I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
People trat London houses like a bank and buy whole blocks they never use at times.
Its considered a dorm of banking by some its that's reliable of late.
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
This is though largely a London problem. House prices are not doing this in the rest of the country. And the weak pound is helping many in manufacturing and production. I've two businesses one producing solely for export and one producing for the home market although 90% of the produce from it goes to the south of England. The export business hasn't been better in years. Expecting a good summer if it falls further. I've already employed more this year, although that was a lot to do with the expected fall in corporation tax which might not happen now, so they might not be here very long.
The shambles is London, the inequality is a London problem. Not exclusively but it's so gross in London its bound to cause problems. Hopefully London greed won't infect the nation.
On house prices, i rent out a bungalow, around 1000sq ft, with large garden, garage and workshop close to train stations and around 9 miles from city centre for £650. And that's feels expensive! I wonder at the couple in it why they don't buy somewhere at that money.
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
This is though largely a London problem. House prices are not doing this in the rest of the country. And the weak pound is helping many in manufacturing and production. I've two businesses one producing solely for export and one producing for the home market although 90% of the produce from it goes to the south of England. The export business hasn't been better in years. Expecting a good summer if it falls further. I've already employed more this year, although that was a lot to do with the expected fall in corporation tax which might not happen now, so they might not be here very long.
The shambles is London, the inequality is a London problem. Not exclusively but it's so gross in London its bound to cause problems. Hopefully London greed won't infect the nation.
On house prices, i rent out a bungalow, around 1000sq ft, with large garden, garage and workshop close to train stations and around 9 miles from city centre for £650. And that's feels expensive! I wonder at the couple in it why they don't buy somewhere at that money.
The problem is starting to go beyond London. People who sell up in London, or who have not nearly enough for a London house (but still more than the national average) are starting to snap up property in Birmingham and Manchester etc etc
This has the knock on effect of pricing out locals in those cities. So even when people are escaping London, they're causing new problems elsewhere...
I work in London, but live in Kent and commute via coach.
My rent for my flat is a remarkably cheap £775 for two bedrooms. Even with my commute of around £220 a month, it's cheaper than renting in London.
So whilst prices here aren't as insane as London (God that bubble has to burst), they're still massively inflated because it's in the commuting zone.
Yeah, I may have to go to London this year. Can't say I'm looking forward to having to pay a fiver for a Mars Bar.
Yes this is the problem with London. It is particularly prevalent where there are direct links to London. So it stretches even to places you wouldn't necessarily expect simply because they are on a direct trainline to London. The problem is that the wages in these areas aren't enough to keep up with London wages so things like house prices escalate to the point where people working in the local community just can't compete and get 'forced' out of an area they may have grew up in (and still work in) simply because of the London effect.
This is also before you start thinking about the effect of second homes that the well paid Londoners can afford. It is much easier to perhaps rent/buy a small property near London and then buy a larger second weekend/holiday home somewhere else in the country because the prices are so much lower. This again forces people out of a local area because they simply can't compete (for example in Rutland).
The problem we now have is how you solve this without generating massive social problems with issues like negative equity for those that are in the outskirts of London. To start you'd need to remove the incentive of London central housing becoming a type of banking system but I doubt the Tories will ever introduce such a scheme (as many are likely to be invested in this type of 'banking' system).
I work in London, but live in Kent and commute via coach.
My rent for my flat is a remarkably cheap £775 for two bedrooms. Even with my commute of around £220 a month, it's cheaper than renting in London.
So whilst prices here aren't as insane as London (God that bubble has to burst), they're still massively inflated because it's in the commuting zone.
Yeah, I may have to go to London this year. Can't say I'm looking forward to having to pay a fiver for a Mars Bar.
Yes this is the problem with London. It is particularly prevalent where there are direct links to London. So it stretches even to places you wouldn't necessarily expect simply because they are on a direct trainline to London. The problem is that the wages in these areas aren't enough to keep up with London wages so things like house prices escalate to the point where people working in the local community just can't compete and get 'forced' out of an area they may have grew up in (and still work in) simply because of the London effect.
This is also before you start thinking about the effect of second homes that the well paid Londoners can afford. It is much easier to perhaps rent/buy a small property near London and then buy a larger second weekend/holiday home somewhere else in the country because the prices are so much lower. This again forces people out of a local area because they simply can't compete (for example in Rutland).
The problem we now have is how you solve this without generating massive social problems with issues like negative equity for those that are in the outskirts of London. To start you'd need to remove the incentive of London central housing becoming a type of banking system but I doubt the Tories will ever introduce such a scheme (as many are likely to be invested in this type of 'banking' system).
What the feth happened to the Northern powerhouse as a counter-weight to London? That scheme seems to have died on its rear...
Sounding utterly cold hearted, but we can't let the prospect of some ending up in negative equity stop up from fixing the housing market.
As someone who's watched house prices spiral wildly out of control pretty much his entire adult life, I say anyone trying to join that market is the author of their own demise.
I mean, when you know the house you're buying is wildly overcosted, why are you buying it? If you've not paid heed to the very real threat of negative equity, you've got no right to complain about it.
I dunno. When it comes to house prices and mortgages, people seem to make decisions as if they were drunk. Always the same pattern 'prices only go up, so it's worth the struggle'. As a society we seem incapable of looking at the past and the effects of previous housing crashes.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I mean, when you know the house you're buying is wildly overcosted, why are you buying it?
Decades of being told that real people own houses.
I remember back in the 1980s of a few lone voices that warned Thatcher that Britain would be in trouble 30 years down the line with her housing policy, but sadly, their voices were not heeded.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
The issue of social housing inside zones 1-3 of London is a difficult one. On one hand, you have the desire to keep families and communities low down on the social/financial scale in relative comfort. And on the other, you have reality.
That reality is that there is a limited square footage of space within Central London. And it's the brick wall which attempts to achieve the former goal consistently run up against. You hear lots of stuff about the 'evil Tory' councillors conspiring with private businessmen to sell up council owned property and roll in the cash, but it's usually rubbish for the most part. As is easily demonstrated by the fact that all the Labour and Lib Dem councils are in the exactly the same position, and many, if not most of them, opt for the same actions.
Those sitting in the central London wards are faced with an irresolvable problem which derives from a number of issues. Those issues being:-
1) Property in London is at a premium, and likely always will be. Even if there was a housing crisis, it would still cost more there than anywhere else in the country. That means acquiring large new plots is beyond the financial capability of most councils.
2) Population levels are always going up, leaving them more and more people who potentially need social housing; especially as government cuts have kicked in.
3) Many refugees who travel to the UK without knowing a huge amount about it head for Central London instinctively as the prime place for employment. Once here, they draw upon local resources using the mechanisms established for that purpose. But that naturally results in further strain on council housing resources in those central areas.
4) Building restrictions, whilst occasionally loose (always a few dodgy ones...) are generally in place to prevent too many high rises. This restricts how many stories up you can build.
5) Much council housing built from the post-war period through to the 1970's was made of poor materials which is now unfit for purpose. That means that they're mouldering away and desperately in need of replacing, but there's nowhere to move the tenants to, and no money to rebuild even if there was.
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
What they offer to do is take that mouldering cadaver of a 1960's concrete tower block (or a batch of them), knock 'em down, and build luxury flats for a large wad of wonga. What's more, on top of that they offer to replace the council homes lost and even build a few new ones. The catch is that they'll normally build those new homes somewhere else, usually just outside of Zone 6 (where the land is much cheaper), leaving those lovely new luxury flats free of complications. If they can'[t get the council to agree to that, they usually compress them into separate buildings partitioned off from the rest of the new builds (with a corresponding reduction in square footage for the council homes).
Oval Quarter saw 477 deteriorating council homes replaced, but with the addition of another 503 homes on the same site for private sale, all the private gardens and park space of the older homes was lost.
That leaves the council in a bind. On one hand, if they accept the offer, they get more desperately required homes than ever before for those in need, along with a cheque which can help meet running expenses on public services for a period of time.
On the other hand, they make themselves the whipping boy for anyone with a hard-on for decrying the evil nature of capitalism, and the more concrete objection that they're helping to engage in the social cleansing of London by putting all the poor people outside it.
It's really quite a no-win situation. A lot of councils prioritise getting the extra housing for those in need whilst walking a tightrope with trying to not to sell too much property . But even that's proven insufficient to meet the huge demand for social housing. The result is that under the 2011 Localism Act, councils have been allowed to offer those on the list private housing instead of council. Inevitably though, they select property outside the local borough (because it is cheaper to rent). If the would be tenant turns it down, the council has discharged its obligation. Again, this throws them open to accusations of destruction of communities, etc.
Ultimately what it comes down to, is whether the priority is to offer a larger quantity of social housing at a cheaper price, or to offer those in need a choice about where they feel like living.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
It's worse than that. Was watching that Adam Curtis documentary about new build homes, and a lot of them are nothing more than sacks of gak. The build quality and the materials are gak poor. Some of those house are falling to bits 20 years after being built
Ketara wrote: The issue of social housing inside zones 1-3 of London is a difficult one. On one hand, you have the desire to keep families and communities low down on the social/financial scale in relative comfort. And on the other, you have reality.
That reality is that there is a limited square footage of space within Central London. And it's the brick wall which attempts to achieve the former goal consistently run up against. You hear lots of stuff about the 'evil Tory' councillors conspiring with private businessmen to sell up council owned property and roll in the cash, but it's usually rubbish for the most part. As is easily demonstrated by the fact that all the Labour and Lib Dem councils are in the exactly the same position, and many, if not most of them, opt for the same actions.
Those sitting in the central London wards are faced with an irresolvable problem which derives from a number of issues. Those issues being:-
1) Property in London is at a premium, and likely always will be. Even if there was a housing crisis, it would still cost more there than anywhere else in the country. That means acquiring large new plots is beyond the financial capability of most councils.
2) Population levels are always going up, leaving them more and more people who potentially need social housing; especially as government cuts have kicked in.
3) Many refugees who travel to the UK without knowing a huge amount about it head for Central London instinctively as the prime place for employment. Once here, they draw upon local resources using the mechanisms established for that purpose. But that naturally results in further strain on council housing resources in those central areas.
4) Building restrictions, whilst occasionally loose (always a few dodgy ones...) are generally in place to prevent too many high rises. This restricts how many stories up you can build.
5) Much council housing built from the post-war period through to the 1970's was made of poor materials which is now unfit for purpose. That means that they're mouldering away and desperately in need of replacing, but there's nowhere to move the tenants to, and no money to rebuild even if there was.
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
What they offer to do is take that mouldering cadaver of a 1960's concrete tower block (or a batch of them), knock 'em down, and build luxury flats for a large wad of wonga. What's more, on top of that they offer to replace the council homes lost and even build a few new ones. The catch is that they'll build those new homes somewhere else, usually just outside of Zone 6 (where the land is much cheaper), leaving those lovely new luxury flats free of complications.
That leaves the council in a bind. On one hand, if they accept the offer, they get more desperately required homes than ever before for those in need, along with a cheque which can help meet running expenses on public services for a period of time.
On the other hand, they make themselves the whipping boy for anyone with a hard-on for decrying the evil nature of capitalism, and the more concrete objection that they're helping to engage in the social cleansing of London by putting all the poor people outside it.
It's really quite a no-win situation. A lot of councils prioritise getting the extra housing for those in need whilst walking a tightrope with trying to not to sell too much property . But even that's proven insufficient to meet the huge demand for social housing. The result is that under the 2011 Localism Act, councils have been allowed to offer those on the list private housing instead of council. Inevitably though, they select property outside the local borough (because it is cheaper to rent). If the would be tenant turns it down, the council has discharged its obligation. Again, this throws them open to accusations of destruction of communities, etc.
Ultimately what it comes down to, is whether the priority is to offer a larger quantity of social housing at a cheaper price, or to offer those in need a choice about where they feel like living.
Foreign spivs and speculators are not helping. London is awash with dirty money, and a lot of it is being funnelled into housing. Blocks of luxury fats, foreign owned, are sitting empty for months on end. The government could step in and fix this.
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Good points
It may not be popular in some parts, but I believe a progressive land tax could help to fix the housing crisis as well.
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Large increased taxation on property acquisition and inheritances combined with rent controls? Yes, because with Brexit going on and growth barely above stagnant, what we really need is to throw ourselves headfirst into a recession in the name of getting people a slightly better choice on where to live.
If you honestly regard that as a 'win' situation, all I can say is that your view of the world is exceptionally different to mine. It's using a nuke to crack a nut - you might achieve the intended goal, but Jesus, was the devastation worth it?
'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
Ketara wrote: 'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
As I've said many a time, Brexit gives us the chance to take a long hard look at the deep rooted structural problems of Britain's economy and actually do something about them.
" The British Government has still not sent papers outlining its opening position for Brexit talks to the European Union, despite negotiations beginning on Monday.
EU sources told The Independent Brussels had sent its “positioning papers” to London four days ago and while similar documents were expected in return, nothing has arrived as Theresa May’s administration struggles to get on its feet.
Brexit Secretary David Davis confirmed on Thursday that talks to pull Britain out of the EU will begin on Monday regardless, despite cabinet splits over how to approach them and Ms May’s withdrawal plans not even being cemented in a Queen’s Speech.
Chancellor Philip Hammond cancelled a speaking event in which he was expected to signal new softer Brexit proposals focusing on jobs, amid fears it might spark an internal row with other Tories demanding Ms May stick to her immigration-centred approach.
It came as the Prime Minister confirmed that a Queen’s Speech would go ahead, but only on 21 June – two days later than originally planned.
It is still unclear if she has locked in the support of the Northern Irish DUP to prop her up in the House of Commons and give her the majority she needs to pass a vote approving the agenda set out in the Queen’s Speech.
Conservatives signalled that talks with the unionists could even continue beyond the start of Brexit talks and the Queen’s Speech, as Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams warned that any deal struck could breach the Good Friday Agreement that br
On Monday this week, the EU sent to London its positioning papers, officially outlining its negotiating stance ahead of talks, and had expected similar documents to come back in good time before discussions begin.
But with the EU’s papers arriving as Ms May staved off a cabinet coup, convinced backbenchers to support her and held talks about realigning Brexit plans, nothing had been sent back to Brussels by Thursday night.
One source across the Channel said it was “unbelievable” that the UK had still not sent the “basic” papers for the start of negotiations, with just over three days left before they begin.
They added: “The talks are beginning on Monday. There are no positioning papers yet. It’s a basic thing that should happen beforehand. It doesn’t bode well.”
The Department for Exiting the EU refused to comment. But officials in both Britain and the EU have confirmed that the first round of talks that will eventually see Britain leave the EU will start on Monday 19 June.
In a joint statement issued today, officials said: “Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator and David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, agreed today to launch Article 50 negotiations.”
But it means the talks will go ahead while the different factions of the Tory party are still wrestling over how they should be conducted.
Mr Hammond and Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson are pushing for a more open approach that puts the economy and jobs ahead of immigration.
The Chancellor’s annual Mansion House speech, due on Thursday but cancelled in the wake of the Grenfell House fire, was to be a key moment setting it out.
Lib Dem Sir Vince Cable branded it “farcical” that the speech due to outline a softer Brexit had been cancelled, taking to Twitter to slam what he called the Conservatives’ “brexitshambles”.
Meanwhile, Leave-backing ministers, including International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, were reported to be ready to quit if Ms May abandoned her tough approach in the face of pressure from Mr Hammond and others.
Ms May is also yet to have her legislative agenda – including her Brexit plans – confirmed in a Queen’s Speech, with the state opening of Parliament not taking place until 21 June and a vote to enshrine the agenda in law a week later.
She is unlikely to win the vote without the support of the DUP’s MPs. Tory sources said they were confident they would gain it, as the negotiations with the Irish unionists on a “confidence and supply” deal were “progressing”, though not finalised.
Sinn Fein's Mr Adams left talks at Downing Street to tell reporters that he had informed Ms May her dealings with the DUP put her in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Adams, president of Sinn Fein, said: “We told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, and we itemised those matters in which she was in default in relation to that agreement.”"
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
But..none of that has much to do with the issues of social housing in Central London particularly.
I mean, they're tangentially related I suppose, but every capital city in every (non-communist) country in the world has the issue of housing being more expensive there. The core of the problem is basic supply and demand economics. Too many people want to live there, and there isn't enough housing for it. Whilst we remain unwilling to build too high and council budgets are too restricted to undertake large scale construction on their own, there's going to be pressure on social housing.
Even the (extreme) measures described in Grotsnik's post would only partially alleviate that fact, despite the collateral damage. Income would drop along with the correlating decrease in rent, and all the properties owned by businesses would dodge around any issues on inheritance tax.
The price of property being high is only a single factor in several affecting this issue. I'm sorry, but there really is no easy fix on this one. If there was, they'd have taken it by now!
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
But..none of that has much to do with the issues of social housing in Central London particularly.
I mean, they're tangentially related I suppose, but every capital city in every (non-communist) country in the world has the issue of housing being more expensive there. The core of the problem is basic supply and demand economics. Too many people want to live there, and there isn't enough housing for it. Whilst we remain unwilling to build too high and council budgets are too restricted to undertake large scale construction on their own, there's going to be pressure on social housing.
Even the (extreme) measures described in Grotsnik's post would only partially alleviate that fact, despite the collateral damage. Income would drop along with the correlating decrease in rent, and all the properties owned by businesses would dodge around any issues on inheritance tax.
The price of property being high is only a single factor in several affecting this issue. I'm sorry, but there really is no easy fix on this one. If there was, they'd have taken it by now!
Land tax. That's the solution. Even Churchill thought so.
Churchill thought many things in his private papers. Many of them were thoroughly bad ideas.
Assuming you raise the cost of purchasing land so high that nobody wants to buy it, what then? There's still no money to rebuild the (rapidly) deteriorating council properties, heck, with the recession that will spark, they'll have even less money than they had before. Making it more expensive to buy property doesn't somehow magic up additional council housing, and given we're the capital city and the population keeps going up, we'll still need more of it. So what next? The problem still hasn't been solved.
Churchill thought many things in his private papers. Many of them were thoroughly bad ideas.
Assuming you raise the cost of purchasing land so high that nobody wants to buy it, what then? There's still no money to rebuild the (rapidly) deteriorating council properties, heck, with the recession that will spark, they'll have even less money than they had before. Making it more expensive to buy property doesn't somehow magic up additional council housing, and given we're the capital city and the population keeps going up, we'll still need more of it. So what next? The problem still hasn't been solved.
A four pronged solution is required. Yes, it won't be easy, and yes, it won't happen overnight, but I would do the following:
1.Full steam ahead with the Northern Powerhouse as a counter-weight to London and the South-East
2.Take the shackles off councils and let them build council houses like what they used to do
3. Progressive land tax
4. Crack down on these buy to let parasites amassing huge empires, which are often funded by housing benefit paid for by the tax payer.
Ketara wrote: 'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
As I've said many a time, Brexit gives us the chance to take a long hard look at the deep rooted structural problems of Britain's economy and actually do something about them.
