier which really is just the same as going to bed earlier or later but doing it at the other end. I think the main reason people adjust in the morning is that the body clocks have become routined to go to a bed at a certain time, hence the adjustment comes after the clocks have changed not before.
The problem here is that you are picking a single sentence out of the full transcript and then inferring that Corbyn is anti-semetic because of that single sentence.
I actually watched the speech. There's footage of it. I took the quote as seemed best relevant, because the extraneous factors you're including are utterly, utterly irrelevant. I mean, to take this:-
The sentence is repeated in the media as "They" meaning zionists. In context 'they' is actually referring to the zionists that 'berated' Manuel afterwards and hence at most Corbyn can be accused of casting aspersions on all zionists in the audience What he definitely didn't say was against *all* zionists in the UK as that was never previously referenced.
I never said he was addressing all zionists in the UK. Perfect example there of irrelevant, additional inferences made by yourself. This:-
Now if this was a legal document you would have been more specific rather than use 'they', however spoken english language rarely follows such lines. What we don't have is a transcript of how Manuel was berated however if we suppose that this was to do with the resistance of the creation of a palestinian state for these people then he may be correct in that the people berating him have failed to recognise that there was long, hard fought battle for the state of israel to be created to ensure peoples safety from persecution historically and it would be ironic if those that support this concept then don't recognise that another group want the same form of freedom.
Is all utterly, utterly irrelevant to anything I said. If you want to debate with me, please don't waste my (and everybody else's) time muddying waters. The mention of 'history' has nothing to do wtih my point; it's just part of the complete sentence. The bit I'm grappling with is the mentioning of 'them 'living here'(maybe all their lives!), and not getting 'English' irony; when they're English and homegrown.
Except that is not really a sensible or useful comparison. It would be more along the lines of:- Tory supporter "When the Labour were in power in the 70's they prevented me buying a house where I wanted to live and I fought and fought and fought for this right. Eventually we got rid of Labour and my work paid off and I was able to make a place that I call home" Labour supporter - "The Tories are preventing me today from buying a house where I want to live" Same Tory supporter "That is how it should be, I and my party should be able to tell you where to live, you shouldn't have that right"
None of this bears any relation to the exact words Mr Corbyn used. I could make up half a dozen analogies that don't use the phrasing he did that could make it more/less anti-semitic. Change around the people or the subject as much as you like; but keep the words. To reconstruct your own analogy to include them;
Person 1:- 'I wanted to buy a house and the Tories/Labour Party/whoever stopped me'. (statement of a political position)
Person 2:- 'No they didn't.' (rebuttal of political position)
*speech later on referring to first persons political arguments*
Person 2:- 'Well, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they really didn’t understand English irony ' (what Corbyn said)
It makes no sense without ethnicity as a factor. You would look at someone who came up with that when referrring to somebody else's political position (in this case Zionism), and wonder what they hell they were on. Be it zionism, poll tax, or enbironmental regulations. How long someone has lived in the country has absolutely nothing to do with the political arguments involved. And why would you specify 'English' irony? Why not just 'irony?' The only reason you would ever construct a sentence like that is to portray the other party as being the foreign, or 'other' or 'separate from us'. Something your rather poor analogy in no way mimics, or encompasses. You also fail to address that anywhere in your post. In other words, you wrote a lengthy post which had very little to do with what I was picking up on; given you were quoting me.
No he didn't because *they* wasn't in relation to 'English Jews' nor did he ever reference in the statement about 'English Jews' protesting against him on a political point. In reference to the above speech this is just at best very superficial link and at worst is just made up. Never mind that you don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. You have even stated the zionism is a political view yet your inference is that criticism of that political view must hence be anti-semitic.
Sure. We can be intellectually obtuse and pretend that in portraying the people he was talking about in his statement; Corbyn was imagining they might have shared an ethnic heritage of Upper Zoroastrianism. If you want to do those mental somersaults, just let me know and I'll proceed to ignore you from here on out.
Or we can deal with the reality, which is that there are only two common factors linking the people he's specifically referring to here, one of which is Jewishness. The only other linking factor in the group (that they are zionists, which is a political position) has absolutely diddly squat to do with 'how long they've lived here', or their understanding of specifically 'English' irony. To return to his original statement. There'd be no reason whatsoever to say those things if referring just to zionism; and it would be downright weird, strange, and not at all in normal language to do so in refuting a political position.
Please note that you are now bending over backwards to try and prove that a man (a) who regularly stands on stages with rabid anti-semites, and is (b) currently attempting to redefine 'anti-semitism' so as to exclude himself, is not being anti-semitic. Even when he looks at a group of zionists/Jews and dismisses them with the words, 'having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony '. I get that nobody ever wants to go for the people wearing the same political colours as them, or even the ones wearing different colours because they chuck rocks at the colours you don't like. But this is getting silly.
As regards to Corbyn and anti-Semitism, I've been wondering for a long time now as to why the politics of another country (Israel) is such a big deal in Britain. As you know, I don't give two hoots for Israel or the Middle East, so I'm mystified as to why we keep banging on about it.
Naturally of course, any discrimination against our fellow countrymen and women for their religious beliefs is not on
It's being fast-tracked so it might well be in force before the scheduled next change in october.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I understand daylight saving (slightly) favours the industry and the big energy spenders, but there are also (small) savings to be had domestically and there's always some discomfort with the hour chance, especially for children.
Thoughts?
This is on of those rare occasions when I'm not attacking the EU
because I'm not particularly bothered one way or another, but what about Ireland? If the Republic has one time zone, and the North has another...well...
and let me remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we had proper political debate, and 
let the good times roll.