Pretty much this.
Every recession, we simply find ways to return to the very situation that caused the last recession.
And when it happens again, it's always those with the least that lose out, whilst the wealthy continue to exploit the situation.
It is not extreme socialism, or even socialism, to see the current way things work is ponk and deeply unfair, entirely weighted toward keeping the rich in their comforts.
To quote Call Me Dave, we can't go on like this.
At least now we have a politician leading a party against this institutional unfairness. And when May inevitably calls yet another snap election, or one is forced upon her, we could well see Labour in power.
Will it be perfect? No. I'm an optimist, not an idealist. But we've got precisely sod all to lose from a change of political pace. That of the past 30+ years has failed the country miserably. Or do you think it's reasonable that the Government pays a top-up benefit for those in work?
Simple answer to buy to let? Universal assured tenancy with long minimum lets with easy exit for tenants but very hard for landlords and universal decent housing standards. No need to introduce rent control, no need to directly attacking buy to let. Just make it so that landlords can no longer have new tenants every 12 months to keep bumping up rent massively, throw tenants out just because they want their cash out, or leave people living in modern day slums.
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: Simple answer to buy to let? Universal assured tenancy with long minimum lets with easy exit for tenants but very hard for landlords and universal decent housing standards. No need to introduce rent control, no need to directly attacking buy to let. Just make it so that landlords can no longer have new tenants every 12 months to keep bumping up rent massively, throw tenants out just because they want their cash out, or leave people living in modern day slums.
The short term agreements is also why people want to have their own home. As long as you pay the mortgage you have control of the property and don't have to worry that tomorrow you might have to worry about finding somewhere else to live in an area you don't want to (for example because it means disruption for your children etc).
However don't expect the Tories to want to implement this. Almost 50% of them are landlords anyway. You only have to look at the relatively recent vote to ensure that all owners had to make sure all rented properties were fit for human habitation. 312 Tories voted against, 0 Labour or LDs did.
Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.
Is that new? Do you have a link for that? I swear I was reading in private eye last week how some dodgy developers were being fined for not providing social housing as a matter of course. I would have thought that if there was a legal set sum as a possibility, it would have just been easier for them to stump up then wait for the fines.
It is not extreme socialism, or even socialism, to see the current way things work is ponk and deeply unfair, entirely weighted toward keeping the rich in their comforts.
To quote Call Me Dave, we can't go on like this.
It won't in the end. Eventually the populace will either rebel against the system or we'll have a housing recession that eclipses what we already have. There is already a massive thunderhead cloud on the horizon as we have an aging population. Yes population might be growing now, but with anti immigration messages doing the rounds then in 20-30 years the current crop of 50 year olds will start passing away. That could lead to a huge housing surplus over the long term as the number of younger people entering the system is less than the older generation leaving the system. It might be in 50-100 years but I do expect the housing market to collapse at some point.
I'm browsing around, and I can't find anything on developers being able to pay to waive their social housing obligations. I've got an amendment from 2013 giving an exemption for buildings that have otherwise been left empty for a considerable period of time (to encourage them to make use of the land). I've also found something from December 2014 whereby developers are able to remove their obligation if they can successfully plead their scheme is otherwise financially unviable (which is being manipulated to the hilt by private developers), but I can't spot a simple 'Pay and get out of obligations' bit of legislation.
The housing market has been propped up since the last crash by suppressing interest rates. Held at almost 0% so that millions can continue to scrape by each month with their bloated mortgages they bought thinking they couldn't lose because house prices were always going up.
My parents paid an average of about 9% IIRC on their mortgage over the years, sometimes less, sometimes a lot more. These days people whine if they have to pay 1%. Shows the difference. Interest rates only need to creep up a few percent and masses will fail to pay their mortgage. Government are terrified by this reality of the credit crunch biting home so rates are suppressed.
Holding down interest rates makes responsible saving worthless, and rewards running up huge debt and credit, which is what millions have done on mortgages and cards. Even setting aside mortgages and student debt, the credit debt in this country is a disgrace IMO, but it's the 'have now pay later' culture we now have.
Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.
Is that new? Do you have a link for that? I swear I was reading in private eye last week how some dodgy developers were being fined for not providing social housing as a matter of course. I would have thought that if there was a legal set sum as a possibility, it would have just been easier for them to stump up then wait for the fines.
It's a bit complicated because it's all tied in knots because of the legislation so rather than writing pages I'll provide a brief overview. There are effectively three types of contributions developers can make. Two are legally bound under what are called S106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and there are voluntary contributions that a developer can make for specific reasons (lets say making a local roundabout look better) because they think that will sell the houses at a higher rate (but happens relatively rarely). In 2015 the government introduced a system where developers could show that they do not have to pay for affordable housing if it eats into profits too much. S106 contributions are for specific purposes that the Councils have to prove are required and are only for capital works (so such as extra places at schools, improvements to roads, additional bus stops, and increased capacity at local household waste sites as well as affordable housing). Effectively extra capacity that would not have occurred but for the development (noting taxes only pay towards revenue costs). CIL allows councils to charge a per square metre charge for improvements to the area, but cannot be duplicate items under S106 (and vice versa) - so you can't charge for school places twice for example; however CIL money can be spent as the Council sees fit (assuming it is included on a list of items they can change as and when they feel is appropriate).
The actual determination of whether a site is profitable is opaque at best http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2014/08/looking-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing/ and hence viable. They can then claim that the affordable housing isn't viable and it gets knocked on the head (whilst the remainder, especially the CIL contributions that can be spent anywhere in the District remain in the planning permission). Additionally S106 agreements can only be challenged by Developers at Planning appeals (or eventually the high court). Hence the Council and developer can negotiate perfectly legally about contributions and as long as one party or the another can make it justifiable. But if it is approved there isn't really any recourse for the public or other authorities to challenge the decision (except by going to the High Court). I've been in situations where Districts have approved S106 funding for local parks with questionable justification whereas County contributions have been refused for capital investment that really is going to have an affect on those facilities.
So what then can happen is that developer takes the value of estimated sales minus development costs, land costs, CIL, S106, voluntary contributions etc and then can claim it is not viable. Effectively it moves the affordable housing developments away from the development because then the builders can sell the properties at a much higher price either by not taking the hit in value because of the social housing neighbours or design the site in a way that maximises the return depending on what the local market demand is.
And this is all before you take into account that redevelopment of existing properties can be exempt from affordable housing (which is likely to be particularly problematic in London)
Unfortunately the legislation is a bit of a mess and has never been tidied up. S106 was meant to be repealed but instead lingers on because of flaws in CIL and yet they keep on introducing legislation for S106 agreements that make it harder for them to be applied and easier to avoided.
Okay, so it's not a simple 'Pay and get out of your legal obligations' scheme you're talking about (which is how you made it sound initially). You're referring instead to the legislation I mentioned in my last post, from the end of 2014.
So to clarify in two sentences what I think you're saying; you're stating that CIL contributions are included in calculating whether or not a scheme is financially viable or not. So companies therefore are proposing lots of various local extras and schemes under CIL to take them over the threshold of whether or not they're financially viable, letting them duck out on having to build social housing.
Ketara wrote: Okay, so it's not a simple 'Pay and get out of your legal obligations' scheme you're talking about (which is how you made it sound initially). You're referring instead to the legislation I mentioned in my last post, from the end of 2014.
So to clarify in two sentences what I think you're saying; you're stating that CIL contributions are included in calculating whether or not a scheme is financially viable or not. So companies therefore are proposing lots of various local extras and schemes under CIL to take them over the threshold of whether or not they're financially viable, letting them duck out on having to build social housing.
Is that it?
Sort of, but it is Councils that propose contributions not the companies. What the companies do is show that altogether the contributions and their costs aren't 'viable' (although in a lot of cases that is questionable). The developers can then say that as it is not viable they don't need to put forward affordable housing. The Councils can challenge this and negotiate with the developer to see what can be removed to make affordable housing viable. However that depends on whether the Council prefers the money for a swimming pool under CIL or the affordable housing. At least in the area I am those parts of the District that are on the boundary are consistently not favoured because development in these areas have limited effects on the District overall; whereas a significant fraction of Councillors end up favouring the larger urban areas (simply because there are more councillors). Nothing here is illegal, it's meant to be a decision as to what is best for the District, but it can be left with some areas getting little affordable housing whilst other areas get much larger infrastructure developments once the contributions are pooled together.
Really the pay and you get out of the scheme comes from that Developers know this and can manipulate the circumstances. The advantage for them is that the viability tests are rather loose and not well defined so overall they generally make more profit than initially forecast (for example from redesigning the site without affordable housing). So in the end it is pay the minimum which might be a better way of looking at it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The housing market has been propped up since the last crash by suppressing interest rates. Held at almost 0% so that millions can continue to scrape by each month with their bloated mortgages they bought thinking they couldn't lose because house prices were always going up.
My parents paid an average of about 9% IIRC on their mortgage over the years, sometimes less, sometimes a lot more. These days people whine if they have to pay 1%. Shows the difference. Interest rates only need to creep up a few percent and masses will fail to pay their mortgage. Government are terrified by this reality of the credit crunch biting home so rates are suppressed.
Holding down interest rates makes responsible saving worthless, and rewards running up huge debt and credit, which is what millions have done on mortgages and cards. Even setting aside mortgages and student debt, the credit debt in this country is a disgrace IMO, but it's the 'have now pay later' culture we now have.
The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.
The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.
Which is why they are very wary about increasing interest rates. However it's not just about hording vast amounts of money. You can still be spending the same money but getting less for it. Naturally we spend money on essentials first (so mortgage, food, fuel etc). If you expect further increases then keeping some hidden away to be able to manage such increases is not unsurprising. Additionally the luxuries are also increasing in cost then what you might have been able to afford you no longer can and for some items it can be very binary (either you buy those designer jeans or you don't). This can move the money to a few large discounting companies meaning less money in the economy overall.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.
Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.
Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?
The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.
Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?
The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.
That's quite true, the current stock of baby boomers, my parents included, got a quite staggering discount when buying their home, when prices were already modest. They basically got the deal of a lifetime, it was a massive giveaway to try and secure a conservative future for the forseeable future. And it worked to an extent. We haven't had a left wing government since the 70s, and this is part of the reason.
The Tories are practically unassailable, even now.
Even after,
1. Years of austerity, refusing even to consider tax raises to tackle the debt.
2. Brexit. A fething disaster just waiting to happen
3. Creating a divided, angry nation
4. Nearly costing us the union with Scotland, although that may still be on the cards
5. Cutting security budgets so much, the police are effectively a mop up crew
6. Dergulating business to the extent that firms feel they can cover homes in pretty looking firelighters, and brush off legitimate concerns
7. Be the party that is touted as the only fiscally responsible political party despite willingly creating a climate of uncertainty and confusion
8. Food banks. Having to give people fething food for free so that they don't starve to death in a modern, 21st century, Northern European country.
The Tories are basically the most incompetent, ideologically distorted collection of low level sociopaths we have the misfortune to suffer.
How many people have to die, and live in misery in our wealthy and prosperous corner of the world before people stop voting for these fuckwits.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.
Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?
The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.
Right, so change the Right to Buy laws and only sell the properties off at the full market value. Social housing is for the benefit of society as a whole, not individuals. Purchasing your council home is (or should be) a privilege, not a right.
I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.
It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.
I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.
Whirlwind wrote: I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.
It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.
I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.
Much as this aint a perfect Gov arangement, i am sick and tired of politcal children argueing for weeks at a fething time.
Not another election, we had 6 weeks of gak, i don't want 6 more.
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.
Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?
The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.
Right, so change the Right to Buy laws and only sell the properties off at the full market value. Social housing is for the benefit of society as a whole, not individuals. Purchasing your council home is (or should be) a privilege, not a right.
This is fundamentally the point.
Thatcher wanted to turn the council-house inhabiting working class into middle-class property owners. There were two problems with the plan. The first was that people often couldn't have afforded to buy their council houses at full market rate. This was addressed by giving a discount based on the length of time the people had rented their houses from the council. This in itself was a perfectly good idea. The real problem was that Thatcher also compelled councils not to build new council housing stock, even if they could afford to do it (increasingly problematic in hot ares like the sounth-east.)
Whirlwind wrote: I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.
It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.
I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.
I think you're right on the money there seeing as the current Queen's speech is looking precarious already.
The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.
So basically, what the big corporations and the rich have been doing for decades offsoffandhore and saying "this is how it's supposed to work" is actually bad for the economy? Say it isn't so!
Uf entire building not light up like a match, probably not.
Now it comes out...
UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers
Banned above 18m by building regs.
The tower is 67m high.
They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.
Is that a building reg or a material supply/manufacturer reg? What material and application does this refer too?
if it applies to towers such as grenfell then councils will be as complicit as builders/landlords. Over the last few years many buildings have been refitted and have been clad across the country.
Uf entire building not light up like a match, probably not.
Now it comes out...
UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers
Banned above 18m by building regs.
The tower is 67m high.
They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.
Is that a building reg or a material supply/manufacturer reg? What material and application does this refer too?
if it applies to towers such as grenfell then councils will be as complicit as builders/landlords. Over the last few years many buildings have been refitted and have been clad across the country.
"Flammable cladding that helped the inferno which destroyed the Grenfell tower is already illegal on tall buildings in Britain, Philip Hammond claimed today.
The Chancellor said criminal probes and a public inquiry into the disaster would answer why the controversial material was used.
It emerged today that the cladding installed on Grenfell was not designed for use on buildings taller than 10metres high - a fraction of the 67metre Grenfell block.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said cladding with a flammable core - like that used on Grenfell Tower - was banned on buildings over 18metres high. "
A breach of building regulations is a criminal offence with unlimited fines.
"Arconic said: 'It is crucial to choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire spreading to the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly.
'It is especially crucial for public establishments. Buildings are also classified according to their height, which will define which materials are safer to use. Another important rule when it comes to the height of buildings concerns the accessibility of the fire brigade – as soon as the building is higher than the firefighters' ladders, it has to be conceived [sic] with an incombustible material.'
The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."
It appears that cladding can be installed on buildings above 18m as long as it meets certain standards and the following diagrams indicates that it has to be Class 0 in the standards. Below 18m the material can be class 1 instead (so a bit worse).
Both PE (the one on Grenfell) and FR (the fire resistant version) *both* meet class 0. Therefore both types are legally allowed to be installed on building beyond 18m (assuming no dodgy tests but that would be a different issue). You still have to meet installation standards but again that is another issue and not really one we can review here.
The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."
We have to remember that the company is American. They recommend safety requirements based on the American system (which appears more rigorous than ours) which I suppose is not a surprise given the number of buildings of these types in the US. The company can make recommendations but companies are only legally required to follow the minimums.
It appears that cladding can be installed on buildings above 18m as long as it meets certain standards and the following diagrams indicates that it has to be Class 0 in the standards. Below 18m the material can be class 1 instead (so a bit worse).
Both PE (the one on Grenfell) and FR (the fire resistant version) *both* meet class 0. Therefore both types are legally allowed to be installed on building beyond 18m (assuming no dodgy tests but that would be a different issue). You still have to meet installation standards but again that is another issue and not really one we can review here.
The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."
We have to remember that the company is American. They recommend safety requirements based on the American system (which appears more rigorous than ours) which I suppose is not a surprise given the number of buildings of these types in the US. The company can make recommendations but companies are only legally required to follow the minimums.
Ok, Fiar, this seems resnoble.
One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.
B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate
One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.
B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate
With regards the first point, both the US and EU requirements appear to make this material not suitable for high rise buildings (although with the EU it does appear that individual states can apply their own standards). For the US in particular I would hypothesise that they have had fires previously where cladding was to blame and/or with the greater prevalence and hence number of people living in such buildings there is a greater awareness of the issues such cladding can bring in. It should be noted that cladding was also a factor in the 2009 London fire at the Lakanal flats (from what has been reported). The coroner recommended a review of the relevant building regulations and that sprinkler should be installed. However this has never been actioned and effectively means that in this regards not much has actually changed. The Building regulations should have been changed from this fire. If they had Grenfell is unlikely to have happened. The person responsible for doing this is now the governments Chief of Staff.
On the second point. A lot depends on what is considered 'flammable' and requires a brief understanding of how fires operate. Material burns because it results in a chemical reaction and these can be classified broadly into two categories exothermic reactions and endothermic. For the most part anything will burn if you add enough energy to the particles. Exothermic reactions are where when something reacts it releases heat, burning wood is a good example of this. This is organic compounds burning to make (mainly) carbon dioxide and water. Exothermic reactions are self perpetuating - once you have enough energy in the system it will generate more meaning more of the material will continue to burn and then release more energy and so on. Endothermic reactions are where the burning process requires energy (i.e. you need to keep adding heat to keep the reaction going otherwise it will shut off), photosynthesis is a good example, it takes energy from the sun and converts it to sugars and oxygen.
Plastics are oil based therefore they will burn in oxygen readily once you add in enough heat, they are exothermic reactions. The question the fire regulations/guidance/standards make is how much heat (for the purposes of this discussion lets assume 500C would it take to ignite this material and then a risk assessment of how *likely* it is that such a material will experience this level of heat. Almost certainly this material would not be allowed inside (as there is a high risk of electrical failures, gas burning etc). On the outside of the building however this is much less of an issue. Apart from reflections/direct sunlight (lets assume a 100C) or a cigarette end (lets assume 200C) in the UK it was assessed that it is unlikely that the temperature would ever get high enough to ingite the cladding. However what is easily apparent is that small internal fires can causes much greater local concentrations of heat but the rules lack real consideration of the implications. In this case it appears a fridge exploded - we can then perhaps assumes that the liquid organic coolant was burning (lets say at 700C); a fire extinguisher was used but it might have been the wrong type and/or or it blew some of the burning liquid out of the open window. We now have a liquid that is burning at 700C that combusts the caldding with a combustion temperature of 500C. This hence will ignite the cladding, however because it is an exothermic reaction it produces more heat which therefore causes more cladding to start burning. Because heat rises this means burning air and ash is moving upwards on the updraft which can cause panels to combust above as well. Now you have the circumstances where the panels are burning both sideways and and upwards and hence the consequences. And this is all before you start considering that fires can causes high winds as it sucks more air in. Apart from bricks, concrete and glass pretty much everything will become flammable at a high enough temperature - the question is at what point does that risk become negligible. In the UK our standards assume a lower heat threshold.
I will however take a moment to point out the EU has higher standards than the UK but individual states can make there own decision. If the EU had enforced there rules on the UK, Grenfell tower might not have happened. However for a lot of people this is what they mean when they talk about red tape (there are even Tory MPs on file saying that leaving the EU would allow us to reduce these types of standards and environmental ones). If Grenfell tower had never happened because of the 'red tape' then the consequences of the more relaxed regulations wouldn't have been seen and people would just be clamouring that they are over the top and costing businesses money. So next time anyone complains about EU red tape I would recommend you remind them about Grenfell. With EU red tape this disaster probably wouldn't have happened; the question is how much EU red tape do people want to get rid of and how much extra risk do we want to put on the populace which we will then only deal with once a disaster of this scale happens?
As an aside it's not really a very confidence inspiring thing that the person in number 11 can't actually get his facts right...
One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.
B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate
With regards the first point, both the US and EU requirements appear to make this material not suitable for high rise buildings (although with the EU it does appear that individual states can apply their own standards). For the US in particular I would hypothesise that they have had fires previously where cladding was to blame and/or with the greater prevalence and hence number of people living in such buildings there is a greater awareness of the issues such cladding can bring in. It should be noted that cladding was also a factor in the 2009 London fire at the Lakanal flats (from what has been reported). The coroner recommended a review of the relevant building regulations and that sprinkler should be installed. However this has never been actioned and effectively means that in this regards not much has actually changed. The Building regulations should have been changed from this fire. If they had Grenfell is unlikely to have happened. The person responsible for doing this is now the governments Chief of Staff.
On the second point. A lot depends on what is considered 'flammable' and requires a brief understanding of how fires operate. Material burns because it results in a chemical reaction and these can be classified broadly into two categories exothermic reactions and endothermic. For the most part anything will burn if you add enough energy to the particles. Exothermic reactions are where when something reacts it releases heat, burning wood is a good example of this. This is organic compounds burning to make (mainly) carbon dioxide and water. Exothermic reactions are self perpetuating - once you have enough energy in the system it will generate more meaning more of the material will continue to burn and then release more energy and so on. Endothermic reactions are where the burning process requires energy (i.e. you need to keep adding heat to keep the reaction going otherwise it will shut off), photosynthesis is a good example, it takes energy from the sun and converts it to sugars and oxygen.
Plastics are oil based therefore they will burn in oxygen readily once you add in enough heat, they are exothermic reactions. The question the fire regulations/guidance/standards make is how much heat (for the purposes of this discussion lets assume 500C would it take to ignite this material and then a risk assessment of how *likely* it is that such a material will experience this level of heat. Almost certainly this material would not be allowed inside (as there is a high risk of electrical failures, gas burning etc). On the outside of the building however this is much less of an issue. Apart from reflections/direct sunlight (lets assume a 100C) or a cigarette end (lets assume 200C) in the UK it was assessed that it is unlikely that the temperature would ever get high enough to ingite the cladding. However what is easily apparent is that small internal fires can causes much greater local concentrations of heat but the rules lack real consideration of the implications. In this case it appears a fridge exploded - we can then perhaps assumes that the liquid organic coolant was burning (lets say at 700C); a fire extinguisher was used but it might have been the wrong type and/or or it blew some of the burning liquid out of the open window. We now have a liquid that is burning at 700C that combusts the caldding with a combustion temperature of 500C. This hence will ignite the cladding, however because it is an exothermic reaction it produces more heat which therefore causes more cladding to start burning. Because heat rises this means burning air and ash is moving upwards on the updraft which can cause panels to combust above as well. Now you have the circumstances where the panels are burning both sideways and and upwards and hence the consequences. And this is all before you start considering that fires can causes high winds as it sucks more air in. Apart from bricks, concrete and glass pretty much everything will become flammable at a high enough temperature - the question is at what point does that risk become negligible. In the UK our standards assume a lower heat threshold.
I will however take a moment to point out the EU has higher standards than the UK but individual states can make there own decision. If the EU had enforced there rules on the UK, Grenfell tower might not have happened. However for a lot of people this is what they mean when they talk about red tape (there are even Tory MPs on file saying that leaving the EU would allow us to reduce these types of standards and environmental ones). If Grenfell tower had never happened because of the 'red tape' then the consequences of the more relaxed regulations wouldn't have been seen and people would just be clamouring that they are over the top and costing businesses money. So next time anyone complains about EU red tape I would recommend you remind them about Grenfell. With EU red tape this disaster probably wouldn't have happened; the question is how much EU red tape do people want to get rid of and how much extra risk do we want to put on the populace which we will then only deal with once a disaster of this scale happens?
As an aside it's not really a very confidence inspiring thing that the person in number 11 can't actually get his facts right...
True for point one. Yes. This type of cladding is newer to the UK and we had less experience for the situation, clad buildings seem to have been a newer idea to update older builds without rebuild and a cheaper way to keep them in use.
B. Yes fire is buring air and even steel, gold, glass and concrete cam burn with enough heat.
However . Surely there should have been some kinda of fire break in the panaling no?
Isolation. My dad works in building, mostly new builds. This only "low" builds too like 3-4 story max. The regulations get tighter the taller you get of course.
He has to install all kind of fire socks between floors and buildings etc and such. They act as breaks to slow down a fire that gets going. They won,t stop it but they are jus there to buy time so you can escape. Surely the cladding required some form of isolation barriers.
C.
Yes, some regulations might of stopped this but also not all the red tape and judgements in Brussels where helpful too. Some save lives. Others are a downright waste of paper.
Id take each case as and such om own merit in that regard.
I do agree we should adopt the US or EU standards on cladding though.
Is there any kind of copyright on laws? EU regulations and laws are public knowledge, so once out of the European Union whats to stop us from simply picking and choosing which laws and regulations we like and which ones we don't like? Just outright plagiarize the EU. What are they gonna do, sue us for copyright infringement?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Is there any kind of copyright on laws? EU regulations and laws are public knowledge, so once out of the European Union whats to stop us from simply picking and choosing which laws and regulations we like and which ones we don't like? Just outright plagiarize the EU. What are they gonna do, sue us for copyright infringement?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Is there any kind of copyright on laws? EU regulations and laws are public knowledge, so once out of the European Union whats to stop us from simply picking and choosing which laws and regulations we like and which ones we don't like? Just outright plagiarize the EU. What are they gonna do, sue us for copyright infringement?
Your politicians? From what I know laws are generally and usually public domain (except of you live in some totalitarian regime but then you have bigger problems than not having access to your own laws) or some other very accessible variation of laws so every citizen can have easy access to all of them. It's one of your fundamental rights to know what's going on in your country and that's part of it and this access also makes things like accessibility for blind people easier. How would you legally restrict access to laws without it causing conflicts with basic human rights?
I know that there are occasionally some lower level agencies that try to get their own way (to protect their power or something like that) push people around but these instances usually stop once somebody higher up the political food chain (who's not affected by these lower level politics) gets involved.
B. Yes fire is buring air and even steel, gold, glass and concrete cam burn with enough heat.
However . Surely there should have been some kinda of fire break in the panaling no?
Isolation. My dad works in building, mostly new builds. This only "low" builds too like 3-4 story max. The regulations get tighter the taller you get of course.
He has to install all kind of fire socks between floors and buildings etc and such. They act as breaks to slow down a fire that gets going. They won,t stop it but they are jus there to buy time so you can escape. Surely the cladding required some form of isolation barriers.
Yes this is the same for external cladding, but it only stops updrafts if there are gaps between the wall and the cladding. From the pictures it looks like it spread on the outside of the building because of the updrafts from a hot fire. Internal systems of blocking fire progression does not work here....
Yes, some regulations might of stopped this but also not all the red tape and judgements in Brussels where helpful too. Some save lives. Others are a downright waste of paper.
Id take each case as and such om own merit in that regard.
I do agree we should adopt the US or EU standards on cladding though.
But which ones? The EU combined has more resources and employs more experts to advise than the UK government does (with views on 'experts' are denigrating unless they can put the blame on them or get them out of a pickle). Experts had advised the government about the fire risks on tower blocks but they were ignored. Do we really expect the UK government to comply with trying to clean up areas of high air pollution once they leave the UK. These areas might result in 100,000s of additional deaths over a decade but because it is not a disaster of Grenfell proportions (because the deaths don't happen all at once) then it can be quietly forgotten. How do you know which ones have prevented a disaster and which ones haven't. None of us can see the outcomes of one piece of legislation over the other. Suppose Grenfell hadn't happened because we complied with EU regs. Suppose there was then people whining that it cost money and jobs because it was 'red tape'. In this alternative universe no one knows about Grenfell, no disaster is seen. Is that then a waste of paper?
It took Cameron less than six days to hammer out a deal with Clegg (not exactly ideal bedfellows), including agreeing to a very important legal change, the fixed term parliament.
It's now ten days later and May still hasn't gotten the DUP (a supposed natural ally) to fall in line.
She can't even sort a deal with ten representatives from Northern Ireland who agree with her on most things. The twenty seven states of the EU are going to chew her up. How's that strong and stable looking, May?
In other words, they think they have her over a barrel and are pressing her for more than she's comfortably prepared to give.
They'd better be careful, they might find she decides to form a minority government instead. She's not so far short of a majority that she can't get decent uncontroversial legislation through and do a John Major. In some ways, I think that might actually be for the best.
So wait we are leaving the EU and now want to copy their legislation? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay in the EU?
We should copy their legislation when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesn't.
So based on Grenfell Tower then that means ignoring stronger health and safety and social aspects then as long as it favours lower business costs? We had the opportunity to make fire regulations tougher - we did not. What does that imply about which legislation we are likely to favour in the future?
So wait we are leaving the EU and now want to copy their legislation? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay in the EU?
We should copy their legislation when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesn't.
So based on Grenfell Tower then that means ignoring stronger health and safety and social aspects then as long as it favours lower business costs? We had the opportunity to make fire regulations tougher - we did not. What does that imply about which legislation we are likely to favour in the future?
So vote for a party that favours tougher regulations.
So wait we are leaving the EU and now want to copy their legislation? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay in the EU?
We should copy their legislation when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesn't.
So based on Grenfell Tower then that means ignoring stronger health and safety and social aspects then as long as it favours lower business costs? We had the opportunity to make fire regulations tougher - we did not. What does that imply about which legislation we are likely to favour in the future?
So vote for a party that favours tougher regulations.
I did...I definitely didn't vote for a party that voted 312 against and 0 for ensuring all rented properties were made up to liveable standards... but as it stands we've got a system where you can get 43% of the vote and end up with about 50% of the seats.
I also voted to stay in the EU as it generally has better social and environmental standards etc. However I'm noting that this is EU red tape. You cannot both complain about lax standards in the UK that resulted in Grenfell and then complain about 'red tape' from the EU because none of us know which part saves lives and in this case it almost certainly would have done.
From the looks of it, it seems the company running it was cutting corners and it turned out disastrously wrong.
Also, that landlords thing only applys to private housing, it wouldn't have applied to Grenfell in the first place, and there was criticism at the time for the increase on rent it would cause.
So wait we are leaving the EU and now want to copy their legislation? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay in the EU?
We should copy their legislation when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesn't.
So based on Grenfell Tower then that means ignoring stronger health and safety and social aspects then as long as it favours lower business costs? We had the opportunity to make fire regulations tougher - we did not. What does that imply about which legislation we are likely to favour in the future?
So vote for a party that favours tougher regulations.
I did...I definitely didn't vote for a party that voted 312 against and 0 for ensuring all rented properties were made up to liveable standards...
Neither did I.
but as it stands we've got a system where you can get 43% of the vote and end up with about 50% of the seats.
You're quibbling over a 7% disparity? That sounds pretty damn good for FPTP. We've certainly had worse disparities in past elections.
I also voted to stay in the EU as it generally has better social and environmental standards etc. However I'm noting that this is EU red tape. You cannot both complain about lax standards in the UK that resulted in Grenfell and then complain about 'red tape' from the EU because none of us know which part saves lives and in this case it almost certainly would have done.
I can and I will.
My Issue with EU Red Tape is precisely that: its EU Red Tape, and not British Red Tape. As an independent nation, our democratic influence over British Law will be much stronger, we'll be better able to change our laws by voting in a new government that pledges to change our laws.
Whereas, as one of 28 EU Member States...we are one member among 28 Member States. When we are outvoted, we get laws imposed upon us that we don't want. When we vote in a new government, their hands are tied by the treaties and EU Directives that we were obligated to enshrine into British law. Even if a new Government wished to overturn some EU mandated law, it can't without violating the various treaties and agreements relating to that law.
My issue is not necessarily with the laws themselves (some I like, some I dislike) but with who makes them. I want British law to be made by a British government elected by British voters.
I've been saying this since before the Referendum, has it still not sunk in yet?
So wait we are leaving the EU and now want to copy their legislation? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay in the EU?
We should copy their legislation when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesn't.
So based on Grenfell Tower then that means ignoring stronger health and safety and social aspects then as long as it favours lower business costs? We had the opportunity to make fire regulations tougher - we did not. What does that imply about which legislation we are likely to favour in the future?
So vote for a party that favours tougher regulations.
I did...I definitely didn't vote for a party that voted 312 against and 0 for ensuring all rented properties were made up to liveable standards...
Neither did I.
but as it stands we've got a system where you can get 43% of the vote and end up with about 50% of the seats.
You're quibbling over a 7% disparity? That sounds pretty damn good for FPTP. We've certainly had worse disparities in past elections.
I also voted to stay in the EU as it generally has better social and environmental standards etc. However I'm noting that this is EU red tape. You cannot both complain about lax standards in the UK that resulted in Grenfell and then complain about 'red tape' from the EU because none of us know which part saves lives and in this case it almost certainly would have done.
I can and I will.
My Issue with EU Red Tape is precisely that: its EU Red Tape, and not British Red Tape. As an independent nation, our democratic influence over British Law will be much stronger, we'll be better able to change our laws by voting in a new government that pledges to change our laws.
Whereas, as one of 28 EU Member States...we are one member among 28 Member States. When we are outvoted, we get laws imposed upon us that we don't want. When we vote in a new government, their hands are tied by the treaties and EU Directives that we were obligated to enshrine into British law. Even if a new Government wished to overturn some EU mandated law, it can't without violating the various treaties and agreements relating to that law.
My issue is not necessarily with the laws themselves (some I like, some I dislike) but with who makes them. I want British law to be made by a British government elected by British voters.
I've been saying this since before the Referendum, has it still not sunk in yet?
....
My post.
Its easier to hold Westminster accountable than Strasbourg or Brussels tis is true.
Our laws we pass may not be perfect, wrong or hate them but they where made, and chosen, and voted for in our Parliament.
You're quibbling over a 7% disparity? That sounds pretty damn good for FPTP. We've certainly had worse disparities in past elections.
Look at it in another way, this is 46 extra seats that Tories got that they shouldn't have. Yes it has been worse, but 7% of 650 seats is still a large number.
My Issue with EU Red Tape is precisely that: its EU Red Tape, and not British Red Tape. As an independent nation, our democratic influence over British Law will be much stronger, we'll be better able to change our laws by voting in a new government that pledges to change our laws.
Yeah how's that going for you? One of the largest turnouts since 1997. Party in power has the minority of the votes compared to the opposition. The same party that wants to change boundaries so it makes it even easier for them to win. I think i'd prefer 28 nations making the decision not the Rupert Murdoch....
Whereas, as one of 28 EU Member States...we are one member among 28 Member States. When we are outvoted, we get laws imposed upon us that we don't want. When we vote in a new government, their hands are tied by the treaties and EU Directives that we were obligated to enshrine into British law. Even if a new Government wished to overturn some EU mandated law, it can't without violating the various treaties and agreements relating to that law.
Yes and? That makes everyone's rules the same. It means the UK couldn't relax it's waste laws so it could become the landfill site of Europe. Any relationship requires compromise, whether that is with the partner or with the EU. However it makes all parties stronger in the end. You are claiming that where we have control the UK will be stronger, yet in the last week we have seen exactly how well our 'stronger British Law' is when it gets to decide what's best for Britain. I'm sure the victims of Grenfell were really pleased that the EU red tape didn't apply in this area.
My issue is not necessarily with the laws themselves (some I like, some I dislike) but with who makes them. I want British law to be made by a British government elected by British voters.
They are. Go and read the governments white paper on the EU that they released after the vote. It specifically states the laws are made by the UK parliament and that it was a 'perception' that the EU dictated things on the UK.
In other words, they think they have her over a barrel and are pressing her for more than she's comfortably prepared to give.
They'd better be careful, they might find she decides to form a minority government instead. She's not so far short of a majority that she can't get decent uncontroversial legislation through and do a John Major. In some ways, I think that might actually be for the best.
How much votes she can expect to get from opposition? Getting any major law through is going to be pretty tough unless UK parliament votes are notably different from Finland's one where if you need even 10 votes to gain from opposition you are pretty much "might just as well play lottery" situation in anything even resembling big law.
From the looks of it, it seems the company running it was cutting corners and it turned out disastrously wrong.
So were the inspectors lax then if they let company ignore standards and get away from it? Or doesn't UK check whether buildings meet standards after completion? At which point why have standards either...
From the looks of it, it seems the company running it was cutting corners and it turned out disastrously wrong.
So were the inspectors lax then if they let company ignore standards and get away from it? Or doesn't UK check whether buildings meet standards after completion? At which point why have standards either...
There's no evidence either way to suggest standards were below minimum levels (that will come later and as part of the police investigation). It is more likely that things are getting confused between meeting the minimum standards and providing something that was more expensive but safer. For example the cladding being looked into comes in two standard forms. Both a plastic variant and a fire resistant variant. It appears that both are legal to use in the UK (not those that follow EU or US standards though as the plastic variant wouldn't be). You wouldn't be doing anything illegal by using the plastic comb cladding in the UK. As such when the building was signed off under the building regulations the Council inspectors would have no choice to sign it off (or risk being sued) even if they had grave concerns.
Can't even get 10 DUP MPs on side to prop up her minority government.
How screwed are we in Brexit talks?
I think we can see how well things are going to go from Day 1. David Davis spent the whole spring telling everyone he would make it difficult for the EU if they insisted on talking about leaving/rights/money and not trade at the same time. At the end of Day 1 they basically agreed to everything.
You could probably sum up the UK Wrexit negotiation team turning up a bit like this..
Brexit is not the problem. Brexit has never been the problem. The problem is a political class that is incompetent, and morally and intellectually bankrupt. They believe in power for its own sake, and once they are out of their comfort zone i.e Brexit, they are utterly clueless in the vision and direction of this nation.
It's no surprise really. Since the Berlin wall came down, the Western political class, the liberal consensus, has been the dominant force in Western politics.
I don't rate Corbyn, but one of the reasons why he scares the gak out of the political class is because he believes in something. Ideology.
The British conservative party is not conservative, stopped being conservative a long time ago, and no longer believes in it. it's little wonder they are floundering. They have no roots or foundations to rely on. power for it's own sake is their mantra.
A confident party, ideologically secure, and knowing what it wanted and who they were, would breeze through the Brexit negotiations, and have a plan, a vision, for Britain's future.
Instead, for 20 years, we've had Blairism in red, blue, and yellow form, where everybody believed in and voted for the same stuff. Support for the European Union was at the core of Blairism. It never occurred to these people to even contemplate a future outside the EU.
That is one of the major reasons why we are in the trouble we are in today.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.
Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.
We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed
That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.
Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.
I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.
Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
Meh. Its worth it to me in the long term, if we by leaving we avoid being absorbed into the United States of Europe (the end goal of "ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the EU) and manage to remain a distinct and independent nation state.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
Meh. Its worth it to me in the long term, if we by leaving we avoid being absorbed into the United States of Europe (the end goal of "ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the EU) and manage to remain a distinct and independent nation state.
Others will obviously disagree.
How long will that last though? What happens when the United States of Europe is the new global economic superpower? Do we still cling to our "sovereignty" in the face of economic, scientific and social isolation? What happens if we decide that it is better to be part of it than to be a competitor? Instead of being in a position to proactively guide the evolution of the EU from within we are in a position of weakness where we can only react to the evolution.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
Meh. Its worth it to me in the long term, if we by leaving we avoid being absorbed into the United States of Europe (the end goal of "ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the EU) and manage to remain a distinct and independent nation state.
Others will obviously disagree.
How long will that last though? What happens when the United States of Europe is the new global economic superpower? Do we still cling to our "sovereignty" in the face of economic, scientific and social isolation? What happens if we decide that it is better to be part of it than to be a competitor? Instead of being in a position to proactively guide the evolution of the EU from within we are in a position of weakness where we can only react to the evolution.
We managed not to join the Soviet Union or the USA. There are options in the middle. Not to mention that 'big' does not necessarily equate to 'good'. The world is not a zero sum game where there have to be 'winners' and 'losers'. Only morons like Trump think in absolute terms like that.
To be fair, the US and USSR are very dfferent from the EU with respect to the UK, and never had anywhere near the geographic proximity, economic integration, etc that the UK and EU have, as were the fundamental nature of those relationships.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
No disrespect intended, but you guys have Trump, and that's a major hurdle to overcome. God only knows what the USA will be like in 4 years time
Nothing like a stubborn denial of reality to see through a day.
I've got a plan for 21st century Britain. Give me 10 years, a 200 seat majority in the commons, and a £500 billion budget, and I'll make Brexit a success
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, the US and USSR are very dfferent from the EU with respect to the UK, and never had anywhere near the geographic proximity, economic integration, etc that the UK and EU have, as were the fundamental nature of those relationships.
Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that the EU did what the USSR could never do i.e European domination, and all without a shot being fired.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Not Empire.
But a country free to trade globally, decide own fate and prosper.
That means a relationship with EU too, but with freedom to trade with the commonwealth, to strike new deals, to adapt to changing markets and looks out beyond Europe as well as to it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've got a plan for 21st century Britain. Give me 10 years, a 200 seat majority in the commons, and a £500 billion budget, and I'll make Brexit a success
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
That was my point: if you're not going to go British Empire again, how do you Make Britain Great Again (and we're talking doable things here, not pipedreams)? You're going to be competing with a bunch of actors that are far more powerful than Britain, why would Britain come out on top?
Is it me or is the fact that May is planning on trampling on the Good Friday Agreement is getting a lot less attention? Major, Kenny, Adams...everyone but Tories like Gove is pointing out the path this leads us down. Still no Irish language act, this...then there's whatever in the name of God and 2\3rds of Ulster the DUP are demanding behind the scenes. At what point are the 40% of PIRA weapons that were never accounted for going to come into play?
Arms importation can be done:the New IRA managed to get 6kg of TNT in. They got caught but that's only because the NIRA is so compromised: It's entirely possible the PIRA structures that officially don't exist aren't.
Perhaps I'm being alarmist but if the institutions are fallen and the GFA is broken...They haven't gone away you know.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think anyone doubts that the UK will eventually overcome Brexit, Brexit isn't going to cause their fair isles to sink into the seas, but rather, view it as inflicting a lot of otherwise unnecessary overcoming just for its own sake
No disrespect intended, but you guys have Trump, and that's a major hurdle to overcome. God only knows what the USA will be like in 4 years time
I never said we're immune from world class stupidity ourselves, we can't let anyone else win a competition without making a good go of it too
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Not Empire.
But a country free to trade globally, decide own fate and prosper.
That means a relationship with EU too, but with freedom to trade with the commonwealth, to strike new deals, to adapt to changing markets and looks out beyond Europe as well as to it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've got a plan for 21st century Britain. Give me 10 years, a 200 seat majority in the commons, and a £500 billion budget, and I'll make Brexit a success
I have a suggestion...
Spoiler:
We need may divine intervention from the Gods at this rate
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
That was my point: if you're not going to go British Empire again, how do you Make Britain Great Again (and we're talking doable things here, not pipedreams)? You're going to be competing with a bunch of actors that are far more powerful than Britain, why would Britain come out on top?
The days of Britain launching a 3 pronged attack into New England are over. We're never going back there, and nor do I want to.
The USA is obviously a more powerful nation than the UK, but we could be better than them for life expectancy quality of education, inventing things, cultural impact, etc etc
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but those obstacles you overcame in the past was to a great degree overcome at the expense of others. The scientific and technological breakthroughs were fuelled by the exploitation of colonies and through the bullying of other nations. I'm not trying to shame the United Kingdom (we tried the same thing, as did pretty much everyone else); the point is that you no longer have the clout to dominate the rest of the world like you used to. To a lot of us non-British, calling for a return to "the good old days" or trying to invoke past British achievements just comes across as a call to exploit the hell out of everyone else again. In such a light, it's hard to see how the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Not Empire.
But a country free to trade globally, decide own fate and prosper.
That means a relationship with EU too, but with freedom to trade with the commonwealth, to strike new deals, to adapt to changing markets and looks out beyond Europe as well as to it.
Hard to describe.
How much effort did the UK make to get trade deals set up with Commonwealth countries whilst it was part of the EU? It could have been a driving force within the EU to get deals set up with those countries.
The days of Britain launching a 3 pronged attack into New England are over. We're never going back there, and nor do I want to.
The USA is obviously a more powerful nation than the UK, but we could be better than them for life expectancy quality of education, inventing things, cultural impact, etc etc
These are achievable goals.
How is the EU stopping you from achieving these goals?
The days of Britain launching a 3 pronged attack into New England are over. We're never going back there, and nor do I want to.
The USA is obviously a more powerful nation than the UK, but we could be better than them for life expectancy quality of education, inventing things, cultural impact, etc etc
These are achievable goals.
It is not an achievable goal that we will be able to compete with the US on "inventing things". The US population and economy is vastly bigger than ours. That means a lot more people capable of inventing things and more money to be put into making those inventions happen.
The days of Britain launching a 3 pronged attack into New England are over. We're never going back there, and nor do I want to.
The USA is obviously a more powerful nation than the UK, but we could be better than them for life expectancy quality of education, inventing things, cultural impact, etc etc
These are achievable goals.
How is the EU stopping you from achieving these goals?
It isn't. Those are all purely internal politics. Not to mention the UK already has a better life expectancy than the US.
The EU's entention is to assimilate its members via ever closer union. And I don't want to be a part of that. I think we work better as one nation rather than 1/28th of one.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Humphry Davy were changing the world long before Juncker rolled into his tax payer funded luxury office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: The EU's entention is to assimilate its members via ever closer union. And I don't want to be a part of that. I think we work better as one nation rather than 1/28th of one.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Exactly. Those involved in the sciences were majorly in favour of remaining as we see the benefits of membership in the form of funding, sharing of research and personnel etc.
Now the people who voted out are expecting those same people who know full well how much of the UKs science sector is dependant on the EU to somehow leapfrog the USA all on our own.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Humphry Davy were changing the world long before Juncker rolled into his tax payer funded luxury office.
Science has changed somewhat in the past 150 years. I have multiple friends starting EU funded PhD's in the next few months, without EU money these wouldn't exist the research and developments they'll make wouldn't exist you can't say the UK will be scientifically better off out of the EU, unless the UK government are going to cover these costs which I can't see happening.
This is knowledge which will help patients in the UK and jobs in the UK that are going to some other country and will eventually see graduates leaving the country.
feeder wrote: Didn't the Germans invent the jet engine? Part of why Operation Paperclip was so important?
To the Brexiteers, isn't your despair at the British political class juxtapostioned with your decision to invest more power into their hands?
As opposed to the remote and even less accountable political class in Brussels?
As much as I might despise our current Government, we have a far better chance of overthrowing a British Government than we do a European Government.
It would be easier to move to a functioning country like Germany when May/Gove/Johnson/whoever inevitably destroys the UK middle class if you're in the EU, though
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Humphry Davy were changing the world long before Juncker rolled into his tax payer funded luxury office.
Science has changed somewhat in the past 150 years. I have multiple friends starting EU funded PhD's in the next few months, without EU money these wouldn't exist the research and developments they'll make wouldn't exist you can't say the UK will be scientifically better off out of the EU, unless the UK government are going to cover these costs which I can't see happening.
This is knowledge which will help patients in the UK and jobs in the UK that are going to some other country and will eventually see graduates leaving the country.
Yeah, I totally agree. This isn't the Victorian times where one man in his shed invents the time machine or something
but on a serious note, even a modern example i.e the discovery of DNA was done in the UK long before the EEC or the EU existed.
Britain's world class universities will still be world class in the future.
Finally something is being done about some of the problems with renting in this country. Like letting agents trumping up huge fees to 'make a new contract' every six months of a tenancy.
"A ban on letting agent fees will cost the sector jobs, make buy-to-let investment even less attractive, and ultimately result in the costs being passed on to tenants,"
Boo hoo. So the fact letters won't be able to insist you pay hundreds of pounds in fees every six months to organise the photocopying of a new contract means greedy buy to let owners are put off.
They talk about how it'll cost jobs and hit the industry hard, but it shows what a state this industry is when it's only really profitable when legalised scamming and extortion is enabled. 'Oh yes, you're at the end of your six month contract so that'll be another £300 fees to start a new one or you're out. No, we don't do more than six month contracts, as it happens'.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Humphry Davy were changing the world long before Juncker rolled into his tax payer funded luxury office.
Science has changed somewhat in the past 150 years. I have multiple friends starting EU funded PhD's in the next few months, without EU money these wouldn't exist the research and developments they'll make wouldn't exist you can't say the UK will be scientifically better off out of the EU, unless the UK government are going to cover these costs which I can't see happening.
This is knowledge which will help patients in the UK and jobs in the UK that are going to some other country and will eventually see graduates leaving the country.
Yeah, I totally agree. This isn't the Victorian times where one man in his shed invents the time machine or something
but on a serious note, even a modern example i.e the discovery of DNA was done in the UK long before the EEC or the EU existed.
Britain's world class universities will still be world class in the future.
Britains world class universities are world class because they can attract world class talent for research. If they lose access to programs which are funding that research they will lose those world class researchers.
I don't want a return to the days of empire. I've never argued for that. The Empire is behind us and good riddance to it. I'm making the point that we can be the best again in education, science, sports, engineering and design inventing stuff, making this the best country in the world for quality of life etc etc
Scientific development will suffer massively outside of the EU though. Not only do they fund a lot of PhD's across the country and there are a large amount of drug development companies in London hat are set to move with Brexit.
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Humphry Davy were changing the world long before Juncker rolled into his tax payer funded luxury office.
Science has changed somewhat in the past 150 years. I have multiple friends starting EU funded PhD's in the next few months, without EU money these wouldn't exist the research and developments they'll make wouldn't exist you can't say the UK will be scientifically better off out of the EU, unless the UK government are going to cover these costs which I can't see happening.
This is knowledge which will help patients in the UK and jobs in the UK that are going to some other country and will eventually see graduates leaving the country.
Yeah, I totally agree. This isn't the Victorian times where one man in his shed invents the time machine or something
but on a serious note, even a modern example i.e the discovery of DNA was done in the UK long before the EEC or the EU existed.
Britain's world class universities will still be world class in the future.
It's very easy to say that University's will keep up research but where's the money going to come from? Research costs massive amounts of money, money that the Uni can't cover themselves..
Finally something is being done about some of the problems with renting in this country. Like letting agents trumping up huge fees to 'make a new contract' every six months of a tenancy.
"A ban on letting agent fees will cost the sector jobs, make buy-to-let investment even less attractive, and ultimately result in the costs being passed on to tenants,"
Boo hoo. So the fact letters won't be able to insist you pay hundreds of pounds in fees every six months to organise the photocopying of a new contract means greedy buy to let owners are put off.
They talk about how it'll cost jobs and hit the industry hard, but it shows what a state this industry is when it's only really profitable when legalised scamming and extortion is enabled. 'Oh yes, you're at the end of your six month contract so that'll be another £300 fees to start a new one or you're out. No, we don't do more than six month contracts, as it happens'.
Yup. To get an idea of how ridiculous these "fees" are, consider that many estate agents charge a percentage of the monthly rent as their "fee". So if you're renting a £1000 a month property you pay more than someone renting a £400 a month property, despite you both getting the exact same "service" (i.e. a tenancy agreement taken off the internet and with yours and the landlords names put in).
The money lost from eu funding can be returned via better taxation. I've said before how I think we can get more money (legalisation of cannabis, better implemented corporate tax). What we do can be done on our own terms too.
Yeah, the idea of making "Buy to let" investment less attractive isn't exactly filling my heart with sorrow. And that's with various close family of mine owning homes that they *are* renting out (broadly speaking, downsized homes owned by parents and grandparents who have passed on).
I watched a lot of the debate and responses to the Queens Speech today. I've got to say, I don't understand a whole lot of it. - Shouldn't Corbyn, for example, have been focused on poking holes in and breaking down the speech, challenging it and any assumptions made therein rather than just repeating his manifesto and saying, "you should do this instead!!!!!!" Cause that just felt dumb and pointless and a missed opportunity. Although, I admit, I did miss a bit of his speech, so, feel free to prove me wrong.
On the subject of pointless though, there was also what seemed to be some ceremony with the two Tory speakers, the first guy I wasn't sure on myself, but people seemed to like. The second guy though, Sam Gyimah, I did very much like and hopefully he'll be a rising star going forward.
One thing that did really bug me was when you had a labour/SNP speaker say:
"So about this cut in police budgets, are you going to reverse that?"
To the reply of:
"Counterterrorism funding has increased. The police budgets haven't been cut and have been protected. You're wrong."
Then they moved on. That just felt so very well, disappointing and, dare I say it, American. Whether the funding has increased or decreased isn't a topic for debate or pointscoring. One way, or another, that is a fact with money going one way or another. That shouldn't be something they're arguing about. The numerical facts should be known and agreed. The *reasons* for them should be what's discussed.
Future War Cultist wrote: The money lost from eu funding can be returned via better taxation. I've said before how I think we can get more money (legalisation of cannabis, better implemented corporate tax). What we do can be done on our own terms too.
We could do all that right now. So we could have better taxation plus EU funding.
Also, you haven't said how we're going to replace access to EU run science programs. It is more than just money.
Future War Cultist wrote: The money lost from eu funding can be returned via better taxation. I've said before how I think we can get more money (legalisation of cannabis, better implemented corporate tax). What we do can be done on our own terms too.
the issue here, much like many current US political debacles (mainly healthcare), is that while one may have issues with the current system, there's a...huge difference between "well if we dump it we can do X and Y to make up for Z" and actually having a plan, implementation strategy, buy in by relevant parties, and agreement from leaders to do so, and having all of that in place in a timely manner.
It's like moving out of a house that needs work. Even assuming you can find and theoretically afford something better (by no means certain), you should probably actually have secured a new house, packed all your stuff, arranged movers and planned the move, gotten all your bills switched over, arranged the new mortgage paperwork, and set up utilities in the new place, etc...before moving out, otherwise sitting on the street corner with all your stuff is going to be rather awkward.
Both the US and UK are steaming full speed ahead on new houses of their own flavors...seemingly without having done any of that legwork ahead of time.
Future War Cultist wrote: The money lost from eu funding can be returned via better taxation. I've said before how I think we can get more money (legalisation of cannabis, better implemented corporate tax). What we do can be done on our own terms too.
We could do all that right now. So we could have better taxation plus EU funding.
Also, you haven't said how we're going to replace access to EU run science programs. It is more than just money.
Exactly science isn't just the one lab but many labs across different countries working together and being out of the EU is detrimental to this. Many of those working in research positions across the UK are also foreign, and Brexit has made the UK a lot less appealing to foreign students and has also given, rightly or wrongly, an impression that there is a level of xenophobia in the country.
Personally I'm a remainer, however, I honestly don't know much about the whole topic of Brexit and can't really get involved with the larger debate about how overall it will work out, but the one thing I am confident on is that for Science in the UK Brexit is a serious road block.
Some of the most important things in human history have been discovered or invented in the UK.
TV, Radar, DNA, jet engine, evolution, baseball modern soccer, the tank, steam trains, world wide web, and Clive Sinclair's C5
to name but a few
Imagine civilization without that stuff.
No but the probability of it is a lot higher when you have the money and staff. If you've got a workforce of 1000 working on something they are much more likely to find a solution than one person tinkering in the backyard. Your example of the WWW is just this. It might have been a British person, but he was working at CERN in Switzerland that has a work force of 10000 from over a 100 countries. Just because someone from X invented something doesn't mean Y wouldn't have done if X wasn't there. The science world works on free movement of people and ideas, those countries that restrain that always suffer. Every scientist is pointing out just had problematic Brexit is going to be for the UK and that is before you consider half the funding it has access to will dry up overnight. Scientists are already leaving (both UK and non-UK ones); they aren't waiting to find out how hard Brexit is - and why wouldn't you. If you are living in the EU when Brexit happens you will still have access to all the money. You are going to see UK achievements come crashing down unless the government invest heavily and in the last 10-20 years you have had exactly the opposite because of how successful the UK is in obtaining EU funding for science projects.
The idea that we can still have scientists and inventors making things like we did in 1600 to 1900s is incredibly naïve and archaic. Science doesn't work like that anymore. The easy discoveries are gone, now you need conglomerations of scientists that can work together freely. The EU competes with the US exceedingly well. The EU will continue to compete. The UK science community will suffer terribly.
And this is before you have issues like get access to the technologies. Both the US and EU ensure limited access to restricted material. You are going to have more and more situations like this...
and companies will have to move and limit their employees to being from the EU. The UK might have spaceports but they will be barren moss covered slabs of concrete.
The previous revolution was based on a coal and steel world that has gone now....so steam tanks, jet engines are all technologies based on this type of revolution. The world has moved on and some in the UK seem to want to go back to way things were. It's not going to happen.
Finally something is being done about some of the problems with renting in this country. Like letting agents trumping up huge fees to 'make a new contract' every six months of a tenancy.
"A ban on letting agent fees will cost the sector jobs, make buy-to-let investment even less attractive, and ultimately result in the costs being passed on to tenants,"
Boo hoo. So the fact letters won't be able to insist you pay hundreds of pounds in fees every six months to organise the photocopying of a new contract means greedy buy to let owners are put off.
They talk about how it'll cost jobs and hit the industry hard, but it shows what a state this industry is when it's only really profitable when legalised scamming and extortion is enabled. 'Oh yes, you're at the end of your six month contract so that'll be another £300 fees to start a new one or you're out. No, we don't do more than six month contracts, as it happens'.
The problem is that it won't solve the problem. All that will happen is that costs will be put on the landlord who will then put up rent prices. It will almost certainly be badly implemented. You'll just see a step change in prices because of it. There's no doubt it is exploited but rather than hiding it in costs it would likely be better to regulate the rental market better and include minimum requirements/terms/periods when such checks can be undertaken (and which ones).
Finally something is being done about some of the problems with renting in this country. Like letting agents trumping up huge fees to 'make a new contract' every six months of a tenancy.
"A ban on letting agent fees will cost the sector jobs, make buy-to-let investment even less attractive, and ultimately result in the costs being passed on to tenants,"
Boo hoo. So the fact letters won't be able to insist you pay hundreds of pounds in fees every six months to organise the photocopying of a new contract means greedy buy to let owners are put off.
They talk about how it'll cost jobs and hit the industry hard, but it shows what a state this industry is when it's only really profitable when legalised scamming and extortion is enabled. 'Oh yes, you're at the end of your six month contract so that'll be another £300 fees to start a new one or you're out. No, we don't do more than six month contracts, as it happens'.
The problem is that it won't solve the problem. All that will happen is that costs will be put on the landlord who will then put up rent prices. It will almost certainly be badly implemented. You'll just see a step change in prices because of it. There's no doubt it is exploited but rather than hiding it in costs it would likely be better to regulate the rental market better and include minimum requirements/terms/periods when such checks can be undertaken (and which ones).
Often the landlord is being charged for these services as well as the tenants already.
Often the landlord is being charged for these services as well as the tenants already.
Quite possibly, but even in this case you will probably just see the fees on the landlords rise. People already pay these fees (whether fair or not). Letting agencies aren't suddenly going to let them drop when they already know they can extract this amount of money from people. It will just be charged in different ways.
Future War Cultist wrote: The EU's entention is to assimilate its members via ever closer union. And I don't want to be a part of that. I think we work better as one nation rather than 1/28th of one.
Aye.I believe Europe matters but not wanna be so deep in we lose are own identity or own democratic tradition.
Yes work with EU... Not be absorbed.
There are so many ways that Brexit damages the UK's economy and international power that it isn't funny.
Yes, we can hope to recover from that damage. It will be a uphill fight just to get back to level pegging, let alone advance from where we are now.
The sad thing is that the UK could have fething well PWNED the EU. The Germans loved us, the Poles loved us, the Scandies loved us. We were the natural bridge from the USA and Far East into the EU. All gone.
There are so many ways that Brexit damages the UK's economy and international power that it isn't funny.
Yes, we can hope to recover from that damage. It will be a uphill fight just to get back to level pegging, let alone advance from where we are now.
The sad thing is that the UK could have fething well PWNED the EU. The Germans loved us, the Poles loved us, the Scandies loved us. We were the natural bridge from the USA and Far East into the EU. All gone.
Yes, but the EU pushed too hard for "Ever closer union", the UK got cold feet and decided to leave.
Perhaps if the EU Elite had not pushed the boundaries so far and been less dogmatic on European political integration (e.g. agreed to the Two Tier Europe idea) then it might not have come to this.
There are so many ways that Brexit damages the UK's economy and international power that it isn't funny.
Yes, we can hope to recover from that damage. It will be a uphill fight just to get back to level pegging, let alone advance from where we are now.
The sad thing is that the UK could have fething well PWNED the EU. The Germans loved us, the Poles loved us, the Scandies loved us. We were the natural bridge from the USA and Far East into the EU. All gone.
Yes, but the EU pushed too hard for "Ever closer union", the UK got cold feet and decided to leave.
Perhaps if the EU Elite had not pushed the boundaries so far and been less dogmatic on European political integration (e.g. agreed to the Two Tier Europe idea) then it might not have come to this.
Future War Cultist wrote: The EU's entention is to assimilate its members via ever closer union. And I don't want to be a part of that. I think we work better as one nation rather than 1/28th of one.
Aye.I believe Europe matters but not wanna be so deep in we lose are own identity or own democratic tradition.
Yes work with EU... Not be absorbed.
We have been sharing genes and ideas with Europe for at least the last 2000 years. We aren't going to become the Borg by joining the EU. Even the most 'integrated' nations still have their own cultures and traditions. If you mean our identity might change then yes it will and that will happen regardless of what happens. You are wishing for a hopeless task if you want to press 'stop' or 'rewind' on the tape player because it simply isn't going to happen.
As for democratic tradition I think I'd take the EUs over ours...in this country the minority can decide the future of the majority. At least with the EU it is proportional to what all of the nations populace wants. I suppose we wouldn't be happy unless the UK could impose it's will on everyone like we did 100-200 years ago, because we are just superior?
If anyone hasn't seen it I'd highly recommend the Brexit mean Brexit show that's on BBC 2, very interesting insight into what the politicians were really thinking. It's also great seeing a recap of the Tories messing it right up haha, May really could write a book on how to balls up an easy victory.
Even though I cant stand the man Farage did get a few chuckles out of me.
Yes, but the EU pushed too hard for "Ever closer union", the UK got cold feet and decided to leave.
Perhaps if the EU Elite had not pushed the boundaries so far and been less dogmatic on European political integration (e.g. agreed to the Two Tier Europe idea) then it might not have come to this.
It was already two tier and it wasn't going to change any time soon. What do you think else should have been included in the two tier regime.
Today was this whole, "Day of Rage" million person march on London thing... Most of the photographs I've seen are more like. "Day of mild peevedishness."
Today was this whole, "Day of Rage" million person march on London thing... Most of the photographs I've seen are more like. "Day of mild peevedishness."
Day of minor peeves...
It's about at level of finding you ripped a tea bag splitting them in morning and need to get a new one.
It's low on the scale. No where near the defcon status of office out of tea/coffee.
Often the landlord is being charged for these services as well as the tenants already.
Quite possibly, but even in this case you will probably just see the fees on the landlords rise. People already pay these fees (whether fair or not). Letting agencies aren't suddenly going to let them drop when they already know they can extract this amount of money from people. It will just be charged in different ways.
It'll be clearer what the full costs of renting is, as it's spread out on the monthly rent and you know what your regular payment is. As currently stands, you get the advertised monthly rent and then whenever the contract needs renewing, they get a bonus off you of whatever they want - or you leave the property. I know which system I prefer.
What does it say about this industry that they're worried that buy-to-lets aren't as viable because they can't find dubious ways screw money from people in ways other than the monthly rent.
The fees are for taking references, getting credit checks, or investigating immigration status
It's just a fat earner for letting companies. Checking references and a credit check does not warrant an average in £200 fees, with some areas being much higher, and immigration status doesn't even apply to the majority.
I avoid such lettings agents, especially those who 'manage' properties of third parties, ie, buy-to-let people who know nothing about letting and just want the money but none of the hassle. I prefer to get my rents through private lets in newspapers and deal direct with the owner. Funnily enough, they don't tend to have silly fees for credit checks, which I'm not prepared to comply with, they just want proof you're in full time work and have a suitable salary.
A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
You might have a point if we weren't selling those countries in the Middle East missiles. As long as we are selling weapons, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure they are used responsibly and if we find they are being misused we must take action to ensure it does not happen again.
Also, I dislike the idea of just sitting back and letting people get blown up if we have the power to do something to help, however small.
If you force the Queen to miss Ascot, don't be surprised if she turns up in a giant EU hat Was it an accident, this nakedly pro-Brussels bonnet? One suspects we will never know the truth, but given one commenter on the Daily Mail website was sufficiently enraged to describe the Queen herself as a “left liberal luvvie traitor!!!” we probably do not need to
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Sure you can... they ain't mutually exclusives.
They really are. No country has ever become a world leader through isolation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Sure you can... they ain't mutually exclusives.
They really are. No country has ever become a world leader through isolation.
Well...depends on what aspect of "world leaders" .
I think the financial market will still be humming along in London for that matter, post-Brexit.
Don't forget, the same gumption and grit that made the British Empire successful is still there. (note, I'm not advocating for a resurrection of the Empire ). Only that, it seems some of ya'll seems to be selling yourselves short.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Sure you can... they ain't mutually exclusives.
They really are. No country has ever become a world leader through isolation.
Yeah...closests is pre WW2 US.
It was obvious they where quite capable of being a danger but...
They where also where not known to be so scary Japan thought they would back off.
They decided not to intervene. But they still where half n half, and had international intrests, and still got a bloody nose...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Sure you can... they ain't mutually exclusives.
They really are. No country has ever become a world leader through isolation.
I hate to Godwin the thread but...Nazi Germany.
(and no, I'm not saying we should seek to emulate Nazi Germany. )
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem to be bemoaning the UK's loss of influence on the world stage when it leaves the EU.
I for one would be very glad if this happened. I want us to stay the hell away from the world's stage.
If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
World-leading powerhouse or isolationist. Make up your mind, you can't have both.
Sure you can... they ain't mutually exclusives.
They really are. No country has ever become a world leader through isolation.
I hate to Godwin the thread but...Nazi Germany.
(and no, I'm not saying we should seek to emulate Nazi Germany. )
Sure, if we ignore Nazi Germanys remilitarization of the Rhineland, annexation of Austria and the Czech Republic, interference in the Spanish Civil War etc.
Nazi Germany was certainly not isolationist, it was all about expansion.
A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
The EU is currently the world leader in science. The US is typically less focused on international projects due to its huge size (except for when it can't get its particle accelerators to work and then it comes to borrow data from CERN).
How is leaving the world leader to go and work with countries with smaller budgets and less resources going to help UK science?
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:
We have thinking places...
So you're point is it took what 20 of you guys to be on the same footing as the USA? Yeah i guess you sure do win when 20 of you combine. Also equal footing doesn't mean the usa is irrelevant now. It's more like europe is relevant again.
Just about every one of the professors or doctors I've talked to in the past year have said how negative brexit will be on the community. When it comes to working with other people why would they want to work with the UK over going straight to the EU? A lack of EU funding is going to cause a drastic slowing down of progress and the loss of man power as less people are coming to work here are going to make the UK a less appealing partner.
There's also the problem that many other countries aren't exactly great at sharing research and can be quite secretive about their work.
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:
We have thinking places...
You are and you do, however US science is quite some way behind the EU when it comes to cooperative work.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.
Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.
We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed
That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.
Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.
I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.
Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.
UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.
Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.
We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed
That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.
Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.
I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.
Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.
UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.
Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.
Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.
Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.
We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed
That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.
Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.
I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.
Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.
UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.
Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.
Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?
I am fine with EU as a partnership in trade.
But not as a political federation super state.
It did not need to gp as far as it did in binding everyone with banks, currency and more.
As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.
They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.
I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.
The EU have been bribing us for years with our own money, and yet, they talked us into thinking this was a generous act from Brussells.
Like I said, a masterclass in propaganda. Fair play to the EU for pulling it off.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or Brexit is such an absolute nightmare that even competent politicians would falter and fail. You're underestimating the difficulties involved.
I
You may think it odd for a Scottish nationalist to say this, but as far as I'm concerned, Great Britain is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. The legacy and achievements of this small island are second to nobody, and I mean nobody. Even the USA, that mighty and great nation, was built on the foundations of Britain. It's language is Britain's. It's constitution is the English bill of rights 1688, and it's love of liberty can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. For better or for worse, the British empire made the modern world what it is.
Even putting that aside, Britain's legacy in the arts, the sciences, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, changed the path of humanity for evermore.
We fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best, to quote Apollo Creed
That is who we are, that is what we have done. That is our roots and the foundation we were built on. To cut to the point, we no longer seem to believe in ourselves, or what we're capable of.
Leaving the EU won't be easy, but we as a nation have overcome bigger challenges long before the EU rolled into town.
I am confident that the people of this island, as they have done so many times before, will overcome this obstacle.
Past is irrelevant. What matters is now and future and UK is trying to fight against inevitable. Sorry but you do that, you lose.
UK seems to think world is same as it was 300 years ago but newsflash. It isn't. It keeps changing. What worked 300 years ago is so far outdated it doesn't apply anymore so just because Brtain was great in the past doesn't amount to anything now. Those who are great now are those who understand now rather than past.
Not to be snarky, but 48% of us don't think that, which is why we said leaving was a fething stupid idea.
Also good to see the "we don't have to deal with the EU, there's everyone else" idea being trotted out again; can some one please explain to me how not working with one of the biggest financial, trade and research organisations in the world is better than working with it? Also how does being a small, isolated, country make you more attractive than a large, outwardly engaging, organisation if you are that prospective "someone else"?
I am fine with EU as a partnership in trade.
But not as a political federation super state.
It did not need to gp as far as it did in binding everyone with banks, currency and more.
Exactly. I never had a problem with a common market, which was what we thought we signed up to, but a European super-state with its own army? To hell with that!
Exactly. I never had a problem with a common market, which was what we thought we signed up to, but a European super-state with its own army? To hell with that!
Could we please stop with that tired old line?
The move towards a United States of Europe predates UK membership. It's not bank loan fine print, it was there if you bothered to read the actual treaties and the discussions leading to them.
That's why the UK set up the EFTA. That's why de Gaulle wouldn't let the UK in.
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:
We have thinking places...
Aren't your thinking places having real funding/future issues due to the administration essentially being anti-science?
I'm half expecting a fairly major influx of US scientists into the EU if things get any worse.
The 'we used to be world leaders in science and education in the 19th century so there's no reason why we won't be again' is the very height of hubris. There's a reason we were so dominant in terms of research and discovery: empire.
You know who else have equally impressive backgrounds in science and education? All the other imperial European nations. These great achievements aren't the result of some innate British greatness. They're the result of having loads of money to chuck at stuff for a long time.
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:
We have thinking places...
So you're point is it took what 20 of you guys to be on the same footing as the USA? Yeah i guess you sure do win when 20 of you combine. Also equal footing doesn't mean the usa is irrelevant now. It's more like europe is relevant again.
Well 20 guys doesn't sound so bad compared to 50 guys
Future War Cultist wrote: A late reply to an earlier point, if the EU isn't interested in future coperation with us in scientific research, there's always everywhere else. The eu isn't the be all and end all of everything.
Ahem... 'murrica here. We 'bout big as EU:
We have thinking places...
Aren't your thinking places having real funding/future issues due to the administration essentially being anti-science?
No. Far from it.
I'm half expecting a fairly major influx of US scientists into the EU if things get any worse.
All the European 'imperial' wand waving going on in this thread aside, much of it is somewhat factually incorrect.
The British were lamenting their lack of technical education in their workforce all throughout the 19th century. France had a far greater scientific base going all the way back to Napoleon's day. The Germans, meanwhile, had a system of vocational education in place that was the envy of the British from just before the turn of the century. Even the Americans were shocked at how many British firms relied upon inefficient manpower heavy methods to perform tasks that had long been automated out in the states (where population was far lower and machines consequently more necessary).
So whatever achievements Britain may or may not have had in that period, it would be inaccurate to point to our scientific/educational system as the basis for them. The flip side of that coin is that future British status/power in the world also may well not be reliant upon those things, as indeed, they clearly weren't in the past.
It'll be clearer what the full costs of renting is, as it's spread out on the monthly rent and you know what your regular payment is. As currently stands, you get the advertised monthly rent and then whenever the contract needs renewing, they get a bonus off you of whatever they want - or you leave the property. I know which system I prefer.
What does it say about this industry that they're worried that buy-to-lets aren't as viable because they can't find dubious ways screw money from people in ways other than the monthly rent.
Yet it can make things worse because all your costs are now 'hidden' in one monthly cost. Companies will still charge these fees, some will continue to be cheaper, but now you have no idea how much they are including on them. There are companies out there that likely don't exploit the circumstances. Now they will have to make a judgement, suppose they have long term rents where customers can give 6 months notice and they charge lets say £60 as a one off charge to do the checks (regardless of how long you stay in a property). They want to recoup that cost somewhere so they take the minimum term of 6 months and split it equally over that time (£10 a month). So they add this on to your monthly bill. Instead of a £550/month rent they now charge £560/month. Now suppose you live in a property for three years. You've now just spent £300 more than you needed to because it is a monthly charge. You don't know this, but it's 'free' money to the company. A more unscrupulous company will just slowly raise the amount over a few years until they have recovered the loss from losing that income. The difference is now that you can't see that's what they are doing, you just have a higher monthly charge.
I'm not saying it needs to be resolved, but I am unsure this is the way to do it and not just have people paying more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If the Americans want to run around the Middle East repeating the mistakes of the British Empire, then good luck to them. If the EU wants its own army to take on the Russians, then good luck to the EU.
We, Britain, have went above and beyond over the years when it comes to defending peace, liberty and freedom. I would not mind if we went isolationist for a while.
You mean maybe for the last 70, even WWI was perhaps less about freedoms and more about which rich person short which other rich person. Before that it would be highly questionable whether we were there defending peace liberty and freedom given what we did as the British Empire.
However, there is always a cost to in trying to lead from the front. If you let others do it then you might find the direction they have gone in, doesn't favour the country at all or you turn around one day and wonder why we lost this or that because no one was there to stand up for it. The world and the way it works is no longer isolationist.
If you force the Queen to miss Ascot, don't be surprised if she turns up in a giant EU hat Was it an accident, this nakedly pro-Brussels bonnet? One suspects we will never know the truth, but given one commenter on the Daily Mail website was sufficiently enraged to describe the Queen herself as a “left liberal luvvie traitor!!!” we probably do not need to
I think this might be more representative that she supports the EU and us being in it and making a point in the only way she is allowed (despite what Gove leaks...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.
They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.
I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.
Yes we are a net contributor, because we are a well off nation and spending the money on less well off people is the point of being in a social society. If you don't want that then you are advocating not paying taxes and only paying for things you need when you need it (the Tory parties wet dream). However this screws over everyone that is less off and in the long term is counter productive. A nation that is relatively poor now can develop its country to being more wealthy and hence needs more expensive luxury goods that support a growing UK economy. Being outside the UK means that we are likely to see some trade barriers to this and other countries will benefit. Our growth suffers (we are already joint bottom of the G8 nations) and we fall further behind as we have less money compared to other countries and the cycle repeats as we can't invest.
The other thing you are missing is the indirect benefits from the '£350m a week'. The taxes we bring in whether that be from bankers to migrant workers. A lot of this has the potential to disappear and high grade jobs are going to go. In directly leaving is likely to cost much more than £350m a year and that 'saving' will probably only partially plug that gap, so holistically is not a saving at all, but rather a cost. And then you will see further cuts to the side endeavours like science funding and so on.
The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:
1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund
2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.
The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund?
And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.
This is concentrated madness, and the prospect of unelected penpushers in the EU Kremlin having a military policy scares the gak out of me.
I think Britain had a narrow escape.
@Whirlwind. In response to your reply about my post, you can dress it up anyway you want, but essentially, the EU are bribing us with our own money, and they have managed to convince people this is an act of charity. Like I said, I respect their masterful use of propaganda to meet their goal. They have a lot of people in Britain fooled.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:
1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund
2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.
The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund?
And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.
This is concentrated madness, and the prospect of unelected penpushers in the EU Kremlin having a military policy scares the gak out of me.
I think Britain had a narrow escape.
@Whirlwind. In response to your reply about my post, you can dress it up anyway you want, but essentially, the EU are bribing us with our own money, and they have managed to convince people this is an act of charity. Like I said, I respect their masterful use of propaganda to meet their goal. They have a lot of people in Britain fooled.
Ukraine is Russian back yard. It's long held sphere of influence.
No gpod cones from messing in that zone full stop.
And on EU defence finding. We have Nato. UN, allies and treaties not effected by EU and far older and deeper....
Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.
I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.
I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The focus of the news is on May's trip to Brussells, but with each passing day I thank God I had the courage to vote to leave the EU, because what I saw and heard today scares the gak out of me, and if the cost of Brexit is 5p on the price of a Mars Bar, I can live with that, because the alternative is much worse, and this is the alternative:
1. The EU have agreed to increase funding for an EU defence fund
Yeah I hear that a former member is going all nationalistic and they are worried about aggressive remarks from the politicians.
What's so wrong with this? Trump has pretty much demanded that more NATO members increase defence spending to 2%. This means that rather than every country doing a little bit of everything, one country can concentrate on one area (say air defence); another on sea defence and so on with more spent on a group to co-ordinate all the different areas. I'm not sure why people seem so terrified of a joint working task force. Given Trumps comments I can see why they want to become more self reliant. It's not like the EU has ever voted to gallivanting across the globe to invade/bomb etc. another country (which is what we can't say about the UK).
I'm just thinking people folks are scared by having another organisation have a larger military force than ours on our door step whilst ours is in decline.
2. There was a few study group meetings/seminars about Ukraine joining the EU. I wondered why the Ukraine flag was on display.
The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see.
And Ukraine as a member? The geopolitical ramifications of this i.e going up against Russia, need not be explained.
The western half of Ukraine have wanted to join the EU for a long time because they see the benefits it brings (something 50% of the UK want to ignore). That's not imperialism or expansionism; it's more development of a social group that want to work together towards a common goal. They are not invading or forcing Ukraine to join. And worrying about Russia is just letting fear rule the roost. If Russia wants a party of their own and would like countries to join them then they should make there policies and country more likeable and not throw in jail any sign of opposition because they are an inconvenience. If Russia invaded the Batlics or Ukraine we'd still support them and things would likely escalate pretty quickly whether they are in the EU or not and we'd end up somewhere along these lines (warning long!):-
I think Britain had a narrow escape.
If you mean by having strong growth, scientific endeavours and part of the political world community and not be a laughing stock then yes we have had a narrow escape from this. I'm not sure it's something to be proud of though!
@Whirlwind. In response to your reply about my post, you can dress it up anyway you want, but essentially, the EU are bribing us with our own money, and they have managed to convince people this is an act of charity. Like I said, I respect their masterful use of propaganda to meet their goal. They have a lot of people in Britain fooled.
The same goes for the taxes you pay. By your reckoning we should all stop paying taxes and stop caring about anyone less fortunate than us whilst accepting being trodden on by anyone more fortunate. However just like our UK taxes they go towards making a larger more inclusive society. yes you might not see all that money come back but then that is the point. You can be selfish all you want but it only makes the country worse. And you still aren't seeing the benefits that being in the EU bring that aren't simply how much you can add up on the back of cigarette packet. Just taking other EU national workers they are likely bring in something like £5trillion at least that will be spent somehow, somewhere in the country (assuming 2m EU migrants each on average £10,000 per year with 25% of this being spent in the UK on products (and note I think I'm being cautious). The £350m a week is peanuts compared to this. Even a modest 50% growth on this number over ten years is still another £2.5trillion into the economy.
Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.
I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.
I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.
Russia is not the soviet big beast or was but it still ain't weak more will like EU drive into Ukraine.
That's long held Russain territory, influence and long been a Kremlin buffer.
If you think they will let you in that zone without making all manner of trouble diplomatically, hacking, or otherwise you are a fool.
It's a blatant power grab by the EU and a naked attempt to undercut NATO, the shield that protected Western Europe for decades. The idea that the EU preserved peace in Europe is risible nonsense. It was thousands of American military personnel hanging around West Germany that preserved the peace, not the EEC.
If European NATO members want to get together to save money on stuff and pool resources on major projects then that's fine by me, and they should bring it up at the NATO council, but as far as I'm concerned, the EU has no business sticking its nose into NATO. It should keep the hell away.
Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.
The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.
Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.
I 100% get the reason why they have a European court - to settle trade disputes and regulation problems between member nations, but when they start talking about tanks, then for me, alarm bells start ringing.
I am deeply uneasy about this European defence fund.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.
The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.
The EU needs to sling its hook.
you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.
Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.
The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.
The EU needs to sling its hook.
you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.
No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.
Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes we can, right up until the point we actually do Leave.
Why does this common market, this trading bloc, need a defence fund? It's a question I've asked many a time, and I've yet to have a good answer, or any answer, for that matter.
To go with a famous quote, war is the continuation of politics by other means. The EU is a (major) political entity, and as such it needs a defence component as part of their common external policy.
It's nothing new, though. The EDA is some 15 years old, and its formation can be traced back to the EPC in the 70s but not really put in motion until after the war in the Balkans.
It just turns out that the US might just not be there when needed, and that the UK made sounds hinting it might put defence and intelligence as bargain chips in a trade negotiation table, so that's probably pushed things forward a little faster.
In any case, nothing changes for NATO. The EU was already an interlocutor with NATO, and even was already allowed to draw NATO resources if needed under Berlin Plus, and ran defence operations abroad.
We can hold off the vote until you guys are out in two years time.
For many years Uk have been a roadblocked for further integration in the EU. This will come to an end very soon.
And a lot of the UK will probably be wishing the EU all the best. It's why I don't get all this talk from EU pundits about wanting to punish the UK for leaving. It seems obvious that, broadly speaking, the UK has never been that comfortable in the EU. It's like that mate you have, been mates for ever, you decide to go into a houseshare together and all the various things just keep on piling up and up. You've not had the big blown out argument yet, but you know that, if things continue as they are, it's going to eventually happen. Surely it's better for both people to for someone to move out before that happens and still remain mates?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...
I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.
The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.
The EU needs to sling its hook.
you guys gave up your veto power when you voted for Brexit.
No we didn't. We havn't left yet, as people here are so fond of reminding us Leavers.
Contrary to what some of the you hardliner brexiteers think, no, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes we can, right up until the point we actually do Leave.
The UK is essentially a lame duck when it comes to decisions regarding the future of the EU right now.
If you think you can make a decision (i.e. veto) that will affect the EU for many years to come, and then leave 2 months later, you are delusional.
The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.
If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is. If Europe wants to go down that path, good luck to them, but I'm glad we're out of it.
Ii gives me no pleasure to say this, but this mass centralization of power in Brussels, this small elite holding the power, is likely to leave ordinary people cut off from the decision makers. As a result, you will see more Trumps in the future, more Brexit, and in France, all they did by electing Macron was to kick the can down the road for a few years. Those millions who voted for Le Pen will not go away. Their reasons for doing so will not go away.
The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...
I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?
I'm 50/50 on NATO, but if the alternative is Juncker's office running European defence policy, then I will be the first to get the NATO symbol tatooed to my bare chest!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: "We're going to leave the EU! There's no stopping it!"
"We still want to say no to your new rules that won't affect us."
That's a two way street. The EU are saying that we shouldn't have a vote or a veto because we're leaving, but they still want us to contribute to EU projects, even though we're leaving. They're happy to take our money for 2 more years, but unhappy to have us voting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.
If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is. If Europe wants to go down that path, good luck to them, but I'm glad we're out of it.
Ii gives me no pleasure to say this, but this mass centralization of power in Brussels, this small elite holding the power, is likely to leave ordinary people cut off from the decision makers. As a result, you will see more Trumps in the future, more Brexit, and in France, all they did by electing Macron was to kick the can down the road for a few years. Those millions who voted for Le Pen will not go away. Their reasons for doing so will not go away.
The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The naked expansionism and imperial ambitions of the EU is there on display for all to see. Defence fund? Fething defence fund! We have NATO, so why the hell does this common market need a defence fund? ...
I distinctly remember your very strong anti-NATO stance. So, is there any alliance that meets your approval? Without the guaranteed support of the US, what should Europe do to defend itself against a clearly expansionist and aggressive Russia?
I'm 50/50 on NATO, but if the alternative is Juncker's office running European defence policy, then I will be the first to get the NATO symbol tatooed to my bare chest!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: "We're going to leave the EU! There's no stopping it!"
"We still want to say no to your new rules that won't affect us."
That's a two way street. The EU are saying that we shouldn't have a vote or a veto because we're leaving, but they still want us to contribute to EU projects, even though we're leaving. They're happy to take our money for 2 more years, but unhappy to have us voting.
They can't have it both ways.
A defense fund...
Here's a thing. As it stands the EU nations, barely anyone meets the 2% defense GDP required for membership of NATO or is prefered.
They will need to put up some more money!
Economic fallout from Brexit not as bad as feared, though worse than pro-Brexit economists expected. Longer term prospects are 3% to 4% lower growth by 2030.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40370331
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU has a defence fund, a foreign policy, a currency, and in order to make that currency work, fiscal union will be needed.
If that's not a nation state, then I don't know what the hell is.
The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.
Why resist it? What's the point?
I care, because the nation state has been the building block of the West for centuries.
A global union is likely to lead to disaster, because as much as we love Democracy, Liberty, and the rule of law, not everybody in this world shares that view, and we've seen what happens when we try to impose that on them.
I respect the fact that not every nation on Earth wants to be a Scandinavian democracy.
The problems of a detached voting class, the migrant crisis, and southern Europe economies, are problems that the EU won't be able to handle.
How would those problems magically go away if the EU ceased existing? These are issues that affect all of Europe and have to be dealt with, EU or no.
They are difficult problems, no question, but they're a lot easier to solve if you don't have countries like Germany that
a) invite people in by the bucket load, and try to ignore the fact that these people had to cross somebody else's country to get to Germany.
b) try and lay down the law to other sovereign nations that didn't want refugees. Germany trying to dictate to Hungary was a fething disgrace.
I'd argue that Hungary is the disgrace, considering how they treat minorities. I also object to the statement that anyone "wants" refugees. The refugees would exist regardless of whether we "want" them or not, it's not Germany being humanitarian enough to take refugees that is causing the refugee flood (NATO arguably carries a whole lot of responsibility for that)*. Hungary went for the "let them drown in the Aegean" approach and were called out for being callous bastards.
Germany could have just gone "nein, not our problem" and refused to take anyone, which would've led to Greece, Italy, and the Balkan states being even more fethed than they are now, and a whole lot more dead refugees. Instead they opt to save as many as they feel they can and pushes the rest of the EU to do the same, particularly those countries that haven't done squat to help out at all. If they didn't people would be complaining that the EU is letting Eastern Europe freeload, if they do people complain that it's "violating their sovereignty". It's a no-win situation.
*On that subject, the current refugee crisis is a result of the power vacuum created after Iraqi Freedom. If I don't misremember, France and Germany refused to take part because they thought it was a bad idea. The UK and the US went ahead anyway, and now the UK is dumping responsibility for dealing with the results on the rest of the EU because you want your sovereignty back. Where's the rest of the EU's sovereignty, then? It's not like the EU can tell the UK that you can't leave because you have to clean up your mess first. "Sovereignty" is a hopelessly nebulous concept, placing it on a piedestal makes no sense.
-Says countries have no predefined moral obligation.
-Has predefined moral obligation pointed out.
-Shifts argument to how another organisation is ineffectual.
The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.
Why resist it? What's the point?
Not all the rest of the world shares our western liberal values and culture. Do you want a political union with countries that practices stoning, beheading, amputation, female genital mutilation, treats women as second class citizens, criminalizes blasphemy, lacks the rule of law etc?
Our liberal pluralist democracies will not survive a global union, our values are simply not universal enough.
The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.
Why resist it? What's the point?
That is a horrible idea bound for disaster and corruption. Having a united nations of all nations should be as far as it goes. Complete universal unity of the world is a pipe dream that would never work outside of the paper written by the idealists. We have had enough dissent from the referendum to leave the EU, so think what would happen if an even bigger union tried to oversee the vast world population of different and sometimes openly hostile cultures.
Why resist? Because you should never let other people walk over you and marginalise you. What's the point? People would never fully accept or be committed to make it work for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Just about every one of the professors or doctors I've talked to in the past year have said how negative brexit will be on the community. When it comes to working with other people why would they want to work with the UK over going straight to the EU? A lack of EU funding is going to cause a drastic slowing down of progress and the loss of man power as less people are coming to work here are going to make the UK a less appealing partner.
There's also the problem that many other countries aren't exactly great at sharing research and can be quite secretive about their work.
But it could have a positive, should British scientists work on their own independent projects and get some sort of major success all those other EU countries would be left out as we would have no obligation to share anything with them. Even if we fully pull out of all joint scientific research areas the EU countries will still want UK input. I think those scientific intellectual's are more concerned about how negative Brexit could be on them, but to get heard claim everyone will be worse off.
Back onto the now, I think the offer made by May was very generous to the EU over its citizens and it would end the 'uncertainty' for EU nationals. Junkers is just being an oaf as usual with Tusk trying to cause frustration for the sake of it. What the EU probably wants is some silly lifetime guarantee for all EU nationals in and entering from now until the end of the world. Our government is prepared to safeguard 3 times as many people as the EU has British ex-pats and they want more. What a farce. If people are so concerned about certainty they should apply for national citizenship be it in this country or a British ex-pat on the continent.
Ketara wrote: -Says countries have no predefined moral obligation.
-Has predefined moral obligation pointed out.
-Shifts argument to how another organisation is ineffectual.
Does Hungary itself have laws protecting refugees? Why should Hungary prioritize non-Hungarians over Hungarians?
The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.
Why resist it? What's the point?
I care, because the nation state has been the building block of the West for centuries.
A global union is likely to lead to disaster, because as much as we love Democracy, Liberty, and the rule of law, not everybody in this world shares that view, and we've seen what happens when we try to impose that on them.
That's fun because the UK is THe example of a successful state that's not a nation state, but made out of different parts (England, Scotland, NI and Wales) each with their own quirks but ultimately pooling their sovereignty in a common structure.
A nation-state is, for example, France or Denmark.
It's a blatant power grab by the EU and a naked attempt to undercut NATO, the shield that protected Western Europe for decades. The idea that the EU preserved peace in Europe is risible nonsense. It was thousands of American military personnel hanging around West Germany that preserved the peace, not the EEC.
If European NATO members want to get together to save money on stuff and pool resources on major projects then that's fine by me, and they should bring it up at the NATO council, but as far as I'm concerned, the EU has no business sticking its nose into NATO. It should keep the hell away.
Legally, the UK is still a EU member, so I hope they turn this crackpot EU defence fund into a dumpster fire with their veto, if this can be vetoed.
The future of NATO is for NATO members, which includes a few non-EU members.
The EU needs to sling its hook.
I think you need to stand back and look at what NATO actually does and is there for. It is there as a mutual defence organisation in times of war. It provides no other benefits to the nations that are within it and they may not get involved anyway (look at the Falklands for example). Given that Trumps rhetoric the greatest asset of NATO is looking less supportive, so it is not unsurprising that they want more surety. With a joint defence initiative a lot of small isolated areas that would get ignored by NATO will still result in the allies rallying around to help them (for example if Turkey tried to annex the rest of Cyprus how likely is it that NATO would get involved?). Additionally it provides security in times of humanitarian disaster. Suppose there was an earthquake off the coast of Malta that tragically caused Tsunami's and collapsed buildings. With an EU defence force there could be a coordinated response to helping an ally and friend in distress by all the nations. There are more uses of a military than defending against an angry bear.
You aren't really putting forward any rational arguments about why it is a bad idea, only that it is a 'power grab' whilst doing your best impression of Ian Paisley yelling "Never, never, never"
The world is becoming an ever smaller place. We're inevitably going to end up with a global union at some point.
Why resist it? What's the point?
That is a horrible idea bound for disaster and corruption. Having a united nations of all nations should be as far as it goes. Complete universal unity of the world is a pipe dream that would never work outside of the paper written by the idealists. We have had enough dissent from the referendum to leave the EU, so think what would happen if an even bigger union tried to oversee the vast world population of different and sometimes openly hostile cultures.
Why resist? Because you should never let other people walk over you and marginalise you. What's the point? People would never fully accept or be committed to make it work for everyone.
There's more to the EU vote than this though. There was the general vote against the UK government for its policies; a natural human trait to blame someone else when things are going badly; unfounded fear of migrants (and in some cases outright bigotry and racism); unfounded fear that the EU were taking over the UK and so on. UK politicians didn't help here, if things went wrong it's all finger pointing and the EU was an 'easy target', it's the populaces fault for just accepting what they are told (generally); it's the wealthy who try and influence circumstances so it benefits them regardless of the cost to society and so on.
Realistically we need a global nation because it is the only way we are going to solve the worlds problems. Resources are getting more difficult to extract and we demand more as a global populace. Global warming is going to have massive impacts on food production, land that can lived on. This will cause mass migration over the next 100 -200 years (we haven't seen anything yet). Acting as individual nations in these circumstances will only eventually lead to wars as the resources get thinner, this is a natural animal response to lack of resources (assuming a bug doesn't kill 75% of us off first). What we need is a global union that can make decisions on global issues and that gets spread down to smaller and smaller groups of government so that the high level policies can be applied effectively in different areas.
In the long course of history there are many cycles of growth of larger unified states and their dissolution into smaller political entities. In European history of the past 100 years, for example, we have seen the Austro-Hungarian Empire split into nations like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which were incorporated into the Hitlerian and Soviet empires, freed, then split apart into smaller nations, then joined into the EU.
On the subject on EU membership, we all know that certain criteria have to be followed if a nation wishes to join the EU. For example, if you're a bloodthirsty dictatorship with an appalling record of human rights abuses, you're unlikely to get the green light from Brussels.
Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.
The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.
To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the subject on EU membership, we all know that certain criteria have to be followed if a nation wishes to join the EU. For example, if you're a bloodthirsty dictatorship with an appalling record of human rights abuses, you're unlikely to get the green light from Brussels.
Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.
The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.
To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.
Greece too... They where not meeting the legal EU membership criteria on economics before they joined. There seems to have been rampant tax dodging too on top.
But the union must grow regard less.
Even considering Turkey, a economicly vastly different nation to mainland Europe when right to work could have kicked in..
Also rather... Well now authoritarian.
Interestingly, Turkey became authoritarian following a period in which they were keen to get membership and were refused because of their bad human rights. Perhaps it would have been better to let them in, which would have strengthened the liberal democratic wing of the population.
Kilkrazy wrote: Interestingly, Turkey became authoritarian following a period in which they were keen to get membership and were refused because of their bad human rights. Perhaps it would have been better to let them in, which would have strengthened the liberal democratic wing of the population.
Maybe. But also been a difficult growth phase.
There so very different to the Central Europe nations, in cultures, region and religion.
It might not have gone down as well in some of the other member states who views and barely match from more tolerant to the ones with heavy border fences or refusing refugees.
And I mean there would have had to been a big commitment to human rights required, would have had to been key to there membership commitment.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Croatia is an interesting example. The EU itself highlighted numerous red flags prior to Croatian membership. The judiciary was seen as being non-independent. The police force was seen as being corrupt and complicit in harsh treatment of suspects, and bribery was an effective way of getting on in the various levels of Croatian government and the civil service.
The EU's response? Roll out the red carpet. Expansionism was everything.
To sum up, as bad as Britain is getting these days, I'll take no lessons in morals and ethics from the EU.
Can we stop the claims of expansionism, because you make it sound like EU don't care who joins and if that was the case by now they would be all the way down to Zimbabwe. The EU is set up to make a union of nations so that they work together towards one overall goal of liberties and freedoms for it's populace. You can't expect every country to have them before you start because that would mean it already existed. However if those countries slowly improve because they join the EU, then that's an improvement for the citizens in that country overall. You cannot expect every country to have the same way of operating when they join, but you can move towards it. In the case of Croatia this was the judgement that was made; yes there was corruption (it happens in the UK too) but if there is a willingness to move towards a better society then the EU make a judgement as whole as whether the intent is there.
Greece too... They where not meeting the legal EU membership criteria on economics before they joined. There seems to have been rampant tax dodging too on top.
But the union must grow regard less.
This is completely misrepresenting what happened with Greece. They colluded with the banks to present better finances than they had in reality. By doing this they met the EU criteria. The rules have now changed and the EU learnt from this, at most the EU had a naïve approach to assessing finances (generally) because they missed that countries could do this. However they didn't just ignore the finances of Greece, because the way that Greece parcelled up its finances did allow them to meet the criteria.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As much as I dislike the EU, I think they deserve some credit for the masterful propaganda trick they have played on some sections of the British public.
They have managed to convince people that black is white and white is black.
I am of course talking about EU funding. Considering that Britain was a net contributor, talk of EU funding cuts is a red herring.
The EU have been bribing us for years with our own money, and yet, they talked us into thinking this was a generous act from Brussells.
Like I said, a masterclass in propaganda. Fair play to the EU for pulling it off.
Difference being that the EU actually put that money towards these programs, along with regeneration programs etc.
Do you really think the UK government is going to do the same? That is exactly why it is not propaganda that the EU funds us, because without that money coming from the EU those sectors would get feth all because our governments are fething morons who don't understand the benefits of spending government money on the sciences and improving impoverished areas.
Tactical_Spam wrote: European countries have no predefined obligation to helping "refugees."
Even if you weren't wrong, which we've already established that you are, arguing against a normative argument with the statement that you don't have to do what is being argued is disingenious. Add in the dogwhistle of questioning the legitimacy of the people fleeing and we get yet another quality post.
German Exports to Asia Surge, Calming Nerves Over Protectionist Backlash
Exports to China rose 12% in first four months of year
FRANKFURT—German exports to Asia are rising strongly this year in a trend that could mitigate the risks to Europe’s largest economy should U.S. President Donald Trump make good on his protectionist promises.
Figures released on Wednesday showed Germany’s exports to China rising around 12% in the first four months of the year compared with the same period in 2016. Exports to India rose by a similar rate, while shipments to Indonesia and Vietnam jumped more than 20% each from January to April 2016, according to the Federal Statistical Office.
“We are benefiting from our excellent positioning in East Asia and strong demand for consumer electronics,” said Robert Saller, a managing director at DELO, a family-run producer of special adhesives for electronic devices. China last year became DELO’s biggest market, relegating Germany to second place.
German exports to the U.S. and to European Union members are also growing—albeit at slower rates—but the outlook is vulnerable to the threat of rising U.S. protectionism and the U.K.’s exit from the European Union. Economists warn that a U.S.-led shift away from free trade will hurt economic growth and prosperity globally.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Germany for its large trade surplus with the U.S. and threatened to impose tariffs on German car imports. But action by the U.S. administration has proved modest while German businesses have remained committed to the large U.S. market.
German exports to the U.S. rose 3.9% in the first four months of 2017 from the same period last year. Exports to the U.K. fell by around 4%.
Given increased tensions between Europe and the U.S. over issues such as climate and free trade, European leaders have redoubled efforts to cultivate China. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang met in Berlin earlier this month, and Mr. Li stressed that both parties were “in favor of fostering free trade and the simplification of investment.”
German businesses’ rising exports to Asia draw on a long record in the region. Economists say that China’s One Belt, One Road initiative—-a series of vast infrastructure projects to connect mainland China with the rest of the continent-—will open up more opportunities for trade.
Last year, China became Germany’s largest trading partner, with combined imports and exports of almost €200 billion ($223 billion).
Five years from now, the Europe Union’s export revenues with Asia will be almost twice its export revenues with the U.S., estimated Charles-Edouard Bouée, chief executive of Roland Berger. “We are very positive on the outlook for Asia,” Mr. Bouée said.
The regional shift is already visible in Germany’s trade statistics today. New data by the Federal Statistical Office show that German companies exported goods worth €66.9 billion to Asia in the first four months of this year, compared with shipments of €37.4 billion to the U.S.
German companies’ reputation for quality engineering and a mix of specialized goods, including capital goods used to build factories and infrastructure, have long been a vital ingredient in the country’s export prowess.
Germany is the third largest exporter in the world after China and the U.S. and exposed to a variety of regions, which has helped the country’s exporters weather economic shocks in specific markets in the past.
Germany
Trade balance with Germany: -£25.48 billion
The U.K. imports £70.24 billion in goods and services from Germany and exports £44.76 billion.
Remember these figures next time we're told we cannot do trade deals to places like China, India etc whilst being part of the EU.
It's as if someone getting one thread locked wasn't enough to satisfy them that they would say more things in an endeavour to get another locked...
So, onto other things, Brexit negotiations have started, May has released a press statement summary about their intentions, with the full detail to be discussed on Monday.
Naturally, despite this just being essentially a summary of a position, it's apparently 'below expectations' from Tusk. Conversely, Macron and Merkel seem a little measured in their replies.
It would definitely seem that Tusk is perfectly happy to play games with the 'court of public opinion' to cause issues during the negotiations.
Meanwhile, on the other side, we have Andrea Leadsom, who nearly became Prime Minister, has turned on the BBC and the media as a whole as being 'unpatriotic' when it comes to Brexit. I don't like being too political, but seriously, thank flip we dodged a bullet there.
I have my own, many, many issues, with the media as a whole, but it hasn't been and should never be their job to be patriotic. It's their job to ask questions, get answers and to tell the truth, no matter what side, the truth should be the truth. And if it's a complicated truth, SAY THAT.
It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.
Ketara wrote: It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.
I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.
Ketara wrote: It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.
I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.
Transparency is one thing, playing to the peanut gallery another. One involves simply making information available to those who want it, the other involves adding commentary designed to produce a certain kind of reaction and actively soliciting commentary of a specific bent.
I personally do not believe the most productive way to conduct an agreement involving hundreds of billions of pounds of business and millions of people's lives is by acting like its the latest development in last night's showing of Big Brother. Doing so simply makes the EU officials involved look like those who actually do Big Brother; namely a bunch of desperate attention seeking E list celebrities portraying grotesquely exaggerated personas and opinions to try and get people to feel a certain way about them for the next round of voting.
If that's how they want to conduct affairs though? What the heck. Let the circus run riot and the children have their fun. Let both sides continually leak poisonous comments on the negotiations until the whole thing falls apart in bitter acrimonious dispute.
Ketara wrote: It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.
I thought that the EU wanted the whole process to be transparent, and it was the UK who wanted to keep things hush hush?
It's odd that one side is happy to negotiate in the open, whereas another side wants to keep the negotiations away from their electorate. It's a real puzzler that they should do that.
Transparency is one thing, playing to the peanut gallery another. One involves simply making information available to those who want it, the other involves adding commentary designed to produce a certain kind of reaction and actively soliciting commentary of a specific bent.
I personally do not believe the most productive way to conduct an agreement involving hundreds of billions of pounds of business and millions of people's lives is by acting like its the latest development in last night's showing of Big Brother. Doing so simply makes the EU officials involved look like those who actually do Big Brother; namely a bunch of desperate attention seeking E list celebrities portraying grotesquely exaggerated personas and opinions to try and get people to feel a certain way about them for the next round of voting.
If that's how they want to conduct affairs though? What the heck. Let the circus run riot and the children have their fun. Let both sides continually leak poisonous comments on the negotiations until the whole thing falls apart in bitter acrimonious dispute.
Hmmm. This deal is too big for the gutter whispers press snippits and little silly games.
It's deciding the status of two large economic nations, diplomatic situations, the lives of millions of citizens abroad for both.
I think the UK is right to want to keep things behind closed doors
If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?
Howard A Treesong wrote: If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?
i mean it is a negotiation... ^^^
Most people don't start at there max, they work up from a lower level and you meet at a level where both can compromise
Howard A Treesong wrote: If the UK offer is so disappointing why don't they make a counter proposal? We're trying to address the future of both our citizens and theirs remember? Tusk and EU leaders do care about EU citizens in the UK right?
The UK government would have been better served in announcing guaranteed status for Eu citizens living in the UK during Brexit campaigning or by confirming the status after the vote was declared.
Magnanimity as a counter to negativity. Ease doubts and appear offer an open palm.
Now? This offer is wasted, a no brainer and nothing the EU needs to bow and scrape to us over. I would be surprised if the EU doesn't reciprocate but its not a deal that makes or breaks negotiations.
The basic EU position is that it's the UK who want to leave, so it's the UK's job to do the grunt work of working out what the UK wants from leaving. This actually is perfectly reasonable.
Since the UK has put forward some proposals on the future status of citizens, though, the ball is now in the EU's court to reply.
The problem is that the UK proposals fall very far short of a workable solution. They look as if the Maybot scribbled out on the back of the envelope of the letter that the EU sent to invite her to the summit, while she was on the plane.
Although the ZM has been busy with her excellent empowering election for several months, there still is a civil service who could have been instructed to come up with a range of solutions and detailed drill-down for each of them. It's been a year, after all.
Perfectly obviously absolutely nothing has been done by Maybot, Bozza or Davey Davis. Months ago Private Eye said that DefXEU was being staffed up with only the people too stupid to realise what a cluster-feth it's going to be, or to weak and inexperienced to avoid being drafted. Clearly they were right.
Imagine the performance of our government as it wallows in the wake of the EU powering towards new trade deals with China and India, etc. and tries to replace the deals we are pulling out of at the same time.
That's assuming that the EU manages to survive both the migrant crisis and the Euro debt crisis, which I'm doubtful it will. And the EU takes years to create trade deals because surprise surprise trying to get something that suits 27 wildly different countries is very difficult. I don't deny that the current band in charge are half wits but this is bigger than them.
Remember the trade deal with Canada that was simultaneously held up as an example of the EU's dreadful lack of centralisation and as an example of the EU's dreadful centralisation?
It passed. We are currently benefitting from it and will continue to do so until late March 2019. Then we will have to negotiate a new deal.
Remember the trade deal with Canada that was simultaneously held up as an example of the EU's dreadful lack of centralisation and as an example of the EU's dreadful centralisation?
It passed. We are currently benefitting from it and will continue to do so until late March 2019. Then we will have to negotiate a new deal.
THat one took forever and road blocked by a small state parliment of a few million in a group of 500 million.
yeah,, stuff just does not get done.
While that system may work for a small number of Nations, the size of the EU does make pleasing every nation hard, and maybe regonal trade agreements may be better?
ie central, eastern, and med coastal areas, nordic zone etc that reflect the various economic differences and wages etc?
tweak them abit to work for nations and regions as a pan euro deal... well, kinda has to be a jack of all trades
There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Free trade, not much. However also though the wage gaps and such across the union have presented work migration issues and added some stress into the system in places. Te whole free movement, free work rights yes, good.
However they seem to need a control too, as with such economic divides going on for sake of everyone there needs to be a control mechanism until things do level to a degree where both do not negatively effect the other.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.
If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.
Magister wrote: Could the anti EU brigade please make up their minds about what they're angry about? As it seems their gripes change with the wind.
What? When have I ever said I oppose Free Trade? Its the conditions and attached strings of integration that I oppose. I know exactly what I am angry about, if you're confused about what I'm angry about then it can only be because you're not listening.
Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state
I don't care. I. Don't. Want. That.
I don't like centralisation of Government in general. I don't like it in the UK, so why the hell would I like it in a massive European government of some 750 million people?
Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state
That's sounds great. One currency, one government, one reich. And you ask what objections people may have to being swallowed into this superstate, where the voice of the individual is ever diluted.
Magister wrote: Could the anti EU brigade please make up their minds about what they're angry about? As it seems their gripes change with the wind.
What? When have I ever said I oppose Free Trade? Its the conditions and attached strings of integration that I oppose. I know exactly what I am angry about, if you're confused about what I'm angry about then it can only be because you're not listening.
Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state
I don't care. I. don't. want. that.
Aye.. I mean work with EU, trade. Science, and other areas of mutual cooperation such as space program and the next generation power supply like advanced nuclear power.
We not part of EU Army, but are a member of other aspects that benefit both parties.
Just stay our the political side of things and have limited free movement of peoples and work rights based upon a agreement that we agree to take those workers we need, and EU citizens in UK now have right to work, NHS, and such.
They just cannot vote and stand for elections etc.
This EU superstate that simultaneously must be blamed for submerging the individual and not being able to complete a trade agreement due to the actions of a few individuals in local councils in Belgium.
Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state
That's sounds great. One currency, one government, one reich. And you ask what objections people may have to being swallowed into this superstate, where the voice of the individual is ever diluted.
And now we're comparing the EU to the Nazis. Great.
Ketara wrote: It's been shown quite clearly how the EU plans to play this; namely leak everything with a negative spin to try and create domestic pressure on the British government at home. Accordingly, I don't really have an issue with the government doing the same with an anti-EU bent, if that's the playing field they've selected for negotiations, it is important to meet them on it.
A very good point.
The EU are hoping to stir up enough public anger in the hope that we'll 'come to our senses.' Tusk admitted a few days ago he would like to see Britain reverse the referendum result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This EU superstate that simultaneously must be blamed for submerging the individual and not being able to complete a trade agreement due to the actions of a few individuals in local councils in Belgium.
You'll note that those councils in Belgium were 'persuaded' to change their minds about the trade deal.
Corbyn preaching at Glastonbury said we should build bridges not walls. He failed to mention we now have to build walls on our bridges.
Spoiler:
Touche.
Yeah.. We have been forced to lay tons of concrete on bridged, those yellow things, the now ram proof road gates they can close and more.
X years ago we had Police in shirts n a few guns in police station.
Now its SAS helicopters and fully trained tactical Police units.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.
Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.
Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.
In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".
Kilkrazy wrote: If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.
Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.
Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.
In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".
Kilkrazy wrote: If you put the worst possible interpretation on everything that happens you will tend to see the world as a dismal place.
Yeah, I totally agree! Just like Brexit.
Yep, even hearing the word now turns me off. It's awful. The connotations, the division, the mealy mouthed low level sniping, the faux-patriotism, literally everything about the word and the situation is dismal, awful and depressing.
In the future, as the English language grows and changes and Brexit passes into history, I fully expect people to be saying when they slip on something dogs have left in the street, Blackadder style, "whoops, I trod on a brexit".
Although I can't understand why anyone would dislike moist, it's one of my favourite words. Some of the best things are moist.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
Alot more have been. However they are not able tp get the results through yet for everyone at once as there testing dozens, maybe hundreds of blocks and buildings right now.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
very droll KK.
What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?
This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
very droll KK.
What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?
This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!
Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.
They have no choice once they find something too dangerous like that there is no choice when they find it to evacuate the building as if somthibg happens bad, then left some people to die, you are the one who is basically committed manslaughter.
Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.
That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.
Ketara wrote: Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.
That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.
True but if you know a building can go up like that in mere almost minutes from nothing to raging fire so hot fire crews can barely enter.
Emergency evac becomes required.
Ketara wrote: Not to mention that it would open them up to considerable legal vulnerabilities if another one caught fire. Any would be arsonist now knows just how flammable these blocks are.
That being said, the 'no prior warning' is a little bit over the top. 24 hours notice would be sufficient, one would think.
True but if you know a building can go up like that in mere almost minutes from nothing to raging fire so hot fire crews can barely enter.
Emergency evac becomes required.
24 hours notice gets at least some breathing space for the local authority to act on getting accommodation set up. If residents choose not to vacate you can then decide to strong arm them out.
I wonder if the decision to give little warning was in order to prevent a sit in or a disturbance. Given that housing is in relatively short supply I could see groups being concerned with where residents would be re-housed.
Which comes back to the initial council response to Grenfell and then back to local and national governemnt and its bureaucracy in how to handle such an event.
Incidentally you know what would make trade deals easier? A fully politically and fiscally integrated European state
I don't care. I. Don't. Want. That.
I don't like centralisation of Government in general. I don't like it in the UK, so why the hell would I like it in a massive European government of some 750 million people?
The UK sports pretty much the worst statistics in terms of the disconnect between citizens and politicians, with thousands of voters per elected politician compared to, for instance, a couple hundred in France. The UK continually makes an effort to reduce our number of elected officials with much of Europe trying to do the opposite.
If the accessibility of political machinery to the individual voter is key to you, I think you're backing the wrong horse.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
very droll KK.
What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?
This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!
Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.
You're absolutely right that councils now find themselves at the receiving end of a decade or two of ignoring the problems that led to a disaster. However, it is unlikely that a day or two would make any difference. And in fact it hasn't. There haven't been any mass deadly tower fires since Grenfell.
What the council should have done was to inform residents that for the sake of safety and upgrades, the people would need to be moved out of their current dwellings to [a place] starting from [a time a day or two in the future], they would need to prepare by gathering [X stuff they needed] and that in the meantime, the families and their homes would be safeguarded by 24/7 security patrols.
Instead the people having been ignored for decades have been ignored again and treated as cattle. Unsurprisingly, the country is not amused.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why mutual criticism and support is such a good thing.
To get back to an issue of some burning importance, 34 tower blocks have now been found to have unsafe inflammable cladding. This is a bad situation because only 34 blocks have been tested so far.
In related anti-government news, 20 families in Camden are being threatened with legal action to remove them from their flats in supposedly dangerous tower blocks. This follows a quasi-stasi operation in which all the other families were ordered out of their flats at 8 p.m. with no prior warning.
very droll KK.
What is a council supposed to do? Leave families in unsafe accommodations? Move them? When do they move them? How?
This isnt new territory we have suddenly entered, its a result of years of issues that happen to bite those that are now in charge. They don't know how to react because the line is blurred between vague ideas of a proper response and the need to be seen to be doing something and NOW!
Ridiculous state of affairs to be in.
You're absolutely right that councils now find themselves at the receiving end of a decade or two of ignoring the problems that led to a disaster. However, it is unlikely that a day or two would make any difference. And in fact it hasn't. There haven't been any mass deadly tower fires since Grenfell.
What the council should have done was to inform residents that for the sake of safety and upgrades, the people would need to be moved out of their current dwellings to [a place] starting from [a time a day or two in the future], they would need to prepare by gathering [X stuff they needed] and that in the meantime, the families and their homes would be safeguarded by 24/7 security patrols.
Instead the people having been ignored for decades have been ignored again and treated as cattle. Unsurprisingly, the country is not amused.
One way would be easier.
Work your way down the block as you lock, and move people out.
You then block off access as the floors down securing them and patrol.
Working down you can secure a level then clear next and carry on..
Each time your locking down a area of building and working with a logical and steady basis.
You evacuate down as have replacement homes. Aslo as upper levels most dangerous it also deals with the fact that those in previous fire, most casualties where on higher levels too.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.
If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.
That comes with the weight of the EU.
A common market (not just a FTA) is what makes the EU able to make those trade deals happen. The EU is able to sign free trade agreements on their own terms because it operates as a single economy on the world stage. The Canada FTA is lopsided in the EU favour because as the bigger player, it gets to tilt the scales in their favour.... which also works for Canada because access to such a big market is an opportunity in itself.
A simple free trade agreement doesn't cut it, as the EFTA experiment proved.
If Europe wants to be relevant on the world stage it needs to present a common front. Going solo no longer works when it's the USA, China or India on the other side of the table. Unless your negotiation plan revolves around saying "yes sir" a lot and getting a few token concessions while getting shafted in the key areas.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.
If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.
That comes with the weight of the EU.
A common market (not just a FTA) is what makes the EU able to make those trade deals happen. The EU is able to sign free trade agreements on their own terms because it operates as a single economy on the world stage. The Canada FTA is lopsided in the EU favour because as the bigger player, it gets to tilt the scales in their favour.... which also works for Canada because access to such a big market is an opportunity in itself.
A simple free trade agreement doesn't cut it, as the EFTA experiment proved.
If Europe wants to be relevant on the world stage it needs to present a common front. Going solo no longer works when it's the USA, China or India on the other side of the table. Unless your negotiation plan revolves around saying "yes sir" a lot and getting a few token concessions while getting shafted in the key areas.
That's actually a deliciously ironic point: the EU helps protect national sovereignty in trade deals due to its clout.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
Do you think it'd be worse than this?
I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.
On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.
Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
Do you think it'd be worse than this?
I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.
On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.
Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.
4 more years of that smug git Cameron would have seen this country run into the ground. With Osborne, we'd have austerity coming out of our rears. People forget that even when we were in the EU, we had recession, so this talk of Brexit upsetting the economy is a nonsense IMO. At least Brexit forces us to actually do something about it.
I've made my position clear on numerous occasions: Brexit is not the problem, it's the Conservative party who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard that is the problem.
I was calling for A50 to be activated on June 24th, because I know that nothing focuses the mind more than the job in hand. Sadly, as you point out, we've wasted a year and it's added up to the square root of feth all.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
Do you think it'd be worse than this?
I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.
On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.
Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.
4 more years of that smug git Cameron would have seen this country run into the ground. With Osborne, we'd have austerity coming out of our rears. People forget that even when we were in the EU, we had recession, so this talk of Brexit upsetting the economy is a nonsense IMO. At least Brexit forces us to actually do something about it.
I've made my position clear on numerous occasions: Brexit is not the problem, it's the Conservative party who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard that is the problem.
I was calling for A50 to be activated on June 24th, because I know that nothing focuses the mind more than the job in hand. Sadly, as you point out, we've wasted a year and it's added up to the square root of feth all.
You're forgetting several achievements. The £ has lost more than 10%, three quarters of the major economic indicators are now heading downwards, 96% fewer EU nurses are applying to come here, huge uncertainty in every industry from agriculture to nuclear reactors, the list is endless.
The efforts to overturn the result didn't help matters either. Cameron bailing despite pledging to enact the result of the referendum, there being no plan in the event of a leave vote because he was that arrogant he just assumed he'd win, Gina Miller trying to use her money and influence to get her way (so glad that backfired on her). Threats of s second Scottish indie ref. There's been too many distractions. This will be hard enough without all that noise.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
Do you think it'd be worse than this?
I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.
On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.
Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.
4 more years of that smug git Cameron would have seen this country run into the ground. With Osborne, we'd have austerity coming out of our rears. People forget that even when we were in the EU, we had recession, so this talk of Brexit upsetting the economy is a nonsense IMO. At least Brexit forces us to actually do something about it.
I've made my position clear on numerous occasions: Brexit is not the problem, it's the Conservative party who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard that is the problem.
I was calling for A50 to be activated on June 24th, because I know that nothing focuses the mind more than the job in hand. Sadly, as you point out, we've wasted a year and it's added up to the square root of feth all.
You're forgetting several achievements. The £ has lost more than 10%, three quarters of the major economic indicators are now heading downwards, 96% fewer EU nurses are applying to come here, huge uncertainty in every industry from agriculture to nuclear reactors, the list is endless.
The CBI is reporting that this is a golden age for our exporters, with order books being filled on a level not seen in 30+ years. If memory serves, the CBI supported Remain, so I trust them on this.
The number of EU nurse applications falling seems to coincide with tough new English language tests being introduced for overseas nurses...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: The efforts to overturn the result didn't help matters either. Cameron bailing despite pledging to enact the result of the referendum, there being no plan in the event of a leave vote because he was that arrogant he just assumed he'd win, Gina Miller trying to use her money and influence to get her way (so glad that backfired on her). Threats of s second Scottish indie ref. There's been too many distractions. This will be hard enough without all that noise.
David Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst Prime Ministers this nation ever suffered. To abandon ship at the height of the biggest constitutional crisis since the 1930s tells you all you need to know about Cameron.
I've probably said this before, but it's remarkable how little is discussed on the subject of what would have happened if Britain voted to Remain. In my humble opinion the following would have happened:
1. Cameron and Osborne would have been completely vindicated and buoyed by the result. Result? Full steam ahead with austerity being turbo-charged.
2. EU's reaction? Britain, you've had two referendums on Europe, you've said yes both times, now shut the feth up and take a double dose of concentrated integration.
How would the country be better off with that result? The problems would still be there.
Do you think it'd be worse than this?
I think a clear Remain win (or any clear result) would have been a lot better. A Remain win would have hopefully shut up the backbench rebellion and marginalised some of the frothers a bit further.
On point 2, we wouldn't be able to negotiate any further special deals, but we have lots already. We'd still resist anything we felt was expansionism or integration.
Plus we wouldn't have wasted a year already getting pretty much gak all done.
4 more years of that smug git Cameron would have seen this country run into the ground. With Osborne, we'd have austerity coming out of our rears. People forget that even when we were in the EU, we had recession, so this talk of Brexit upsetting the economy is a nonsense IMO. At least Brexit forces us to actually do something about it.
I've made my position clear on numerous occasions: Brexit is not the problem, it's the Conservative party who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard that is the problem.
I was calling for A50 to be activated on June 24th, because I know that nothing focuses the mind more than the job in hand. Sadly, as you point out, we've wasted a year and it's added up to the square root of feth all.
You're forgetting several achievements. The £ has lost more than 10%, three quarters of the major economic indicators are now heading downwards, 96% fewer EU nurses are applying to come here, huge uncertainty in every industry from agriculture to nuclear reactors, the list is endless.
The CBI is reporting that this is a golden age for our exporters, with order books being filled on a level not seen in 30+ years. If memory serves, the CBI supported Remain, so I trust them on this.
The number of EU nurse applications falling seems to coincide with tough new English language tests being introduced for overseas nurses...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: The efforts to overturn the result didn't help matters either. Cameron bailing despite pledging to enact the result of the referendum, there being no plan in the event of a leave vote because he was that arrogant he just assumed he'd win, Gina Miller trying to use her money and influence to get her way (so glad that backfired on her). Threats of s second Scottish indie ref. There's been too many distractions. This will be hard enough without all that noise.
David Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst Prime Ministers this nation ever suffered. To abandon ship at the height of the biggest constitutional crisis since the 1930s tells you all you need to know about Cameron.
And so it should be...
A Nurse has to understand medical instructions etc.
To demand that you have a strong understanding of language should be done.
If you do not understand. People can die.
Its never been racist pr wrong to expect those working here to know enough English to peforn the job.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Was there actually a problem with nurses not understanding English or is the tougher demands just pandering to people's fear of foreigners?
It's probably a combination of both.
However it seems fluency (which anyway could easily be provided while training for the job) is not the only issue.
NHS to fast-track UK nurses to combat record departures of EU staff
Graphite wrote: Horray! The Tory party have given the DUP a £1,000,000,000 bung to put the Tory party in power, paid for by everyone regardless of who they voted for!
Don't burn this batch of cash, Arlene!
There's still a legal challenge on that in the offing. Seems the fear is any agreement with the DUP would violate the Good Friday Agreement.
Graphite wrote: Horray! The Tory party have given the DUP a £1,000,000,000 bung to put the Tory party in power, paid for by everyone regardless of who they voted for!
Wow, some real nice democracy at work there. Is this even legal? It feels an awful lot like bribes (and hence corruption) to me.
If say, the socialdemocrats in Sweden where to pay the equivalent of 1 billion pounds (I assume it's the tax payers who pay for this in the end) to some of the minor parties in order to get their own majority, people would get fired left and right, and afew heads would probably roll as well.
Graphite wrote: Horray! The Tory party have given the DUP a £1,000,000,000 bung to put the Tory party in power, paid for by everyone regardless of who they voted for!
Wow, some real nice democracy at work there. Is this even legal? It feels an awful lot like bribes (and hence corruption) to me.
If say, the socialdemocrats in Sweden where to pay the equivalent of 1 billion pounds (I assume it's the tax payers who pay for this in the end) to some of the minor parties in order to get their own majority, people would get fired left and right, and afew heads would probably roll as well.
'Confidence and supply' is basically official bribes, so it's fine.
Gina Miller trying to use her money and influence to get her way (so glad that backfired on her).
She tried (and succeeded) to prevent government talking away your rights without the support of parliament, and consequently prevented an extremely serious precedent being set in a country with an unwritten, evolutionary constitution. This is a very, very good thing.
Other than garnering her reams of racist and sexist abuse and a wealth of threats of physical and sexual violence, neither of which you're glad about, I'm sure, how did it backfire?
Graphite wrote: Horray! The Tory party have given the DUP a £1,000,000,000 bung to put the Tory party in power, paid for by everyone regardless of who they voted for!
Don't burn this batch of cash, Arlene!
Presumably we'll see loads of people saying things along the lines of "They don't even know what they're voting for, they're only doing it because they've been promised free stuff" ....
.... no ?
Bet that nurse May spoke to about the "magic money tree" is feeling great now eh ?
Spoiler:
Damn it, looks like Labour have lost that key Viscountess vote.
Gina Miller trying to use her money and influence to get her way (so glad that backfired on her).
She tried (and succeeded) to prevent government talking away your rights without the support of parliament, and consequently prevented an extremely serious precedent being set in a country with an unwritten, evolutionary constitution. This is a very, very good thing.
Other than garnering her reams of racist and sexist abuse and a wealth of threats of physical and sexual violence, neither of which you're glad about, I'm sure, how did it backfire?
For half a day recently, the Express ran 'Gina Miller goes to prison for $800,000 fraud' on the front page of their website . Unsurprisingly it was a completely different person, from the US in fact. Illuminating as to just how much she needled Richard Desmond however. Surely that deserves some praise.
Because her only intention was to stop the result of the referendum. Parliament was believed to be overwhelmingly pro remain, and if it was put to a vote there was a chance they'd vote against triggering article 50. She probably believed they'd refuse to trigger it. But they didn't. Instead they voted to trigger it and thus made Brexit law. Her little scheme back fired on her.
Because her only intention was to stop the result of the referendum. Parliament was believed to be overwhelmingly pro remain, and if it was put to a vote there was a chance they'd vote against triggering article 50. She probably believed they'd refuse to trigger it. But they didn't. Instead they voted to trigger it and thus made Brexit law. Her little scheme back fired on her.
I can't agree and think this interpretation requires limited familiarity with the full context.
There was never any chance it would be voted against. No commentator nor elected politician thought it was at all likely. Hell, virtually the entire opposition were saying, in parliament, 'put it to the house and we'll vote it through' and then did exactly that. Plenty of leavers were also insisting it be put to the house because the precedent set otherwise would be very dangerous. The only people who thought it was a scheme to stop Brexit were knee-jerking Leavers and the tabloids (who never believed it, but have papers to sell to knee-jerking Leavers).
She was a staunch Remainer, and part of her motivation was no doubt being in a huff about losing and wanting to say feth you to those who were now initiating the Brexit legislation, but she wasn't trying to stop the process.
What she did was successful. She prevented government from being able to remove citizens' rights without the consent of parliament, with the bonus value of causing a headache for people she was grumpy with by stopping them getting their way and embarrassing them. Ergo, no backfiring.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One wonders why, if Barnett doesn't apply to DUP deal (which I think is true as I understand the formula), David Mundell was allowed to go out yesterday and insist that 'Any funding that goes to Northern Ireland, Barnett rules will ensure the appropriate funding comes to Scotland'.
The relentless shambles that is the current government is hilarious.
If I was in a Conservative constituency I'd be writing to my local MP demanding they ask the government for more cash for my local area in return for their vote on all issues
or at the very least anything the MP personally disagrees with but will vote for when 'whipped' since cash for votes now seems to be an ok thing
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Was there actually a problem with nurses not understanding English or is the tougher demands just pandering to people's fear of foreigners?
It's probably a combination of both.
However it seems fluency (which anyway could easily be provided while training for the job) is not the only issue.
NHS to fast-track UK nurses to combat record departures of EU staff
This will continue until the deal on worker movements is finalised.
Another completely brain dead policy by the Tories now desperate to try and temporarily minimise damage from Brexit for at least a couple of years. This isn't going to solve the problem.
Since they dropped the nursing grants, there has been a reduction in nursing applicants by about 25% from UK nationals; one in nine posts are currently unfilled. Fast tracking new nurses through the system means less training and hands on experience. Hence the existing nurses now have to become the teachers. This places additional strains on the nursing staff as they have to do even more training of new recruits. This is before you consider that it is only a temporary stop gap in that for two years you might get an increase in UK nurses but applicants are likely to remain stable unless they reintroduce nursing grants and after the fast track effect feeds through you just get the same number again. All it does is mean that those on three/four years courses now get to complete earlier (and then leave for the EU/America/Australia if they have any sense).
As for the Tory bung to DUP it equates to about a 10% increase on their budget. I can see why Wales and Scotland are annoyed (I can see how this might affect negatively Scottish Tory chances of getting more seats next time and plays into SNPs hands of Westiminster only cares about whats in it for themselves). That money has got to come from somewhere. Good old Tories caring about how to keep their own power rather than the Country as a whole. Still I expect it to all come crashing down as the DUP start handing it out to all their supporters by waste millions on schemes like the RHI.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several examples of multi-lateral free trade agreements. Undoubtedly they are more complex than purely bilateral agreements, and take longer to work out. However the benefits of a multi-lateral agreement by definition are more broadly spread. The logic of trade means that the wider the network, the greater the benefits.
Is there evidence that the EU free trade zone has been bad for any of its members? Is there evidence that the EU-South Korea trade agreement has been bad for South Korea or any particular EU nations?
Its not the free trade that is the problem, its the unfettered open door mass migration, forced political integration, EU meddling in domestic politics (Italy and Greece), EU bullying of eastern European member states and all the other baggage that comes with it.
If the EU free trade zone had no strings attached it'd be wonderful, but it does have strings attached and its disingenuous to pretend that these are separate issues.
Any why is open door mass migration a problem? We should be welcoming immigration as otherwise the services you rely on won't be there when you get older and start needing them. As for forced political integration that depends on your point of view. The idea of free trade in the block is that everyone works to the same rules so no one country has an easier time than any other and has any special arrangements. A farmer in Spain knows that a farmer in the UK can only use the same pesticides and isn't using DDT on its populace to get a quick buck. As for meddling that's just a perverse way of looking at things. If you stopped paying your rent/mortgage then the owner/bank will come calling to say you aren't upholding your side of the bargain. For those areas that stop complying with the EU legislation then yes the EU will come calling because otherwise the rules are different across the countries and that is not the aim of equal and fair treatment in those areas for all countries that are complying.
Free trade across the world without rules will only lead to one thing - little industry in this country. Dyson didn't want Brexit to grow the country he wanted to ship his manufacturing to india where it is cheaper and then he can import all the goods to this country at a fraction of the manufactuirng cost, but still sell it at the same price. Any basic manufactuirng will simply disappear. You might find some specialist engineering stays for a while, but with an aging retiring population and a larger younger population abroad they will eventually leave as well. And May's offer to migrants is just disgusting. You can stay if you want, but family are out, friends are out. Basically be our slaves and swear fealty or else we don't want you.
Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.
It's effectively a Ponzi scheme. What happens when those immigrants retire down the line and now they need looking after? You'll eventually hit a brick wall.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK doesn't have open door mass migration anyway, so the point is moot.
248,000 net immigrants in 2016 alone begs to differ.
And now we're back to defining what the scary term "mass immigration" means, which means we get another one or two pages of sniping back and forth before the thread gets locked. Again.
Future War Cultist wrote: It's effectively a Ponzi scheme. What happens when those immigrants retire down the line and now they need looking after? You'll eventually hit a brick wall.
So which one is it going to be? Cut the NHS? Cut pensions? Raise taxes? A combination of all three?
Future War Cultist wrote: It's effectively a Ponzi scheme. What happens when those immigrants retire down the line and now they need looking after? You'll eventually hit a brick wall.
So which one is it going to be? Cut the NHS? Cut pensions? Raise taxes? A combination of all three?
Number three, directed at the right people. I said before how we can get corporation tax to work, so there's that for a start.
Another day, another shambles from the Tories as, once again, they put party before country and have to bribe the DUP to stay in power...
A shabby little deal from a once great party reduced to a laughing stock...
What's the £1 billion for? To buy firewood to heat those empty barns in Northern Ireland?
I'm going to put my hand on my heart and get a bit personal here. I know some people voted against Brexit and are worried about the future. I understand that, I respect that.
But as somebody who grew up during the 1980s and had family members suffer as a result of Tory policies, I am enjoying every fething minute of watching the death throes of the Conservative party. Every fething minute of the Tory party dying from death by a thousand cuts...
The Tories are going to rue the day they ever heard the word Brexit.
Y'know, even as someone who thinks leaving the EU is a huge mistake for the UK, if it means you can reform your political system into a less dysfunctional one at least something good might come of it.
modern soccer, the tank, steam trains, world wide web, and Clive Sinclair's C5 
